A Few Problems with the SEC's New ESPN Deal

Mandatory Credit: Dale Zanine-USA TODAY Sports

Earlier this week, SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey announced a teleconference for a “major announcement.” That announcement of course was the SEC’s new TV deal with ABC and ESPN. A lackluster announcement giving the times we live in, but a major announcement nonetheless.

According to Sports Business Journal, the newly inked deal is ESPN paying out $330 Million to the SEC–a MASSIVE uptick from the $55 million CBS was paying from a deal that dates back to 1996. In this deal, the SEC will have added flexibility when it comes to scheduling games. According to Sports Illustrated, Commissioner Sankey said the SEC will have more of a heads up on kickoff times, and teams will likely be assigned a certain time window before the season even starts.

On paper, this sounds like a no-brainer, and in reality, it is, but there are still some glaring logistical problems that need to be addressed.

The first and biggest issue is the addition of the ESPN+ games (subscribers only) for one out-of-conference game for each team. Matt Jones alluded to how this would be a problem on the radio show earlier this week so I would like to echo some of those things as well.

First and foremost, I understand that not a lot of people are going to pay to watch Kentucky take on Austin Peay during a random Saturday at noon. However, there’s a lot of Wildcat fans who will. There will also be a lot of die-hard Wildcat fans who will want to but may not have the resources to do so.

The SEC is home to some of the most rural and economically diminished parts of the United States. Not only has it become increasingly harder for the average fan to see their beloved team in person, but you are also now reaching deeper into their pockets to watch a game from their home when they’ve already forked over a considerable amount once you factor in the TV, satellite, streaming services, etc.

Fans find a workaround, I’m sure. But the SEC and ESPN are still creating yet another hurdle for some of the most passionate fanbases in all of sports to watch the teams they love.

It may be one game now, but as it’s been proven over the past few years, this can be a slippery slope. Who’s to say that by some wild year down the road the entire non-conference won’t be subscription only? The SEC should just be more forward-thinking when it comes to the average fan, especially in some of the poorest parts of America.

Secondly, the players are still getting NONE of this added revenue. Is that the SEC’s fault, or ESPN’s? Absolutely not. But that doesn’t change the fact that it doesn’t sit right with me that the SEC will sextuple–yes SEXTUPLE–their revenue on just the TV deal alone and the players won’t see a penny of it in their pockets.

Of course, it will go into facilities, dorms, training, etc., and I get all that, but the coaches are going to get some of that cheddar too and it will never sit right with me. Now throw in the fact that at least one game a year will essentially be pay-per-view. Could you imagine a pay-per-view boxing match where the fighters received not one penny of those views? It sounds a bit absurd, doesn’t it?

Saving the least for last, we’re probably going to lose the SEC on CBS theme song come 2023 and that makes me sad. This one is for you, Verne.

RIP in peace

(🔊 @SEConCBS) pic.twitter.com/qOQZ2EqxUJ

— PFF College Football (@PFF_College) December 10, 2020