It seems as if the sports news floating about today all relates to cash grabs on the part of various organizations. I understand that sporting entities exist for the purpose of generating revenue and that entities that generate revenue naturally seek to increase those revenues where possible. But are there no limits?
The NFL in its continuing effort to plant its flag in new places every year scheduled a game in Australia for 2026; it will be played such that it airs in the US on the Wednesday after Labor Day and it will match the Niners and the Rams. In the first place, that is a serious rivalry game for two fanbases and for either – or both – of them to try to go to that rivalry game will involve a round-trip flight where each leg is approximately 14 hours in duration.
Then, to make those fanbases even “happier”, the game will be televised on Netflix as part of a 4 or 5 game package of game for the streaming service this year. Commissioner Goodell did not reveal the amount that Netflix will pay for that game package, but he did say that streaming services are more competitive than networks for these “off-schedule games”. Depending on which report you read here is the Netflix lineup for 2026:
- Week 1 – – the Australia game
- Thanksgiving Eve – – strong rumors about this being added to the schedule in 2026
- Christmas Day – – it’s a Friday this year and there will be 2 games then
- Week 18 – – Saturday game (some reports say this is not going to happen)
Good for the NFL and good for Netflix; I hope Netflix makes money on the deal so that it can continue to make the NFL richer than ever. But maybe the schedulers and the strategic big thinkers in the league might not want to put major rivalry games seven or eight thousand miles away from the loyal fans of the teams. Is the money that important?
Down a level, the NCAA football coaches association – – or whatever it is called this week – – voted to recommend expanding the CFP to 24 teams. That is a vote of enlightened self-interest; coaches that make the expanded playoffs will get pay boosts which ultimately benefits other coaches who participate in the annual game of coaching musical chairs in December/January. However, there is a potential economic glitch in that recommendation
- To constrain the duration of the college football season and to keep the Army/Navy game as an “exclusive event” the coaches association recommends eliminating conference championship games.
That poses an interesting choice for schools and conferences. Conference Championship games have shown that they produce revenue and for the major conferences that is revenue that they need not share with any other schools. For the “Power 4” conferences, the broadcast rights can be lucrative because networks and sponsors can be pretty sure that the two teams in that conference championship game will be recognizable and popular. With the expansion of the playoffs, there will be a bigger inventory of “important games” but:
- That revenue will need to be shared somehow – – and – –
- What assurance do networks and sponsors have before the fact that the teams in the games will draw audiences to the TV screens?
I think a 24-team football playoff is a terrible idea and I will be interested to see how benevolently the “Power 4” conferences take to the idea of canceling their championship games.
And since bad things seem to happen in threes, the NCAA geniuses have all but decided to expand March Madness to 76 teams. Interestingly, several coaches at some of the basketball power schools have said they think this is a bad idea. John Calipari, Mark Few, Dan Hurley and Tom Izzo have all expressed sentiments ranging from skepticism to outright hostility to this expansion. Much of the criticism from these coaches centers on the fact that as more teams make the tournament, the regular season games are rendered less meaningful. That is trend that has been afoot for about the last decade or so and it would be a good idea for the NCAA to think about the erosion of interest there. Let me give you Dan Hurley’s take on this as an example of the criticism:
“What I think makes the tournament special is the qualification for it. You don’t want the regular season to be rendered meaningless and to take away from November, December, January, February. The qualification process makes the regular season intense and pressure packed. It should be a privilege to play in the tournament, not a right, and obviously if it expands too much and you don’t have to have a real good season to make it, that would take away from the tournament. Does it get too big?”
Now, certainly those favoring expansion will point out that the four coaches mentioned here never have to worry about “making the tournament” so that their comments can be colored as elitist and exclusionary. I happen to think they are dead solid perfect in their position.
Finally, I’ll close today with this from outgoing Apple CEO, Tim Cook:
“Companies that get confused, that think their goal is revenue or stock price or something. You have to focus on the things that lead to those.”
But don’t get me wrong, I love sports………