DOJ investigated (and cleared) ESPN for antitrust violations

[Dick Whitman]

First reported in today's New York Times, as part of a terrific series they have going this week about the ESPN empire in college sports:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/27/sports/ncaafootball/to-defend-its-empire-espn-stays-on-offensive.html?hp

Apparently the trigger was the way ESPN used to acquire rights to more games than they could show, then just "warehouse" them so that other networks wouldn't have access to live college football broadcasts.

The story strongly implies that ESPNU was created in an attempt to appease the DOJ and, at the same time, head off future antitrust inquires.

 

[LongTimeListener]

Re: DOJ investigated ESPN for antitrust violations

Man, the NYT is up ESPN's ass but good right now. I like it.

Wouldn't be surprised at all to find out there was some antitrust-type behavior related to the NHL either, far more than just not showing the highlight.

 

[Songbird]

Re: DOJ investigated ESPN for antitrust violations

Is the NYT doing this because of the Silver ship-jumping or did these stories originate many, many months ago?

 

[Dick Whitman]

Re: DOJ investigated ESPN for antitrust violations

Is the NYT doing this because of the Silver ship-jumping or did these stories originate many, many months ago?

They clearly originated several months ago, because there are a lot of references to when interviews too place, sometimes as far back as March. One person interviewed, maybe yesterday, if I recall, is no longer among us.

 

[Songbird]

Re: DOJ investigated ESPN for antitrust violations

Cool. Didn't read the story yet but it was my first thought.

 

[Michael_ Gee]

Re: DOJ investigated ESPN for antitrust violations

This was a much more interesting story than the first two in the series. Not that those weren't good stories, but that college sports have turned themselves out for ESPN wasn't exactly news to me and I bet many other readers.

 

[Versatile]

Re: DOJ investigated ESPN for antitrust violations

The alternate, probably more reasonable but less salacious subject line for this thread: "DOJ cleared ESPN of antitrust violations."

 

[LongTimeListener]

Re: DOJ investigated ESPN for antitrust violations

The alternate, probably more reasonable but less salacious subject line for this thread: "DOJ cleared ESPN of antitrust violations."

No, I think the investigation is the bigger part of it. ESPN's coffers and lobbying efforts meant a finding of guilt was unlikely to say the least. But it did change the way they did business.

 

[Michael_ Gee]

Re: DOJ investigated ESPN for antitrust violations

Actually, the main thrust of the article is that overall treatment of cable television as a monopoly by government is the biggest threat to its interests rather than ESPN as a monopoly itself. If bundling was ever outlawed (beyond doubtful), it'd face serious financial jeopardy.

 

[Versatile]

Re: DOJ investigated ESPN for antitrust violations

The alternate, probably more reasonable but less salacious subject line for this thread: "DOJ cleared ESPN of antitrust violations."

No, I think the investigation is the bigger part of it. ESPN's coffers and lobbying efforts meant a finding of guilt was unlikely to say the least. But it did change the way they did business.

In order to clear someone, you have to investigate them first, right?

 

[LongTimeListener]

Re: DOJ investigated ESPN for antitrust violations

Yes.

The investigation is the bigger part of the story. That's a large incremental step. And ESPN doesn't start offloading those games to CSTV without it. In the real world, that's an acknowledgement that they were doing something that wasn't kosher.

 

[BrianGriffin]

Re: DOJ investigated ESPN for antitrust violations

The alternate, probably more reasonable but less salacious subject line for this thread: "DOJ cleared ESPN of antitrust violations."

That's not the biggest take-away to me. The big deal is what ESPN did to avoid the DOJ wrath. ESPNU as a legal move and not as a business move. That's the revelation here.

 

[Versatile]

Re: DOJ investigated ESPN for antitrust violations

The alternate, probably more reasonable but less salacious subject line for this thread: "DOJ cleared ESPN of antitrust violations."

That's not the biggest take-away to me. The big deal is what ESPN did to avoid the DOJ wrath. ESPNU as a legal move and not as a business move. That's the revelation here.

OK, and that would be a fine subject line, too. The current one makes it seem as though there hasn't been resolution.

 

[Songbird]

Re: DOJ investigated ESPN for antitrust violations

Sell the sizzle, not the steak.

 

[LongTimeListener]

Re: DOJ investigated ESPN for antitrust violations

The alternate, probably more reasonable but less salacious subject line for this thread: "DOJ cleared ESPN of antitrust violations."

That's not the biggest take-away to me. The big deal is what ESPN did to avoid the DOJ wrath. ESPNU as a legal move and not as a business move. That's the revelation here.

OK, and that would be a fine subject line, too. The current one makes it seem as though there hasn't been resolution.

Incorrect. The past-tense "investigated" makes that point very clear.

 

[Versatile]

Re: DOJ investigated ESPN for antitrust violations

The alternate, probably more reasonable but less salacious subject line for this thread: "DOJ cleared ESPN of antitrust violations."

That's not the biggest take-away to me. The big deal is what ESPN did to avoid the DOJ wrath. ESPNU as a legal move and not as a business move. That's the revelation here.

OK, and that would be a fine subject line, too. The current one makes it seem as though there hasn't been resolution.

Incorrect. The past-tense "investigated" makes that point very clear.

I disagree. Plenty of things are investigated but left without resolution.

We're not paid to get clicks for this website. Why shouldn't we be explicit in subject lines?

 

[LongTimeListener]

You're being overly trivial, which I get is your thing, but in this case you're wrong too. The past tense in a headline means something is over and done with.

And you're completely missing the boat by saying the clearance is more noteworthy than the investigation, which, again, led to a significant change in the way ESPN operated.

 

[Versatile]

Did I say that?

 

[BrianGriffin]

Re: DOJ investigated ESPN for antitrust violations

As far as the series goes, I agree it's a good series, but it implies that the college sports/ESPN relationship is a *****/john relationship when in reality it's more of a marriage. College sports have made a ton off ESPN. ESPN has made a ton off of college sports. ESPN has dictated college sports programing. College sports programing has a huge influence on ESPN's schedule.

It's a contrast to the the NFL/ESPN relationship, where the NFL is in a take-it-or-leave-it position and it's very possible to see the day where the NFL pulls out of network agreements altogether and keeps everything in house.

ESPN knows that can be an option for the major college powers too, which is why it pays top dollar. Colleges get exactly what they want out of this relationship. It's interesting that in this piece, it was Louisville that approached ESPN about the willingness to play on Thursdays, not the other way around. Louisville used ESPN every bit as much as ESPN uses Louisville.

 

[LongTimeListener]

Did I say that?

OK I guess your first post of the thread wasn't yours. Or you're just yanking my chain. Either way, about as far as we need to go on this tangent.