ESPN Can't Afford to Go on Like This
Many posts here fail to address one very salient point. And I don&#x27;t think we can overstate the importance of it.<p>Most &quot;sports&quot; fans are generally not &quot;sports&quot; fans. They are STANFORD fans. Or Arkansas fans. Or Michigan fans. Or Packers fans. Or Golden State fans. Or what have you.<p>The pure football fan is rare. As is the pure baseball or hockey fan. Most fans are normally watching because they want to see their team. There certainly is a sub-demographic that are sports fans. These are people who watch every game of their chosen sport looking for tactics and strategy. Most, however, are watching because Manchester United is playing. Or because they like the Cleveland Cavaliers. Or they&#x27;re fans of the Boston Red Wings. Or maybe PSG. You get the idea.<p>What I&#x27;m getting at is that sports coverage would need be more personalized than ESPN is capable of in its current form if it wants to be of value to consumers today.<p>It boils down to this...<p>Why should one have to pay for ESPN if one doesn&#x27;t watch it?<p>Firstly, if you are not a fan of any team or school or city at all, then nothing in heaven or earth would get you to watch ESPN anyway. So making any changes to appease non sports fans is a foolish endeavor. Those resources are best deployed producing content that non sports fans would like to consume. I don&#x27;t pretend to know what that looks like, but I&#x27;m certain it doesn&#x27;t look like ESPN.<p>Now let&#x27;s say for the sake of argument that a person is a fan of some team or school or city. I&#x27;ll take myself as an example. I might watch my alma mater play a few football games, and if they go to the basketball tournament then I watch that. Sometimes I watch the super bowl, maybe, but I have never watched a Halftime show.<p>Now... why would a &quot;sports&quot; fan like that, which is the majority of us, pay $15 to $20 a month (MANDATORY) for an entire year when they only want to watch MAYBE 6 to 12 games between football and basketball that are usually not on ESPN anyway??? Answer: They shouldn&#x27;t pay. And I&#x27;d imagine most of them won&#x27;t in the future.<p>ESPN will need to offer more customization. Be it through live streaming or time shifting or whatever. I&#x27;m not an expert, but I think the days of forcing a $20 fee on people every month for non personalized sports coverage are just not sustainable long term.