🏈 Ex-CBS Sports president: College sports TV ratings could decline 15-20% if players are paid

[BAMANEWSBOT]

Neal Pilson makes the prediction in a rebuttal report filed by the NCAA last week in the Ed O'Bannon lawsuit.



Read More Here...

 

[TerryP]

In a deposition, Pilson said he has not run an economic model on his prediction of a 15- to 20-percent ratings decline. He was asked if he predicted the lower viewership would last forever or simply be a dip like in 1984.


Pilson said there would be a "significant" immediate short-term impact. "Once you have that impact," he said, "the public's perception of the sport changes and you could have a situation where, frankly, there are a few sports that have either receded from the radar or have declined in value, and I would be concerned that college sports might -- might follow that pattern."

This strikes me as odd.

It appears he's basing his projection on the following:

Pilson made the prediction in a rebuttal report filed publicly by the NCAA last week in the Ed O'Bannon lawsuit. Pilson's estimate referred to a report by J. Michael Dennis, a market research expert the NCAA hired, that found 68.9 percent of respondents were "opposed to paying money to student-athletes on college football and men's basketball teams in addition to covering their college expenses."

The survey also found that 37.7 percent of respondents would be less likely to watch, listen to, or attend college football and men's basketball games if athletes were paid $20,000 per year. If provided with such information, Pilson wrote, "a responsible broadcasting executive would reduce the price a broadcaster might be willing to pay for the rights to telecast college sports if college players were to receive payments of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars."

I'm not surprised this comes from the NCAA in a report they filed with the court system. I'm not surprised that roughly 70% of those polled said they wouldn't be in favor of "pay for play."

I realize the ruling by the Supreme Court in favor of the CFA was a dramatic shift, but I have to question if it's an accurate reference comparing what happened with viewers over a quarter of a century ago.

Other thoughts: If they were only paid 10K per year would the 37.7% cited be a lower number?

I wonder what he's basing the assumption the TV rights packages would be decreased? How does that have any influence on TV market value if say CBS isn't having to pay as much money out to conferences.

 

[riz]

I'm wholly opposed to paying college athletes, but I doubt it would change my viewing habits.