If you have to pay to attend a (for example) football or baseball, doesn't it make sense you should also pay to see it on TV (as a pay-per-view event)? For example, I could care less about baseball, but FOX is broadcasting the playoffs/World Series. I'd rather watch the regular FOX programming. IMHO, the baseball ought to be on a Pay-per-view channel. In today's age of cable television, why are sporting events still broadcast and not pay-per-view?
2006-10-23 09:14:54 · 10 answers · asked by et_hates_agame035a 2 in Sports ➔ Other - Sports
no, they make enough money on the ads.
2006-10-23 09:16:14 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Oh goodness no! What you're paying for when you attend the event is the live element. Can you imagine it not being possible for a bunch of guys to gather around the TV to watch football.? There are areas in our country that don't have pay-per-view available to them.
The reason they air the sports instead of the regular programming is because they will have more viewers. And more viewers means they can charge more for their advertising.
And just for the record - I was bummed when there was a baseball game on instead of "House." But - that's just how our society works. Money plays a big part!
2006-10-23 09:28:12 · answer #2 · answered by liddabet 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Just because YOU are not paying for it, doesn't mean that someone isn't paying for it to be on TV.
Do you want to know who is paying for it to be on TV for "FREE'?
The sponsors! That's where commercials comes from. Networks bid on different sporting events, the network that paid the sporting league the most is the network that will be airing the event. Then, the network charges their sponsors whatever they want to air commericals during the event. You see, even if you were a fan of baseball, you'd be paying to watch it simply by watching the commercials. Because you would be paying with your time, and to some people, time is money.
Also don't forget that when you watch Pay-Per-View events, (ex: Wrestling), there are absolutely no commericals, time-outs, breaks or anything like that. Just a straight-run event. That's why you have to pay $40 to watch it.
2006-10-23 09:20:29 · answer #3 · answered by K-Tech 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Advertising generates more revenue than pay-per-view. There are people that would like to see the game, but are not willing to pay for the right to watch it. There are many casual fans that watch just because the game is on. Advertisers loves sporting events, because many people watch live and don't skip the commercials.
2006-10-23 09:28:08 · answer #4 · answered by nrnetman 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the better question is with 3 different channels dedicated to sports why are they still inturrupting normal programming? it's all about the money. networks make more money from the ad agencies when they are playing end season games than they do boradcasting regular programs, that's why they fight to get the rights to broadcast them.
2006-10-23 09:18:24 · answer #5 · answered by Jenessa 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's all about money, BIG money. TV revenue from advertisers is shared, at least by MLB, by the entire league.
2006-10-23 09:18:14 · answer #6 · answered by Brite Tiger 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Greetings!
They already are. That is why the advertisers are referred to as sponsors. They are paying so as they have the right to buy a round for everyone.
Good Luck
2006-10-23 09:17:55 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
because advertisments pay for everyone to watch for free!
2006-10-23 09:17:16 · answer #8 · answered by Tommy12oz 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes I think so
2006-10-23 09:16:17 · answer #9 · answered by rockinbrock2000 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No Way!!They get enough money!!!
2006-10-23 10:49:29 · answer #10 · answered by princess fa la la 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋