Connect with us

CBS Sports

Paramount+’s ambitious plans for soccer include more acquisitions

When ViacomCBS acquired the rights to the UEFA Champions League earlier than anticipated in the summer of 2020, few soccer fans could have predicted at the time that CBS Sports would go on a acquisition spree to make Paramount+ a major destination for soccer coverage.

Under its belt, ViacomCBS’ Paramount+ streaming service already has a long list of soccer properties. In addition to the UEFA Champions League, Paramount+ features the Europa League, NWSL and Europa Conference League (to debut later this year). And in recent weeks, in a major coup, ViacomCBS’ Paramount+ added Serie A rights for seasons 2021/22 through 2023/24, preventing ESPN+ from renewing their coverage of the league for the next three seasons. Paramount+ also acquired the English-language rights to Argentina’s Primera División, as well as the English-language rights to select World Cup qualifiers, and the Brasileirāo league (English-language).

“We want to be a year-round must-subscribe destination for soccer fans. We’re trying to do that by building a service that is for those fans, cares about those fans and presents it in an authentic way,” Executive Vice President and General Manager at CBS Sports Digital Jeffrey Gerttula told World Soccer Talk.

“What’s going to be fun is now that we have all of these different pieces (Serie A, Argentine league, Brazilian league, Champions League, NWSL, etc), there are so many good stories there. Over time, we’re [looking forward to] telling those stories, presenting the games and teams to an American fanbase that is sophisticated but maybe hasn’t had exposure to the Boca-River rivalry, for example. They may have heard of it but we get to start to tell these different stories.”

With the acquisition of the Champions League and Europa League, those games have armed Paramount+ with plenty of soccer coverage on midweek afternoons. Combined with games from NWSL, plus the Argentine and Brazilian leagues, that has begun to offer more choices for weekend matches. When the 2021/22 Serie A season begins on Paramount+ this August, that’ll round out the weekend coverage nicely but there still are rights to other leagues and competitions that are coming up for bidding this year that would make Paramount+ more of a must-have streaming service.

While not mentioning specific leagues, Gerttula is very optimistic about adding more soccer rights in the future.

“We’re always looking,” said Gerttula. “Our mission in trying to make this is a must-subscribe service is that we’re looking at everything. We’re assessing the numbers. We love this audience. We think we can build a product that is something very special and that shows care and respect for the game. We’re looking at everything.

“We’re trying to weigh it against other stuff we have, making sure it fits the calendar, and that we’re confident that we can do it well.

“We don’t feel like we’re done. We will definitely have more announcements as the year progresses. We have a variety of things in the works.

“ViacomCBS believes in this strategy [of looking at acquiring more rights for Paramount+]. They’re giving us the resources to attack where it makes sense, so without promising too much, we’re definitely going to be looking at rights as they come up.”

Compared to the competition, CBS Sports and Paramount+ see storytelling as a key way to set them apart from others.

“We want us to be a place where soccer fans are excited when we acquire rights because we’re going to tell a story, we’re going to invest in it and we’re going to show the audience that we care about it.

“We think we can change the game for soccer broadcasting, and that’s what we’re setting out to do. We’re super excited. We’re passionate about this. We live and die with the audience. We get it. Our job is to keep getting better.”

SEE MORE: What CBS & Paramount+ need to do to better ESPN’s coverage of Serie A

We asked Gerttula what makes the soccer audience so attractive for Paramount+‘s ambitious growth.

“We love the fit for streaming,” Gerttula said. “[The audience is] young and it’s growing, so those two characteristics are in of themselves very unique in the sports space. And the audience is used to streaming.

“Because soccer rights have been all over the place, and in a lot of cases have required streaming packages, it’s an audience that’s already there.

“It’s also new, in a lot of instances. A large percentage are soccer fans for less than 10 years. They love the stories. They love the experiences. And now we, as storytellers, really get to tap into that in ways that I don’t think have really been tapped into before in the U.S. market.”

200+ Channels With Sports & News
  • Starting price: $33/mo. for fubo Latino Package
  • Watch Premier League, World Cup, Euro 2024 & more
Live & On Demand TV Streaming
  • Price: $35/mo. for Sling Blue
  • Watch Premier League, World Cup & MLS
Many Sports & ESPN Originals
  • Price: $9.99/mo. (or get ESPN+, Hulu & Disney+ for $13.99/mo.)
  • Features Bundesliga, LaLiga, Championship, & more
2,000+ soccer games per year
  • Price: $4.99/mo
  • Features Champions League, Serie A, Europa League & NWSL
175 Premier League Games & PL TV
  • Starting price: $4.99/mo. for Peacock Premium
  • Watch 175 exclusive EPL games per season
110+ channels, live & on-demand
  • Price: $59.95/mo. for Plus Package
  • Includes FOX, FS1, ESPN, TUDN & more

30 Comments

30 Comments

  1. Michelangelo

    July 30, 2021 at 1:56 pm

    Andres Cordero, Matteo Bonetti, and Phil Schoen would be a perfect team to commentate for the Italian Serie A. All 3 commentators are perfect for the Serie A and had years of experience when they were on Bein Sports. Please obtain these 3 commentators and create the best Serie A experience in the world. Also they could also use Alessandro Del Piero and Christian Vieri as special guests on the show. They could also do best goal of the week and ask fans to vote for what they believe the best goal was or best save. Fans could also vote on what match they would like to see on CBS and CBS Sports Network. The Serie A needs to immersive with their viewers and Paramount Plus can do this on their website and their app. Comentators will be the huge focal point of this season and Paramount needs to nail in their first year. Why not do a broadcast working with the NFL on CBS analysts to create a multi sport coverage. This would bring in Serie A fans to NFL and NFL Fans to Serie a and vice versa. A global sport uniting a nation. Forza Napoli.

  2. greg

    May 29, 2021 at 12:30 pm

    I wonder what CBS/Viacom getting A-League rights for Australia (and a stake in the league), which includes over-the-air as well as Paramount+, means for the league rights in the US. The ESPN deal was signed in 2018 for three seasons, so it’s up this year I think. Seems likely that ends up on Paramount+ in the US as well.

    http://www.insideworldfootball.com/2021/05/26/aussie-leagues-agree-155m-broadcast-deal-viacomcbs/

  3. JP

    May 1, 2021 at 5:33 pm

    While watching the Real Madrid post game just realized haven’t seen or heard Andres Cordero on beIN recently. His twitter says last day was April 21st!!!
    Putting this here because he was one of my favorite commentators and analyst for any sport, not just soccer. Any chance he re-emerges on P+ as part of Serie A coverage?
    Also, seems like more of an omen of beIN’s demise. Any word on if ESPN will actually get La Liga next season? It’s been rumored for so long.

  4. Edward

    April 19, 2021 at 5:41 pm

    better use that secondary stock offering to pony up for the Super League

  5. LF

    April 17, 2021 at 1:50 pm

    Don Dickerson, you may have missed my point. If I’m a casual American sports fan who loves watching playoff games in any of the American/Canadian sporting entities I mentioned, I typically have to break through one paywall to watch all playoffs games. Cable packages are relatively expensive but it’s still one paywall. If I’m a casual American sports fan who also loves UEFA Champions League soccer “playoff” games in addition to the playoffs of other sporting entitles I mentioned, in order to watch it live, I now have to break through an additional paywall to watch it. Most casuals are not paying extra money just to watch UEFA Champions League games.

    This is what’s infuriating about this. This broadcasting strategy stifles growth of the sport in the US.

  6. Hans

    April 17, 2021 at 12:48 pm

    @greg
    The perceived lack by you of not being able to control what you want when you want and where you want is not absolute, because you are still under the control of the providers and they at the moment are going with the shotgun approach. They fire at you some content and hope that it will stick. They are still in it’s infancy with the streaming approach, as they missed the boat. The Netflix analogy does work as they were the first huge threat to the conventional content providers and all the networks are now trying to get a slice of the pie. When Netflix makes content available it is the finished product which is not the case with live sporting events and to make it look like a finished product by offering pausing, rewinding and fast forwarding requires additional technology that the major providers are yet to offer because they were late to the game except ESPN+.
    What you wish for or perhaps point out as a shortcoming is actually available but not legally. IP streaming services where you have all the sporting events from all the networks in one place and with only a few clicks you make your selections is available on the net. I do not advocate it and do not use it and it most likely will never become legally available as too many parties have to agree on too many unpalatable conditions. Because of that, selectivity is the key as you found out yourself.
    I do feel for your timezone difference and experience it myself. I am watching Australian and New Zealand Rugby games with tens of thousands in the stadium, a pleasure to experience in empty stadiums. ESPN+ carried them but because they wouldn’t agree on the broadcast terms decided to just stop carrying them. What is the person to do that made the decision on getting ESPN+ because they carried the games. Peacock did the same thing with a bait and switch so I have no qualms to do the same to the networks and get my sporting events somewhere else because they short changed me and did not live up to their advertised promises.
    So here I am 16+ hours behind the Australian and New Zealand competitions, will I miss out on them, no, are they free, yes would I pay for them yes, but they were included in my ESPN+ subscription but now are gone. You see the networks will only provide a certain amount of freedom for their customers and we have to decide where we put our money. Internet access is by many regarded on the same level as a utility, like water and electricity and we just pay for it with the same feeling of necessity as we pay for water and electricity.

  7. greg

    April 17, 2021 at 11:32 am

    Streaming without a DVR option is essentially linear tv without DVR. Yes they have replays, but you can’t access the replay until the match is over. So the Netflix analogy doesn’t really work because there you can start any program from the beginning whenever you want. You can’t do that with ESPN+, Paramount+ & Peacock. Not really full control.

    Also, without a TV provider, be it Fubo, Hulu or whatever, I can’t get matches that are on ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNews/ESPNU. Only what’s on +. Same with EPL…can’t watch the NBCSN matches (though that’s changing) without a TV provider, and Peacock only has replays well after matches are over. And again, I can only watch from the beginning when they say I can. Not really full control..

    Oh, and w/out Fubo I can’t get BeIn, so no La Liga or Ligue Un.

    Sure I can ditch Fubo & just go w/ Paramount+ commercial free, Peacock Premium & ESPN+ but outside of football there’s not much else I care about on Paramount+. or Peacock. Mostly I’m otherwise watching movies via Kanopy, HBO, Amazon, Netflix (streaming & DVD). I’d maybe get Criterion but there’s only so much screen time I want.

    Locast is interesting, but again there’s no real DVR option. So nice to get the channels, but not really full control. And I still need an ISP.

    All to say, for the things I want to watch, in the way & times I want to watch them – time shifting at my convenience due to being on the west coast so 8 or 9 hours behind Euro matches – my options are limited and the cost for internet, Fubo, ESPN & Paramount (plus the Netflix I would have anyway) ends up being slightly less than internet & cable and adding on ESPN+ & Paramount+, but I get a ton more football – every major Euro league & competition, plus MLS & some others.

    IOW, streaming is a bit overhyped as a general use case. Depending on the consumer wants & needs it won’t be as good as cable or an internet provider like Fubo. As with many things, YMMV.

    And in the end, you’re paying some company somewhere for providing you the service – the rights fees for content (that goes to players, coaches, trainers, etc), the people & tech that make it stream, the DVR service if you need it. These things cost money.

    Or I could find more productive uses of my time than watching all that football and debating the merits of streaming on a football blog.

  8. Hans

    April 16, 2021 at 2:24 pm

    @LF
    This is the 21st century but you are still doing things the way it was popular in the 20th century this perceived clash by you will be to your detriment, you will have to adapt and as already stated streaming is the NOW! I find it very ironic your statement on payment. You are paying for a cable package that forces you for every 60 minute episode to watch 20 minutes of commercials, is your time that little of value that you are willing to watch things you don’t need, you don’t want and you don’t care about? Get a commercial free streaming service $80 per year for paramount+ and save 20 minutes of your live per TV episode.
    As far as sports events and the whole world of streaming is concerned it is NO LONGER a matter of money but of control.
    Quoting from the Wired article: “Making the switch to streaming used to be a way to pay only for what you watched. Those days are long gone ….. People don’t have any control over anything anymore, it is now all about just letting you do whatever you want with what you pay for.”
    Read the article “www dot wired dot com/story/cord-cutting-isnt-about-saving-money-its-about-control/” and you will see why streaming will be the way to go as the networks realized they missed the future of consumption of content as started by Netflix and we the consumers will HAVE to adapt. People no longer want their preferred content when the networks say you should watch it, but when we the consumer want to watch it and linear TV doesn’t give you that option unless you invest more money into DVR functionality.
    Explore the website “www dot locast dot org”. Locast has modernized the delivery of broadcasting your local TV station’s programs over the Internet by offering streaming media free of charge. This is your right, this is their mission and yes this does have the sports events broadcast by your local TV station.

  9. greg

    April 16, 2021 at 10:48 am

    I don’t get this “I refuse to pay ‘whatever company’ to watch. If you have a cable package or get channels like ESPN & Fox Sports via Fubo, Hulu or YouTube, you are paying some company to watch. It’s only free (& legal) if you can get a network station via over-the-air. Yes, you’re now paying more to watch and there’s a legit argument that there’s a price-creep as you have to tack on ESPN+ here and Paramount+ or Peacock there. Though if you have Comcast for internet and/or cable you get Peacock as part of the deal.

    The market for all soccer coverage in particular and cable/streaming in general is changing fast. A few years ago the major media companies didn’t have their own individual streaming services. In a few years they may decide it’s not worth owning and managing both production & distribution and there’ll be consolidation again, with distribution farming back out to services like cable, Fubo, etc and you’ll get these things as part of a package or pay extra per month for a sports tier, similar now to paying for a ESPN or Paramount.

    All to say, this is what it is now, but it’ll change. Maybe for the better for consumers, maybe not.

    But I’m realizing now that for all the supposed benefits of cord cutting, what I pay now for internet, Fubo, ESPN+ & Paramount+ is about the same per month as what I paid Comcast for everything. And there’s actually more soccer available to me than before – every weekend I have my pick of EPL, Bundesliga, La Liga, Ligue Une, Serie A, Dutch, Scottish, and even Danish & Belgium matches. Plus every UCL & Europa League, where before it was one or two per slot. So maybe a win for the consumer? Now if only we could get a DVR service for ESPN, Paramount & Peacock, it would be easier to watch when times conflict or your home time zone doesn’t work for start times.

  10. Don Dickerson

    April 16, 2021 at 8:12 am

    LF: the only real thing you can remotely compare Champions League to is the NFL as the NFL is free OTA (with the exception of MNF).
    All others cost way more 50 plus on the cheap end and 200 plus dollars on a expensive cable companies package. While Champions League requires a few bucks a month or a yearly subscription that costs less than 1 month of a regular cable package.

    When not if but when the NBA NHL MLB are able to go direct to customer they will the only thing holding them back is the stupid local blackouts. Once that is lifted then you will see even more cord cutters buying just the MLBtv or NHLCI and so forth.

    Streaming is no longer the future it is the Now.

    As for who gets the money I truly dont want ESPN to get a dime but if I have to I’ll give them the bare minimum for what I want and all they will ever get is the ESPN+ money from me. Just like Viacom will only get the Paramount+ money from me. Peacock doesn’t see a dime from me since they made it impossible to stream all in 1 place as they made everyone buy a Live service plus Peacock.

  11. LF

    April 16, 2021 at 1:03 am

    Let’s do a review of broadcast coverage of playoffs of in the US in 2020-21:

    NFL: Coverage of all playoff games by either CBS, NBC, ABC or Fox. No streaming service necessary

    MLB: Coverage of all playoff games by Fox, FS1, ABC, ESPN or MLB Network. No streaming service necessary.

    NBA: Coverage of all playoff games by ABC, ESPN, TNT or NBA TV. No streaming service necessary.

    NHL: Coverage of all playoff games by NBC, NBC Sports Network, CNBC, USA Network or NHL Network. No streaming service necessary.

    Division 1 College Football Playoff: Coverage of all three games by ABC and/or ESPN. No streaming service necessary.

    NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament: Coverage of all tournament games by CBS, TBS, TNT or Tru-TV. No streaming service necessary.

    NCAA Women’s Basketball Tournament: Coverage of all tournament games by ABC, ESPN, ESPN2 or ESPNU. No streaming service necessary.

    UEFA Champions League Soccer knockout stages, essentially the “playoffs” of European club Soccer: Coverage primarily by Paramount+, with a handful of games on CBS Sports Network. Streaming service necessary to watch.

    Yet soccer fans are who complain about the lack of coverage are “whiny” or “entitled.” Since the UEFA Champions League is not American, this reeks of American protectionism. I’m going to go out on a limb a state that the Champions League knockout stage games generally averaged more viewers than the NCAA Women’s Basketball Tournament games when the former was available on Fox, FS1 and FS2, and before that when it was on ESPN and ESPN2 in the US. Champions League knockout stage viewership was likely on par with NHL Playoff games in the US in that timeframe. Yet somehow, it’s not getting the same treatment as other American sports league’s playoffs.

    I will find other means to watch UEFA Champions League games. I refuse to pay Viacom to watch.

  12. Sam

    April 15, 2021 at 5:02 am

    When do these knuckleheads at CBS will realize that match highlights are still need to be streamed at 60fps. A lot of us don’t/can’t watch the entire game. Why do they still insist to stream shows in 30fps? And what’s up with the constant spoilers of other games? Peacock/NBSSN are no better either. No 6ofps, spoilers swamp. ESPN+ streams everything at 60fps and has no in-game spoilers.

  13. The Beautiful Game

    April 9, 2021 at 4:43 pm

    CBS should still want to put some of these games on CBS Sports Network and CBS OTA. I doubt they’ll be able to snag the EPL from Comcast, that would be a huge blow to Peacock. I think they’ll keep their eyes peeled on the situations with La Liga & Ligue 1. If Haaland & Mbappe make the move to Barcelona and Real Madrid then La Liga is about to cash in big time on the next round of TV rights.

  14. Don Dickerson

    April 8, 2021 at 1:43 pm

    For the complaints about lag time all I have to say is it isn’t at all new. I remember watching a MLB World Series game and because I had it on OTA fox I was a few pitches ahead of where my dad was and he was using DirecTV.

    Over the last 2 decades OTA is the closest to being live compared to being at the games themselves. Following OTA I’d say Cable is 2nd followed by DirecTV and Dish. Lastly streaming services.

    I doubt we will ever see OTA lag time while using streaming services.

    So best thing to do is only hop on tablets/phones and other devices during half time. Never look at score apps during a match and you will be fine.

  15. Hans

    April 8, 2021 at 12:24 pm

    @disco george
    Totally agree that this is an issue. Logged into my main setup for the game, than logged in my laptop to see if this is any better and found out that on the same wired network there was like about a 30 sec delay. Don’t have any idea why that is but can imagine that it has to do with the same reason we can’t rewind, pause and resume, that you are being thrown into a stream at a particular time. I noticed it on Peacock but can’t remember if it was also on ESPN+.
    For games that I really want to watch in seclusion and not be distracted, I turn of all notifications on my other devices and just pay attention to what my eyeballs are fixed on. In a stadium you would monitor other games in case their outcome was determining a progression to the next round or not. I can only hope that this is a teething problem because the networks did not see this streaming development coming and are now scrambling to make up for lost development.

  16. disco george

    April 8, 2021 at 10:07 am

    The streaming lag is a real issue.

    Most people have a second/third/fourth device (phone, tablet, smartwatch, etc.) on them at the same time, whether it’s to look at stats or social media, or your friends are texting you, or whatever. When your stream is 2-3 minutes behind, you usually find out the hard way and the memes and screenshots are already going around before you know what’s happened.

    I had a particularly tough time with a few sporting events that were streaming-only this past weekend, and no matter what I tried, I couldn’t get any closer than about a 2-minute lag. The other people I was watching “with” (at our own houses, physically distancing) were all over the place, too.

    If the streaming services really want younger viewers to pay for their services and not just borrow logins, they’ve got to figure that out, because they’re not putting their phones down.

  17. Chris Guardiano

    April 7, 2021 at 9:23 pm

    The one set of rights that I think CBS should go after if they can’t get the Premier League (assuming they are interested) is the MLS/ US National Team rights. They already have a part of the rights in the form of the away qualifiers for the World Cup for the US as well as the Nations League. This would especially benefit the USWNT because it would provide them with greater exposure and help continue the growth of the NWSL because CBS could do a lot of cross promotion during USWNT matches to encourage people to watch the NWSL. The USWNT in my view needs a strong NWSL in order to sustain its long term success after the current stars retire and CBS is the perfect partner to help with this. The same could be said for the USMNT and MLS although to a lesser extent because the top stars for the USMNT (Pulisic, Adams etc) all play for European clubs so CBS would have to be careful in how they do promotion during USMNT matches because they don’t want to be promoting the Champions League too much while giving MLS no promotion at all. However CBS would be a major upgrade for MLS from Fox in terms of professional presentation and having executives within CBS Sports that actually care about the long term health of the league while they have the rights, unlike Fox in my view who simply view MLS as a way of getting the US national teams on their channels.

  18. Hans

    April 7, 2021 at 5:34 pm

    @LTx
    Your point of wanting Pause, Play and Rewind is a valid one and ESPN+ has that. If you get into the game late you can rewind and start at the beginning. When you need a bathroom break you can pause the game after returning with munchies and drinks you can resume the game. This feature is only on ESPN+ and at the moment not on Paramount+ and Peacock. We all are hoping that this feature is missing because both networks got late to the streaming platform and hope that they will eventually add it.
    On the other hand On-Demand is very useful for another segment of watchers that the networks want to reach. If you live in Hawaii you are 11 hours or Pacific Timezone than you are 8 hours behind the Kick Off time, that audience would want to watch ONLY the On-Demand version. Who would get up to watch a game at 1:30am or 4:30am. So you see the networks want to maximize their profit and realize they will loose a segment of the audience. Therefore they have to figure out which method is more profitable to them and some that are used to TV channel and DVR functionality most likely will loose out as they are a shrinking audience.
    @Don Dickerson
    Well put +1 as a side benefit for me on Paramount+ are the 1950s Twilight Zone episodes, Rod Serling’s creative mind is sorely missed what excellent episodes these are. Wife is happy to rewatch all the Perry Mason episodes. Not too bad for $60 for a whole year.

  19. LTx

    April 7, 2021 at 4:54 pm

    I may have the nomenclature wrong but that is purely semantics. I imagine on-demand to mean I can watch when and how I choose not on a replay after the event has finished… The issue remains the same. Case in point today. I watched the first 35 mins of the Bayern v PSG game. Then I went out to pick my kids up from school and could not pause. When I returned 15 minutes into the second half I had missed a good chunk of the game. I can do nothing to remedy this. I don’t want to watch it all ‘on-demand’ at the end of the game. I want to watch it when it is relevant to me and when it fits my schedule. I’m not sure how anything less is defensible from a paid service.

    • Christopher Harris

      April 7, 2021 at 5:21 pm

      The pause functionality will be coming to Paramount+ and Peacock in the near future. It’s much needed, I agree.

  20. Don Dickerson

    April 7, 2021 at 4:03 pm

    When did Football (soccer) fans become so ME ME ME all the sudden. I get that company’s IMO overpay for sporting events. However since I enjoy my Football I will pay CBS and Disney (ESPN+) money to watch these games.
    Since you state on here that you won’t support CBS or any other paywall sports then what makes a company think that YOU would by what is commercially advertised during matches. I’ll pay for my paywalled sports and my ad free hulu/disney/Espn+ and Paramount+ .
    If you want to have everything on FREE OTA then I expect you to buy a product from every company that puts a commercial on during your event/show.

    We and by we I mean I will gladly pay for good content. With that being said I will not be re needing my Fanatiz subscription since the price outweighs the content IMO.

  21. Yespage

    April 7, 2021 at 3:26 pm

    Paywall for a premium is fine. Paywall just to gain basic access to something that was originally distributed on linear channels in a desperate maneuver to make people want to subscribe to your subpar streaming service is a complete other thing which is far less tolerable.

  22. LTx

    April 7, 2021 at 3:08 pm

    These are not on-demand games. If they were then I could watch games from the start if I tune in late. I will cancel Paramount+ for this reason. I I am not there to watch it during the afternoon and before seeing the scores. I will cancel Peacock for the same reason – I have things to do . My life doesn’t revolve around European kick-off times. Until there are true on demand services I am paying for something I can’t watch even though I want to be able to. DVR-esque functionality is not a luxury, it is a necessity to be relevant in modern life and any paid service should have it.

    • Christopher Harris

      April 7, 2021 at 3:45 pm

      On-demand games mean that matches are available to be replayed on-demand after they’re over. Both Paramount+ and Peacock offer this functionality.

  23. rick

    April 7, 2021 at 2:10 pm

    I will watch on Univision, Gala or TUDN- you can always turn the volume down.

    Why should viewers pay for these paywalls- Peacock, CBS, ESPN, etc, etc.
    Soccer should be on network tv or a dedicated soccer channel- now we all miss Fox Soccer Channel.
    The streaming adds up and does not expose the sport to millions- only those that can pay.

  24. Hans

    April 7, 2021 at 12:04 pm

    @Azer
    I am not parroting CBS I am wanting live and On Demand games thus I subscribe also to ESPN+ and Peacock. Why I am interested in what Gertulla said, it is because Viacom CBS just raised $3 Billion through stock sales to include portions of that money in their streaming services. Perhaps you will change your attitude on talking points once the EPL bidding is done and dusted with. Get to grips with the fact that the future is in streaming and the businesses that pay the mega bucks for live sports events want to see a return on their investment, thus paywalls and it is only a pain for those that are married to their cable boxes. The alternative no games because it is a loosing venture and don’t pretend you are smarter than those guys that run billion dollar enterprises and want to reach an audience that will be around for decades rather than cater to an audience that is with one foot in the grave and another on a banana peel.
    The networks can read the statistics and numbers and they have to answer to their shareholders so they are obligated to show profit therefore the accelerated move towards streaming just a few quotes and examples:
    According to Nielsen’s Cross-Platform report from 2011, by the end of 2010, 105 million U.S. households watched television through a telecom (like Verizon Fios), satellite, or cable TV subscription. In 2020 83,817,000 households still use traditional cable or satellite TV. (That number factors in the 10% of vMVPD households also subscribe to cable or satellite.) That’s a loss of over 21 million cable and satellite subscribers this decade.
    While we aren’t in the prediction business, it’s plain to see the old ways of watching TV are in rapid decline. However, that doesn’t mean the end of the TV business for giant companies like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T.
    From groundedreason dot com / the-rise-of-streaming-and-fall-of-cable-tv/
    The majority – 52% – of cord cutters say they don’t miss anything about their old Cable or Satellite TV. If they did miss anything, it was typically live events (23%), local and national news (22%), and sports (19%).
    In 2018, there were almost 171 million subscriptions to streaming services, which increased by 6.9% in 2019 to 182.5 million. OTT services such as Netflix, Hulu, Youtube TV and Sling lead the way here and are still expected to headline a list of streaming services that will net a total 191.5 million subscribers in 2020.
    The handwriting is on the wall and the networks can read it and will put their money where the greatest return is expected.

  25. Yespage

    April 7, 2021 at 10:26 am

    Yes, streaming is the future, the trouble is that they have paywalled EVERYTHING (in English)! I watched Liverpool “play” yesterday on Univision and I don’t know a bit of Spanish. Meanwhile, CBS isn’t asking Cable/Sat for less money for their channels that aren’t showing this stuff. Nor are the former rights holders.

    Some want to pretend Cable/Sat is dead. It isn’t quite yet, and there are still things via the liver channels that can’t be had in streaming. Paramount+ has Nick programming, but the new stuff is on their linear channels (only an issue for people with kids). We are being double dipped. CBS puts Picard on Paramount+, not their local CBS of which cable/sat subs are being grinded up to $12 to $15 a month just to get the locals.

  26. Azer

    April 7, 2021 at 9:34 am

    @Hans. You are stuck with the lies CBS Sports is telling you. Who cares what Viacom CBS likes and what Jeff Gerttula said?. Why should any person pay attention to them? TUDN is televising the Champions League & Europa League in Spanish. The question is where is CBS Sports and English commentary? Their whole business model is based on greed. They are worse than Turner Sports. A bunch of thieves, shame on them. Stop being a parrot for CBS. I’m not interested in their talking points, no one is.

  27. Hans

    April 6, 2021 at 5:32 pm

    @Tayo
    You are stuck in linear TV and in the cable package that is being dished out and has NO future and the networks know it. Not on the CBS Sports channel is an age telling argument. You noticed why ViacomCBS like it and what Gerttula said, “We love the fit for streaming [The audience is] young and it’s growing, so those two characteristics are in of themselves very unique in the sports space. And the audience is used to streaming.” Do not mind the paywall one bit as I am not shelling out mega bucks for a cable TV package.
    Local channels via an antenna in the attic with 56 channels in the greater Washington DC area fed into a Network Attached Storage box (NAS) running an Emby server that gives me an Electronic Programming Guide (EPG) and allows for local DVR functions.
    All my other must have sports event come from ESPN+, Peacock and Paramount+ total expense $160 for an entire year. Like many others get rid of the cable package, get a high speed Internet package if possible FIOS (Fiber to the Home) with no caps get a Roku or Chromecast with Google TV and hook it up to your TV via HDMI and you are back in business. The Roku Channel is now Roku’s Most Popular Free Streaming Channel. One of the fastest growing areas in cord cutting it also is the largest channel for any free ad-supported movies and TV shows (AVOD).

  28. Tayo

    April 6, 2021 at 3:04 pm

    They put EVERYTHING behind a paywall. Streaming sucks… you are at least 2 mins behind. Why not have a dedicated soccer channel? Two matches are going on right now, none of them are on CBS Sports… you are not growing the game in the United States by putting everything behind a paywall.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

More in CBS Sports

Translate »