forbes.com
Rising Cost of NBA Streaming: A New Era for Basketball Fans
The NBA's new 11-year, $76 billion national television deal with Disney, NBCUniversal, and Amazon will significantly increase the cost for fans to watch games, impacting accessibility.
- What is the primary impact of the NBA's new national television deal on fans?
- The new deal, worth \$76 billion, fragments NBA game broadcasts across Disney/ESPN, NBC/Peacock, and Amazon Prime, requiring fans to subscribe to multiple streaming services costing at least \$54 per month to watch all games. This represents a substantial increase from previous costs and reduces accessibility.
- How does the cost of watching NBA games compare to other entertainment options?
- While cheaper than the average \$147 monthly cable bill, the required streaming subscriptions for comprehensive NBA viewing are still expensive for many. NBA League Pass offers an alternative but limits access to nationally televised and local games, hindering live viewing for casual fans.
- What is the NBA commissioner's response to the rising cost of watching games, and what are its implications?
- Commissioner Adam Silver downplayed the cost increase, emphasizing free highlight content on social media platforms. This response is dismissive of fans' concerns about diminished access and contradicts the reality that a complete game experience requires paid subscriptions, potentially alienating fans.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article presents a clear bias against the rising cost of watching NBA games through streaming services. The framing emphasizes the financial burden on fans, using phrases like "more expensive than ever" and "fork over at least $54 a month." The headline, while not explicitly stated, could be interpreted as framing the issue negatively. The introduction with Slim Charles' quote sets a tone of inevitability and difficulty, further reinforcing the negative framing. The article prioritizes the perspectives of fans facing increased costs and highlights Commissioner Silver's seemingly dismissive response, which fuels the negative portrayal.
Language Bias
The article uses charged language to describe the situation, such as "fiercer," "harder," and "excessive ads." Words like "fork over" when discussing the cost suggest a negative connotation. The description of Commissioner Silver's response as "dismissive" reveals the author's opinion. Neutral alternatives might be "increased competition," "challenges," "additional costs," and "comments." The repetition of negative framing emphasizes this bias.
Bias by Omission
The article omits potential counterarguments or perspectives from the NBA or streaming services. It doesn't explore the benefits of streaming services, such as convenience or access to games beyond traditional television. The article focuses solely on the increased cost and lack of accessibility for some fans, neglecting to consider the financial aspects for the league and the streaming providers. This creates a one-sided narrative.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy between the accessibility of the NBA in the past and its current state. It suggests that watching the NBA was simpler and cheaper before the rise of streaming, neglecting the complexities and costs associated with traditional cable packages. While acknowledging the cost difference between streaming and cable, it does not fully consider the diverse range of options available for viewers with varying budgets and needs.
Sustainable Development Goals
The increasing cost of accessing NBA games through streaming services creates a barrier for many fans, particularly those with lower incomes, exacerbating existing inequalities in access to entertainment and potentially impacting community engagement around the sport. This aligns with SDG 10, which aims to reduce inequalities within and among countries. The high cost of accessing games disproportionately affects lower-income groups, limiting their ability to enjoy the sport.