The Athletic Football Show: A show about the NFL - The future of the NFL on TV

Episode Date: November 23, 2024

If you're the type of NFL fan who wants to watch every game, you've tuned into at least seven different networks and streamers this season. It isn't likely that sort of market segmentation is going away any time soon. So how will we be watching football in 2030, 2040 and beyond? Robert Mays is joined by Andrew Marchand, The Athletic's senior sports media columnist, to dive deep into the NFL broadcasting future on this episode of The Money Down, a special four-part miniseries on the business of the NFL from The Athletic Football Show.Host: Robert MaysWith: Andrew MarchandExecutive Producer: Michael BellerProducer: Chris FlannerySubscribe to The Athletic Football Show...AppleSpotifyYouTubeFollow Robert on X: @robertmaysFollow Andrew on X: @AndrewMarchandTheme song: HauntedWritten by Dylan Slocum, Trevor Dietrich, Ruben Duarte, Kyle McAulay, and Meredith VanWoert / Performed by Spanish Love SongsCourtesy of Pure Noise / By arrangement with Bank Robber Music, LLC Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Welcome to the Athletic Football Show. I'm Robert Mays, and this is episode two of The Money Down, our four-part mini-series examining the business of the NFL. If you missed episode one with ESPN's Dominique Foxworth looking at the stagnation of the cornerback market and that position's place in football culture, you can find that in the Athletic Football Show feed wherever you get your podcasts.

Today, we're chatting about the broadcasting side of the league with the athletic senior media columnist Andrew Marchand. In some ways, the league's broadcasting present and future is set. most of the recent TV deals with linear networks and ESPN are set through the end of the decade. But as Andrew says in this episode, we know the NFL was always looking for new ways to snatch back part of a pizza it's already sold, only to turn around and sell it again. With Christmas Day games on Netflix and expansion of the international series and who knows what else on the horizon, I chatted with Andrew about the league's expansion into streaming, the limits of where it will broadcast big games, if those even exist, and how the league is thinking about its relationships with streaming platforms. We also chatted about the early returns from Tom Brady's days as a broadcaster, the future of someone like Greg Olson, and much more from the talent side of NFL broadcasts. So let's get to that conversation with Andrew.

Joining us now, it is the senior media columnist at The Athletic. It's Andrew Marsan. Andrew sincerely appreciate you joining us. Appreciate it. Yeah, thanks for having me. My pleasure. Really excited to dig into this. This is one of the first shows we're doing in this series.

And I absolutely wanted to have this conversation with you because I just think that it's such a fascinating time for football. Broadcasting in general. Obviously, the media deals have been sewn up for several years now, and those are going to run through 20, 30 or so. But it still feels like there are enough new pads for the NFL and things that they're trying to do that there's a ton to examine. And I wanted to start with something that's been in the news really over the course of this entire year since we found out that they were happening. And that's the Netflix games that are happening on Christmas Day. You reported earlier this month that I and a Noah Eagle are going to be the play-by-play guys for those games with Greg Olson serving as the analyst for one game and then JJ Watt and Nate Berlison

serving as analyst for the next game. And on your podcast earlier this month, you were questioning why Fox would allow Greg Olson to do this after they ultimately shot down the idea of Tom Brady and Kevin Burkart doing one of those games. So just as a starter here, I wanted to ask you why you thought Fox ultimately relented on this and allowed Olson to do this game for Netflix. So I think they receive some compensation in exchange, which I don't know what it is exactly. So I can't tell you fully, but I do think there are some incentive for Fox to let Olson do it. Olson has been a good soldier in terms of his demotion to the number two position with Tom Brady at number one. And so it's kind of a reward in that regard.

But in the same breath, I don't think Fox or really any of these networks want to help Netflix because we've known what's gone on in the landscape of TV where Netflix has moved to the top of the class in terms of streaming. And so now they're starting in on sports. Do you really want to help them have a successful broadcast? Ultimately, it was worth their while to let Olson do it, even though the first overtures for Brady, they said no. So this is why I wanted to start with the Netflix of all of this, because I do think that

it's indicative of some larger conversations about where NFL broadcasting could be going over the next four, five, six years. And the marriage between the NFL and Netflix, I think, is fascinating on a couple different fronts. If you're the league, I understand the appeal just from a monetary perspective, right? You're getting $75 million per game. And I think the NFL has shown itself to be interested in whatever dollars it can get its hands on, no matter where they're coming from. But I also feel like there's more to it than just the $75 million that they're getting

for both of these games. So as you're thinking about maybe some of the hidden or less talked about aspects of this marriage that you think are ultimately beneficial for the league, what do you think they're trying to get out of this partnership that goes beyond the $150 million? Well, I think they want to get Netflix addicted to the NFL like all the networks have where an Amazon seems to have as well, where the NFL is the most powerful entertainment programming in, you could argue the world,

but definitely in the United States. If you look at the top 100 rated shows every year, it's 90 plus our NFL games, you know, led by the Super Bowl every year, you know, at 100, 115, 20 million people. So I think if you're the NFL, you want Netflix involved because we said they're the leader, so far in terms of the move to streaming.

And the opportunity came along because Netflix had always just been a subscription model until the last couple of years. Now they've started an advertising business, made their subscriptions cheaper for people who want to deal with ads. And so what better way to sell ads than to have NFL games? I was going to ask you, what does Netflix get in all of this beyond just the right to air one or two NFL games. On the NFL's interest in this front, I think that something I was reading about that I,

it makes sense to me when you think about the appeal of Netflix's audience when you compare it to even other streaming platforms and what they've given the NFL. The fact that the Netflix potentially gives the league an unimpeded international broadcast partner that is going to take these games international with really no barriers. Even if you look at some of the things we're talking about with Amazon and other streaming giants, Netflix's audience and Netflix's reach feels a little bit different and a little bit broader than even some of those companies. What do you think the international aspect of this and how do you think the international aspect of this plays into the NFL's interest in this

partnership? And I think it definitely does. I mean, when you look at the big digital players, the Amazon's, the Netflix, the apples, Google YouTube to a degree, they want global, right? That's where the marketplace is going. That's why you're seeing the NFL have, you know, all these international games, which they've had for a while. But now the expansion of it and with Roger Goodell saying, you know, perhaps having 16 or 17 adding an extra game every year, having one a week, you can see where it's going, right? You're going to create another TV package.

Oh, Netflix, you like Christmas? Here you go. Here's 17 games. It's times that by 75 and go from there. So the NFL ultimately likes money. And they have the best product to sell, so it makes it easier for them to make money. And so I think that's what you're seeing here. They have Amazon's already involved.

Apple is kind of not, you know, they've had a lot of talks, but nothing's happened really of significance. And so they want, the NFL wants to get Netflix high on their game and so they can sell more. as you've talked to people about the growth potential for the NFL internationally when it comes to broadcast rights, do we feel like there is just an inherent ceiling on what that can look like because of, I guess, like the international community's lack of familiarity and interest in the NFL as a whole? Like we know there are pockets of this, right? I mean, I think about the audience for our podcast even and the fact that we have a lot of listeners in the UK. We have a lot of listeners in Ireland. There are some listeners in Mexico and Brazil and some of the other places where the leak is. pretty obviously tried to gain a foothold.

But when we're trying to move beyond some of those markets, do we think that there's a limit to what sort of traction the NFL can get in some of these countries who really don't have a vested interest in the NFL? So let me do my MLS Apple theory, right? When you look at the MLS deal with Apple, it's a global deal for Major League Soccer, for those who aren't familiar. And I think when you talk about Major League Soccer,

you bring in Messi, the idea that the MLS could be global makes sense when you talk about it. You actually know about the sport of soccer and how Europe dominates, especially in terms of club play. It seems unrealistic, at least in the near term, that the U.S., even with Messi here, is going to have, and just the nature of how it's set up, it's going to have a great impact globally. The same thing with the NFL. Now, when you talk about the NFL and how it's a lot, popular it is, well, can we just export it to Brazil? Can we export it to Germany? And it should be as popular there. And yes, are there going to be people who really like it and who are diehards and are very into it. And can you fill a stadium once a year or twice a year? Yeah, you probably can.

But a couple of things. The times of the games are not necessarily convenient in a lot of the world, right? If you're looking at a, you know, the Super Bowl starts around. 630, 640. If you're a six-hour difference in Europe, you're talking about after midnight. How popular, you've got to really be a big fan to watch. So there is growth potential. You can reach everyone digitally, as you said from your program, and that's the great advantage. So there is growth potential. Is it going to be like the United States in terms of this fervent love of our teams? It's going to be a long, long time before. that happens. And I'm not even sure how successful, you know, like if you had a team in London,

how successful they would be at this point. Obviously, I think that there's a lot of benefits of this for the NFL for all the reasons that you just laid out. What do you think the benefits are for Netflix? Because they really haven't dove head first into live sports programming. They have a relationship with the WWE. That's something they're exploring. But I think that the the WWE, the audience that that's providing and even what that means for your programming is much different than wading into NFL rights. So what do you think this signals in terms of what Netflix is trying to accomplish on a sports front? I think it's a test.

They spend $75 million or so to make some movies, right? When you, those, you know, the business model for Netflix, which is so great, is that they make these films once, and then people watch them in theory for eternity. So if you have a hit, you have it forever. NFL's different, right? You might, we might, you or I might rewatch a game a few times. You're not going back and rewatching it. It's not the godfather, right?

You're not watching it a million times. So that's different. But so I think they're testing this out. I don't think this is necessarily some grand plan to get into sports. And I also think there's a couple of misnomer. First off, the bigger packages, the NFL can't opt out to network packages. That's NBC, Fox, and C. BBS until after 29.

And then ESPN after 30. And I think Amazon's, I forget which one, they're in that same range. So that's still a long ways away. So the idea that we're about to have everything's on digital, we're still going to be watching games as we basically have, except for some one-offs, the way we've watched the last 20 years plus Amazon.

And so I don't think it's happening so quickly. But then you look when they opt out, could Amazon get a Super Bowl? I'm not saying they're going to get a super, but could they get an AFC or NFC championship game? I really don't think that's out of the realm of possibility in this next round. And so I think Netflix is seeing what it means for them,

how it helps. And they want, what they're also trying to do is to have these once a month, tent poll events and kind of have them over the year to keep people subscribing. Because the biggest, the hardest thing is, and this is a hard thing for sports,

is people subscribe, they turn it off, they subscribe again. And it's easier to do than back in the day when we had cable was the prominent distributor where you didn't necessarily turn on and off based on what you liked. You alluded to this, but I think that Julie Alexander from Pucker made a half-joking remark about this where the Rebel Moon movies from Zach Snyder cost $150 million. To pay the same amount to get two live NFL games if you're Netflix, it feels like the juice might be worth to squeeze there.

100%, especially if you're trying to make an advertising business. Now, exactly, yeah. The idea of advertising on Christmas, I'm not, you know, I've heard some things. I don't know if that's the best day to try to get advertising because really you want to advertise before Christmas, in large part because people are buying for Christmas. But, you know, there's other things to sell, of course. And so I just think you look at it, if you listen to Netflix, right? And I don't, now I cover Netflix, but I haven't covered them forever. They've said a lot of things and then done different.

Like they've kind of said no live sports. We want to own not least. Now they're like, oh, that's where the growth might be. But I don't think they're getting these huge packages. Like when I talked about the, like, I don't think you're going to have a Sunday where all your games or your CBS games are on Netflix, at least not, again, in the next 10, 15 years, maybe, you know, 25 years from now, but not in the near future.

And the idea of just advertising on Christmas is one thing. But I think what we've learned over the last 10, 15 years, you know, you worked in newspapers. I started in newspapers. You think about the newspaper business going digital when it did. Setting expectations for how people are going to consume products goes a long way in their willingness to deal with those products. If you think you're going to get advertising, I'm not complaining about the ads I'm getting

on cable because I've always had ads on cable. But I am complaining about the ads I'm getting on streaming because that hasn't always been part of the experience. And I think that Netflix introducing the idea of you can have ads on Netflix, get used to to this. This is something that you will be comfortable with over time. Inserting that into the experience via an NFL game actually feels like a good starting point to make people comfortable with the idea of Netflix and advertising are synonymous in a way that you might not have believed before. Yeah, and I also think when you look at their model that they realize they could either

get as much money or even more money by having some people pay, I don't know the exact difference, but, you know, I pay right now with the no commercials. I think it's like $16, $17 per month. I don't even notice anymore, which probably is good for Netflix. I'm sure they would love to hear that. Exactly. But I think it's $7 or $8 a month if you do the ads. And so, yeah, I think that they want to get people used to the ads.

And I also do think it's been a little slow in terms of them selling ads. And so I think this is some way, this might be a way to jumpstart it. And then you see it with it. like the WWE deal that you mentioned is that, that's different. It's 52 weeks a year, but that's going to help them. And it's also, it's athletic, but it's not sports, right? It's predetermined outcome. You kind of know what you're getting.

It works for them. It's a reality show that's once a week and it's every week. If you ask the people who are running the NFL, I'm sure they would love to be described in the same way. I'm sure Jerry Jones would love if the NFL was considered a reality show that was on every single week. Before we move on, I want to talk about some of those one-off games that you mentioned, but we're going to take one quick break.

All right, I wanted to use the Netflix conversation as almost a jumping off point to this discussion because like you mentioned, for the most part, the broadcast rights are fixed for the next five, six years. We know where we're going to be getting our games, especially on Sundays. But as we've seen over the last couple years, the league is very enterprising when it comes to figuring out

how to sell some of these marginal games as part of a larger package. We got the playoff game on Peacock. Amazon is now going to have a playoff game. We have these two Netflix games. So as you're thinking about where the unclaimed real estate is and where the wiggle room is for how the NFL could experiment with some of these ideas and potentially make even more money as they sell these one-off games, where would those exist in your mind?

Well, I think number one we talked about is the international games. If you had one per week, we've already seen that morning window. I mean, do you like the morning window? So here, I don't mind it. I just think that for me doing a show live on Sunday night, it turns into a very long day. And I've gotten to a place where the game starting at noon, that's actually enough time to do something in the morning. Like, I can go somewhere with my wife. I can go for a walk.

And so the fact that my day starts immediately upon waking up, that I don't necessarily love. But I understand why people who don't want to wait until 1 p.m. Or fine waking up to an NFL game on the East Coast. Yeah, I don't really think it works personally fully. Like, of course, they're going to have people watching, but I just think it makes the day, like you just said, like you love football, but you do this for a living. So it's a little bit different for you. You know, if you don't, this is always something you have to be careful with people listening. They love their sports and they love football.

But when it's not your job, it's a little bit different, right? Absolutely. It's different in terms of you're having to know what happens and watch. Um, so perhaps, you know, the average fan, it's nice to add that option. The other thing is the games usually aren't that great. You know, it's like kind of hit or miss, right? We had, you know, you have Jacksonville in New England. I don't think that's the one that felt like a professional obligation.

That, that's the one where I felt like I was going to work and putting on the hard hat in ways that it typically doesn't when I'm doing my job. Yeah, exactly. So, um, yeah, so look, so they're going to create windows. I think that morning window is one. They've seen what's happened with the Premier League. and I also think it's smart for getting the financial aspect of it. You know, it's easy for kids to watch at that time of day. And I think that's really important.

I think that's, you know, I think when you travel around, you see three things, in my opinion. You see football jerseys for our kids. You see Premier League shirts for kids and you see Yankee hats. Those are the three things I've seen the most. I've obviously seen other stuff as well, but those are the most. And, you know, what I think, hurts baseball, for example, is that the World Series just starts too late, even now, even though the games are quicker.

And so if you're a kid and you never watch the World Series as a kid, why are you going to watch it as an adult? So I do think that morning window is helpful. Not that obviously football is very accessible at 1 and 425, so that's not really a problem, but it just makes it even more accessible. And then, yeah, the one-offs, yeah, look, they've kind of, they had the Brazil game. could they do something similar like that? Could you have two Brazil games?

You know, or they don't be in Brazil, but that type of Friday. So you have the Thursday, maybe a double header Friday. Trust me, Brian Rollop and company, they're thinking about ways to make more money. I always say the NFL is the best at selling a full fresh pizza pie and then saying, hey, can we get that back and then selling like a half-eaten piece? So this one network, you know, in another piece, another network. And so they're the best at that. I think you'll continue to see it.

And does it dilute it? It does, but it doesn't seem like the appetite for football has gone down in a long time. Think about playoff games specifically. Obviously, Amazon is getting their first playoff game this year. And that's something that they've already discussed with the league, already negotiated with the league. We saw that game on Peacock last year. Where do you think the line gets drawn with that?

And I'm probably thinking of this because it's fresh in my mind because there's the game on Monday night. But that game between the Cardinals and the Chargers was exclusively on ESPN plus. And so I'm wondering, do we get to a place over the next couple years where, well, ESPN is really trying to gain a foothold with the streaming service they're going to launch next year? Would the league be comfortable with having a playoff game on ESPN streaming service?

Or do we think that there are limits to this and how far the league is willing to go? I think if the price is right, the league will do it. They did it for peacock, right? So they do it. Now, ESPN, you have to understand when it comes out in next year, probably late summer, for direct to consumer, you'll be able to see everything. It's going to be the same in terms of games.

They're not going to be exclusive to ESPN direct-to-consumer, just the non-cable version. If you're able to see it on ESPN direct-to-consumer, you'll be able to see it on cable. But I think to answer your question, though, the overall, the bigger picture is it's already been answered. They put a game on Peacock.

They put the Friday game on, you know, second game of the season, or was it Packers, Eagles, good matchup on Peacock. They definitely want Amazon to be successful because although I think, you know, things aren't changing as quickly as maybe people, my perception of what people's perception is, I do think when you get to the late 2030s into the 2040s, you know, will there be broadcast TV? You know, cable obviously is going to be greatly, greatly diminished. It'll probably still be around, but greatly diminished at that point, even more so.

So the streamers is where they're going to have to get the money. so they need the streamers to be interested and they need multiple streamers because if you just have Amazon, let's just say Amazon, the one, they like Thursday night football, but Apple takes a pass, Netflix's not that interested.

I mean, NFL might not have as many options. Now, I think if I'm betting, NFL will have plenty of options because the NFL, but I'm just saying that is something that they, business-wise, are guarding against. And so the idea of giving companies and streaming services

exclusive windows, I think is definitely going to happen and we've already seen it. I don't want to be a caricature of someone who used to work at ESPN and just talk about where ESPN currently sits because it seems like that's happening constantly on every single platform available to you. But I am going to do it a little bit because I'm curious as you look at some of the shifting talent decisions that ESPN has made and what they're trying to do with streaming. How do you think about the way that NFL coverage and NFL content fits into who ESPN wants to be in this current. iteration of the company. That's a good question. I think when you look at it, I think smarter

kind of wins the day on streaming. The idea of talk shows really hasn't worked. Like I could try to think of as Chelsea Handler, I think had a show on Netflix. Like they haven't really worked. John Mullaney now has one, but I think it's like once a week he's going to do it. So that might have a better chance of making some hay. But it's just different. And so I think if you look at the studio shows, right, they don't really work as well on a streaming service. It's just not, at least not yet.

It's more of like you turn on the TV, have ESPN, and that's what's on. And the coverage is a lot about the Cowboys, especially in the morning shows. And so, yeah, It's going to change. I mean, because our habits have changed,

right? Yeah, absolutely. Information is, like I always say about the Sunday shows, right? Your ESPN or any of these networks,

like really, the Sunday shows is important as they were when we were when we were kids, you know, right? Or definitely not. So what are you trying to do

on a Sunday show? You know, people can listen to the athletic football show three times a week, right? By the time they get to Sunday, they know a lot of what's going on. They can read the athletic.

They can, there's other outlets I've been told. And so when you look at Sunday, you kind of want to, you want it to be fond of, You want it to like. So that kind of coverage is not going to be like, let me teach you about what happened this week, which back in the day, you'd wait for Chris Mortensen to find out this, that, and the other thing.

We know these things four days ago. And so coverage is definitely evolving. It already has. And as you go, I do think more niche works. It's harder to be broad. And I think that's what you'll see the coverage probably adapt to that as we, kind of move towards that even more so because it's just it's not as intuitive just to put a stream streamer on and watch like a show like first take it just doesn't work as well it can work but

it doesn't necessarily work as well when you look at just things that even ESPN has said about its own strategy i think they're really trying to make their way into the youtube space into the tic-tok space and just the kind of the social element of what they're trying to produce this is more of just a big picture kind of existential question and i'm curious to be curious to hear your on. What do you think the process looks in trying to convert virality into profit for these companies and how much of a connection do you think actually exist between those two things? It's a good question. I think kind of something you said earlier about when newspapers put their stuff online, you know, they made a grave mistake by not charging immediately.

it made their stuff just feel the same as anybody else writing. And they just made it so they put no literal value in terms of monetarily on their information. And so I think when you look at what ESPN's doing with YouTube and now TikTok, you can make money doing some of that stuff, but not at the levels of what ESPN's used to. ESPN still to this day is still taking in nearly a bit. billion dollars per month in cable and satellite subscription fees. That's almost a billion dollars a month. It was a couple of billion a month. So it's going down. And so how do you make up for it? They want to be younger because the company is in its 40s now. It's not as cool,

right? When you get to your 40s, one day you'll get there. Listen, I'm closer than I want to be. It's depressing as hell. So the, you know, you're not as cool usually. when you get there. And so that's where they are. So they're trying to get younger and be on the top of the minds of teenagers, etc. How that turns into money, I mean, it can turn into some money.

It's just not replacing, you know, the subscription fees that I mentioned. And so I think there's a mistake that's made is that it's actually in inverse. I think when Twitter first got popular, I think TV tried to be like Twitter

and TV is this not like Twitter like I don't know and the other thing is I don't why you'd put anybody's Twitter handle on TV if you're ESPN you don't own Twitter or X I don't know why you're promoting it why you want your people to put stuff on there like even now with the way that

you know X and Elon Musk is kind of deflating links I'm pretty certain the next story I break I'm going to just write on X that some significant sports media news out the athletic, look at my bio if you get there, because it's just not, because he deflates the link. So it's like, what's the point? And why am I helping him? Yeah, it makes total sense.

It's just always a question that I've been interested in when you're thinking about the true value of having one of those videos. It's, again, it's like a larger existential question, but I'm always curious how people think that connection actually exists. Yeah, I think, well, I do think it helps for awareness, which is at the battle. So I think that's where it helps. Does it kind of, you know, we can see a lot of times where people come from and how to get the connection with them and for them to convert and be subscribers, et cetera. And it's really not, those places are good at keeping you on their sites and their platforms. They're not necessarily good at driving people to your platform.

So I feel like they're good for awareness, which is like free advertising and very important. But in terms of conversion, it's not that great, at least far as I can. tell. Let's get to another network and current the state of things there as they relate to the NFL, something you've written about a lot, and that is what we've seen from Tom Brady through his first eight games. You were very open about how Rocky that first game was and about how awkward and stretches that first game was, but he has shown improvement. There's been some progress over the first two months of the season. As you're just putting a grade on the Tom Brady experience so far at Fox, what would you say as we near the halfway point here?

I'd go C plus Wow okay you're a harsh grader alright some people say I've been too soft I mean I can be harsh so

look I think this is what I do when I grade you know how anybody does if his name wasn't Tom Brady and you were listening

to this broadcast would you be like wow that's great I don't think you would be I think you'd say the gravity of the things that he's saying wouldn't they wouldn't

exist like there's just so much of what's appealing about this And I think that you guys mentioned this on your podcast recently, but the idea that I wouldn't throw to that guy again over the course of the rest of the game.

If that was any other quarterback, that statement wouldn't have the weight that it does coming from Tom Brady. So who he is is doing a lot of the lifting right now. Exactly. So, and so he's gotten better. He's definitely more comfortable. It's still, and I think he might get there. Like, if he keeps improving, I mean, they have the Super Bowl this year.

So he's going to be in front of hundreds of millions. a hundred million people plus. And so that's a big assignment. He's obviously played in that game a couple of times. So he should be, he might be, I've got a feeling he might end up being more nervous for that game than he was as a player,

which would be an interesting question to ask him after. And, yeah, he's been okay. Like, he's not great. He's not terrible. He's not stumbling. You know, I think Jason Whitten kind of got a poor deal with Monday Night Football, but that was kind of every week.

week, there, you know, or a lot of weeks, there were some kind of misspeak. He hasn't misspoke. He just hasn't really necessarily yet fully gotten the assignment or gotten comfortable with the assignment. And it takes time. It's harder than it looks, no matter if you're considered the greatest player of all time and have a humongous contract, that doesn't matter. And I think that the fact that now there is potentially a barrier to him getting better at the job by some of the limitations that have been imposed on him because of the ownership stake that he has with the Raiders, it's worth having a conversation because the fact that now if he needs to get better and we need to see more progress from him and now there are reasons that might not be able to happen,

I wonder where that leaves us. So as you think about the Brady rules, quote unquote, and now what he's able to do compared to other broadcasters, and we can go through some of them. Obviously, can't be in production meetings, can't be in other team's facilities, can't criticize the refs. where do you think this actually is going to show up the most in a meaningful way? Well, I think the biggest thing is the inability to criticize, in theory, the other team besides the Raiders and the referees, because that's part of the job, right, is to be critical.

So, you know, there's a fine line. He's Tom Brady. So, you know, there's ways to say it. You know, I think, you know, people who do what I do and, you know, critique the media and, you know, And players are always, you know, a lot of times you hear people say, well, will he be critical? And it's like, no, that's not really the job. Like, yeah, it's great if you'll be critical, fine. But it's really, will you analyze things and tell us the truth about why something happened?

So, you know, like there's a little way to do it. Be like, you know, Dak Prescott, when he looks on tape later this week, he's going to, and then here's the negative. So there's ways to do it where you're not like going to get headlines everywhere because it's Tom Brady. So, of course, anything he says is going to, you know, resonate. Nate all over the internet, and I think he's been cognizant of that. But the off-the-field stuff, not being able to go to the production meetings and all that stuff, I don't think it's as big a deal, you know, because of who he is. He had Patrick Mahomes for an interview the other day.

You don't think that if he texted Andy Reid, hey, it's Tom. I'd like to talk to you. Andy Reid's even, you know, Andy, any coach is not going to call Tom Brady back. you know, so I don't think there's going to be a lack of information. And I think the big thing, we want to know what he thinks, right? We don't really, we don't need Tom Brady to tell us that, you know, some linebacker that they talked to in a pre-meeting that's for background, you know, said this. You know, I can help you.

I'm not saying that doesn't help you. Of course it does. But I want to know what Tom Brady thinks, especially about quarterback play. Why was that interception thrown? what do you see was the quarterback's balance off the receiver ran the wrong route I know it's going in real time

but that's what you're paid for and that's what we want to hear and so he's done some of that and you know it's been good the thing I would say that you know I gave the grade that I wonder about he seems like a great guy everyone I've talked to at

Fox who's dealt with them loves them we know about his reputation as a player but does he have that personality where it's like very easy for him to kind of be like relatable. Like I think Romo did that well, especially at the beginning, where he was very relatable and how he watched the game. I don't, and again, you don't really necessarily have to be like, hey, you know, like it's like you and I talking, you know, we're watching a game. It doesn't have to be like that. But just where he kind of culturally gets references and stuff like that because you have to think about Tom Brady's life for the last 20 years, right? five years in after he wins a Super Bowl or two at that point

and now becomes the greatest, you know, player of all time. He has not lived a normal life. Like, when do you think is the last time Tom Brady took a commercial flight? Probably not recent, right? So he's not like you or me, which a lot of these guys aren't. It's just, that's fine. Again, you don't have to be like you or me, but you have to be able to relate and be on your feet.

And it feels like even like when you watch it, you look at his social media, it's not, it's pretty well done, but you feel like that's not Tom just being like, hey, I got an idea. That feels like there's a team that comes up with these ideas, they vet it, and they go, okay, he'll do this, this will be funny. Which is fine, again, it's okay.

When you're in the booth, there's no team. It's you and Burkhart, and yeah, there's producers, there's all these other people, but it's got to go, it can't just go from listening to what Burkhart says and then saying stuff. It has to go from seeing what you see and saying stuff. And that's where

the evolution, if he's going to get good this is going to have to come. I think that the being critical part is so key to this. And I don't know how you feel, but I feel like Buck and Aikman have reached a really cool point in their working partnership together. I really like listening to them do games. And I think that part of that is now they have like $20 million a year FU money. And I think that that energy has crept into the way that they're calling games. But I do think that Troy's willingness to be critical and be disgusted at times, that almost leads to relatability. I don't think, Troy Aikman's taking a lot of commercial flights either.

And I don't think he's in the same tax bracket as a lot of people who are watching these games. But I think his kind of visceral reaction to what he's watching and the willingness to criticize teams that are playing disgusting brands of football, that leads to a relatability that I actually think makes that broadcast in its current iteration a very comfortable place to be spending time. You nail the word comfortable. And because when we're watching a game, we're sitting next to these two. people or three people

in the stands, right? Obviously, you don't sit next to somebody and they tell you it's third and seven. But in terms of how they are chatting and how they feel comfortable and where they can go, that develops over time. And, you know, Buck and Aikman have been together as a team longer than anybody in the history of NFL broadcasting. They passed Summerall and Madden. And so I think it's a very comfortable,

listen. It has a big sound to it because of how many big games they've done over the last couple of decades. And I just think it's relaxed and Troy has gotten better. I don't know if it was because of the Romo money where he kind of, that felt like kind of he switched years a little bit

and got a little more critical. You know, when Romo got his money and I think Troy saw that contract and was like, why is he getting that? And I'm not. And even though he denies that, but I don't believe him. The would be natural. I think it would be a reasonable response from anybody.

Exactly. Well, also these guys, when they think about it too, they don't only think about how they are as broadcasts. You think about who is the better player, who won Super Bowls, who's in the Hall of Fame, not just, okay, this guy who's better on Sundays or Mondays. And so, yeah, to get your point overall, yeah, they're the best team, I'd say, because it's just such a relaxed listen. And I think this is, it's interesting because Joe Buck has been kind of a polarizing figure over the years. The number one thing you want from a broadcast is to not annoy you. And I get it. That's a very negative way to look at it. But you don't want them getting in the way.

And again, that's why Romo is very polarizing because Romo is the guy that if you were watching a game, you know, with your friends, he's the guy run around saying, oh, you see that, da, da, da, da, and you want to. And there are people who are going to love that guy. And then there are people like, Romo coming to the game? Yeah, I'm not going to go. No, I'm out. I'm not watching with you.

Aikman's more of like, he's at the end of the couch, doesn't say that much, but every once in a while would chime in and be like, oh, and then Troy's talking. Okay, let's hear what he has to say. So it's a different type of feel. And over the long term, I think if you think about your friends and the person who's sort of that low key kind of wears a little better as opposed to the person who's like in your face, unless you find that the person to be like the most entertaining, hilarious person that you ever met, then you obviously can't get enough of it.

But that's the, it's kind of a Leno versus Letterman. I want to date myself here, but Leno was very popular in part because he was kind of middle America. Letterman kind of was the people, the kind of the critics choice because he was a little bit more on the edge. And I think that the Romo comparison, just the idea of Romo in general, this is going to be a forced analogy, but stick with me for a second. I almost think that Romo's entry into the broadcasting space.

and the success and the attention that it came with it was almost like the NFL's light bulb moment about rookie quarterback contracts where when people realized for the first time, wait a second, I can pay Russell Wilson $500,000 a year and then just spend all the money elsewhere, this is incredible. Like we've solved football.

In reality, it's not that easy and it will never be that easy. But it feels like the desire and the extreme motivation on Fox's part to make this happen with Brady is at least in part, driven by what happened with Romo. And I'm just not sure that you necessarily have to seek out that lightning in a bottle solution with a guy who's never been a broadcaster before in that same way when you had

Greg Olson sitting there on the bench. We don't have to re-legislate all of this right now, but I think there's something to that. Yeah, 100%. I mean, I would say that the Romo contract changed everything just because it was so, like, I reported about it for a year before it happened, and I kind of kept writing how it was more and more and more. But then when I found out that it was going to be $18 million a year in total for 10 years, I was just like, are you kidding me? And so, and that was, you also have to understand the circumstance of all these things. So, like, and I won't go through it, like, you know, I've done it before on other shows and written about it.

But the context of it was the NFL deal was right before the pandemic started. And the NFL deals were up. And at that point, there was a real strong feeling that Disney was not only going to go for Monday Night Football, but it was also going to go for CBS's AFC package. And to have Romo on your side at that point seemed like a good move for ESPN. Not that it would rule the day, but it was kind of putting that stake into CBS's heart. And I think CBS was trying to deflect that or to counter that. And so they gave them the money.

And so that's part of it. And then with the Olson part, you know, he wasn't Greg Olson then. There's people at Fox. He would have gotten it if Brady didn't take that. And he did get the job. And it would have worked out. But Fox does love the big names. You look at their studio show, you know, what they try to do.

And so, Eekman leaves. And, you know, this is at the Murdoch level. And they, you know, made the offer that Brady eventually couldn't refuse. And I understand the timing on that with CBS when the deals are coming up. This was done after the deals had just. been signed essentially and were going to be in place for 10 years. Fox wasn't in, it wasn't an immediate thing where they were going to need to prove their worth to the NFL to retain broadcast rights. Maybe they're thinking so far ahead that having Brady 10 years from

now is going to continue to allow them to be a major player in the space as some of these streamers creep in. But it still feels like some weird timing where you're not paying $18 million. You're paying double that and you've already secured broadcasting rights to the NFL for the next eight years. Yeah, look, nobody's worth $37.5 million a year to broadcast games, like, you know, on its value.

But having Tom Brady close some deals helps you with advertisers a lot. Like, if you are Ford or whoever, and Tom Brady can, they can get Tom Brady on the phone or Tom Brady shows up for something. That's a pretty good,

that's better than Greg Olson. So that, you know, that's where it's a win there. And at the end of the day, like the Murdox are the ones who have to sign off on this. And $375 million is a lot of money, but for them, I don't think they're not, I don't think they're not going out to dinner tonight because they go, we got to pay Tom. You know, so it doesn't. So it's kind of like not real in some regards. Sure. And I would say, there's no salary cap at Fox. Exactly. And so, and the reason they have to do that, it's not that Tom Brady is worth it. This is what it costs to get Tom Brady, right?

And you look at the future, the contracts that Patrick Mahomes is going to have over the years, if you're going to get, let's say if Mahomes wants to ever do this, what is the money you're going to need to make Mahomes want to do this? Like he's going to have to, you know, some guys want to do it. They like being in the action. They like talking about it. But if you don't have someone like that, it's just, I don't know. Like, I think it will change.

Who knows? I mean, right now, these guys are locked up for a long time. So maybe we just, the salaries keep getting higher and higher. but I think we kind of probably hit somewhat of a ceiling. The last thing I want to ask you about this front, just Olson's future in general, because I truly think he might be the less like overqualified man in America doing the job that he's currently doing, and the fact that he took a $7 million pay cut to be the number two guy at Fox.

What do we think the path forward is for him over the next few years? Because it doesn't seem like there's any clear path to a number one job. You reported, I think it was last week that Chris Collinsworth is going to be back through the end of the decade at NBC. I don't know what Kirk Curb Street's contract look like. and what looks like and what that Amazon booth could be over the next few years. But it doesn't seem like there's a clear cut kind of jump for him to make to one of those number one jobs in short order here.

Well, a couple things. Number one, I'd say this, like I say, it's the friends all the time. For jobs, there's no silver medals. So you either get the gold or you don't. And so if you, you know, if he gets silver for any of these jobs, he doesn't get the job. That said, I do think it's going to work out for, for gray goals. Number one, do you think Brady's going to do it for 10 years? If I were forced to bet, I would say no.

You know, he seems to be having fun. I will say he seems to be enjoying it more than maybe. He doesn't seem like he's miserable in the broadcast. The enthusiasm is to me is one of the biggest selling points of what he's done so far is that it feels like a genuine enjoyment sitting there and watching those games, which for somebody who's seen everything and is probably desensitized to what football looks like on the highest level, I actually think it's pretty impressive that he's maintained that level of excitement throughout this whole thing. Yeah, so I'd say, but still, that's an option.

Herbst Street has a five-year deal, so we're three years, okay. You know, I think Al wants to do it two more years. So after five years, you know, Amazon maybe is open. And so, I don't know, like, I don't want to, like, go down each one because not to be, act all important. I don't want to, like, you know, add, like, there's some speculation. with these other ones. There's no need to. The landscape in general.

I think things happen. I think it's going to work out for Greg Olson. If I'm Greg Olson, these are the names you're with right now in terms of your future. You're 37, 38 years old. Tom Brady, Tony Romo, Troy Aikman, and you're like the Chris Collinsworth of the future, right? And Peyton Manning as well. It should be in that grouping in terms of current people kind of doing it. That's pretty good for a guy who was a very good player but wasn't a Hall of Famer.

while we're on Olson, I'm curious just very quickly. As you talk to people in the industry, who do you think are some of like the rising potential stars in the NFL media space? Just people that decision makers have their eyes on right now. Yeah, I'll go to a couple that aren't actually doing it right now if they were to come out. Number one would be Mike Tomlin if he ever stopped coaching. Number two would be Sean McVeigh, who probably should have taken Amazon's $20 million a year potential offer after he won the Super Bowl, which,

first off would have been so much money. Second, he'd been working with Al Michaels, who they have a friendship already. And thirdly, he'd been the youngest coach to win a Super Bowl. He'd be able to sit back for that next job and just decide the best, you know, wait for the quarterback that he wanted and take that job. Now, that still might happen. It just was, it's not going to be now as clean, especially he has a couple of bad years. Again, you have to make choices.

But I think McVeigh might say, could I get a duo? And then, look, yeah, I, Jason McCordy is a guy who's kind of on the rise. I think Matt Ryan is someone who CBS likes a lot. There's a lot of people. You know, ESPN has a bunch of analysts that are good, that have been on the rise for a while. But, you know, ultimately the biggest jobs, you know, the names have to be there as well, generally speaking. It's not, you know, that's what they want. They don't want someone who, you know, didn't have a great career.

Yeah, the, I've really enjoyed the, I've really enjoyed the, the work that Matt Ryan has done on the studio show on CBS. I was kind of sad to lose him in the booth just because I was enjoying the work that he was doing there, but I've been really impressed with that. And I always enjoy when Jason McCordy is calling a game. So I think those two names make a lot of sense. We're going to talk about a couple more things here. But first, let's take a quick break.

A couple more quick things I wanted to hit before we got out of here. I just feel like this is something that you're perfectly in a position to shine some light on where we're at with this. Because it seems like it's going away a little bit. Can you just like I'm five years old, explain to me what is the current state? of the Sunday ticket antitrust lawsuit because I was hearing about it daily for like a month and then obviously it's in a state now

where it's on the back burner a little bit but what is actually happening with that right now? Well, I mean, it's an appeal and so it is on the back burner at the moment. So, you know, it's a pretty significant, you know, it was going to be billions

and billions and billions of dollars that the NFL is going to owe. And it's like, nope, never mind. So, yeah, could it, could it, you know, the NFL just, I'm not saying the best lawyers always win in these things, but they have very good lawyers. They have endless money, and they can go forever.

You know, one of the things that, you know, the move is to just keep it in the courts for as long as you can because they're just not going to run out of money. Now, sometimes it's not worth it if you're going to lose, ultimately. The NFL is confident they could get overturned. They did. And so I wouldn't be, like, you know, the story will come back. but I don't know.

I'm never optimistic. The last thing I wanted to ask you, you talk about this in a segment on your podcast every single episode, and I wanted to ask it specifically about the NFL, just what you think the future of sports media looks like through an NFL's kind of lens. So as you're looking at NFL broadcasting over the next 5, 10, 15 years, because I know that's the lens that you have to kind of see this stuff through,

what is the biggest question on your mind about what that looks like? Where streaming comes in, I think. I do think it's a little bit the contracts are set for the end of this decade, right? So it's not like anybody has to be thinking about. You know, on Sundays, it's CBS and Fox, and then you could have Red Zone or Sunday ticket for diehards and NBC at night.

I mean, that's not changing until at the earliest 2030. And if I were to bet, I would say it doesn't change then that they just get more money and extends even further, at least at this point. then things are moving fast. So who knows exactly? But then, you know,

where are we going? I mean, the NFL has so much power because they can make a move that can change the media, right? Like, if they had decided to, they could have said,

Apple give us whatever, it was 110 billion, give us $220 billion, and we'll go with you for the next 11 years and you'll have every game. I don't know if that would make sense for Apple, probably wouldn't.

But, because there's so, powerful already. They don't need that. But let's say they did, that would basically end the networks, right? The broadcast networks, because football is what's driving those places. Sports is what's driving those places and news.

Nobody watches, not nobody, but nobody under 60 basically goes Thursday at 9, that's the show I watch, right? You like, nobody, you stream it, you do it, they're just like, that's not how people, young people, middle age people really think. I mean, again,

And not totally exclusive to that, but basically. And so I think that's the biggest thing, though. So when do the streamers and how big do the streamers want to be in? I mean, that's another big question. Like, I think, you know, Amazon wants to shop for the big time events. So they like that exclusive Thursday night. Could they want Monday night? Sure.

Could they want playoff games? Yeah. Do they want all these games, all this inventory? I don't think that's really their business model. And I don't see at this point that being any of the big streamers, your new players in the NFL game, it doesn't seem like that's their endpoint, at least at this point. So do the broadcast TV networks and ESPN survive for a long time? They very well could.

It's going to be fascinating. I can't wait to see who owns Tuesday night football in 2029 because it really does feel like we're trending in that direction. Andrew Marchand, sincerely appreciate the time and the insight and the perspective. We'll talk to you soon. Great, thank you. All right, guys, that's all we got for episode two of the Money Down. Thank you so much to Andrew for his time. And thank you to you guys for listening.

We'll be back with our third episode next Saturday. This one is going to be with Earl Buddy Brad Spielberger, formerly of PFF, now with Grand Central Sports Marketing. He's going to be talking to us about the state of quarterback contracts in the NFL. How harder are they to actually work around? Why don't we see more teams willing to move on from some of these big deals? And whether we've found a pocket of MRAs. NFL quarterback contracts previously undiscovered that might be an alternative route for some teams to start taking.

Until then, sincerely appreciate you guys listening. We'll be back to our regularly scheduled programming on Sunday night into Monday with Derek recapping week 12 in the NFL.