My guess would be it’s some sort of back end incentive based deal that may payout greatly if they hit numbers, but that is just a guessGregParks wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 1:17 pmTo add to this, there was additional reporting by The Athletic at the time that said something to the effect of "this ownership group won't move a muscle until they have a significant rights deal." They've definitely made it clear that was their plan.laxtreme56 wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 1:04 pm Danny Garcia went on record stating they were seeking a substantial rights fee, and RedBird was even rumored to drop the whole thing for a brief period of time before going "all in." I can't say with certainty there's a rights fee, but just based on the previous words and actions of this ownership, I don't believe they'd go forward if this deal was reminiscent of XFL 2.0. Perhaps it's something like $10 million up front, $20 million if they average 2 million viewers, $30 million for 2.5, etc. etc. Even if it's a 50-50 split that's still better than XFL 2.0 deal and exactly what NBC was doing with the NHL their first few years of broadcasts.
IF the XFL is not getting a substantial rights fee, the biggest question is: Why tie yourself to that deal for five years? It's the question I asked in my column that was posted late last night. If you're the XFL and you're not getting any rights fees (or a miniscule amount), wouldn't you want a short-term, prove-it deal to show that your league is sustainable, then cash in after two or three years? Unless perhaps the Disney deal is something like, no money in the first few years but the network can pick up the option after two or three years and when that kicks in, there's money in the back-end of the deal? I don't know.
XFL Football discussion.