ESPN last week “agreed to pay out full contracts" for employees it laid off, which in some cases “lasted more than five years,” according to John Ourand in this week’s SPORTSBUSINESS JOURNAL. Several reporters “offered to continue working through their contracts without incurring expenses, but they were told they couldn’t.” Talent that had contracts were told that they were “still employees of ESPN on payroll, but they no longer worked for the company.” Many have “non-compete clauses in their deals, which means they can’t report their beats, even on social media, until their contracts end or they are released.” They would “have to report on entirely different beats than the ones they spent years developing at ESPN” (SPORTSBUSINESS JOURNAL, 5/1 issue). Former ESPN NFL reporter Ed Werder discussed some of the terms of his dismissal in his recent podcast (THE DAILY). Author James Andrew Miller, appearing yesterday on the "SI Media Podcast," said of the layoffs, "These are not buyouts. ... What they're saying to these people is, 'Look, we're going to sideline you. You’re not going to have to work and we’re going to keep on paying you, but if you go get a job, we’re going to release you, but we’re not going to have to pay you the rest of the contract.’ So they’re betting and they’re hoping that these people are going to get other jobs.” Miller said ESPN's message to many of those laid off is "go get a job, because the sooner you get off our payroll, the better" ("SI Media Podcast," SI.com, 5/1).
CHANGING THE FACE OF ESPN: Miller added ESPN with its recent layoffs has in "some ways cut off their nose to spite their face, because they’re really talking about important people who were able to give the audience and people on the web real detailed, deep background on certain sports.” He said of the skill level of some of the dismissed on-air personalities, "That was a level of expertise that the network had, that people were brought to, and they were attracted to, and now they’re not going to have that." He added the NHL and MLB “better look at this list” of who was laid off and “understand what that means in terms of ESPN’s coverage of their sport, because it’s greatly diminished.” Podcast host Richard Deitsch also noted the departure of so much staff "dramatically" changes ESPN, "certainly internally." Deitsch said the cuts among basketball reporters was "absolutely outrageous.” He also said of the big cuts to the ESPN NHL reporting staff, "The honest thing would just be to come out -- and they’re never going to do this of course -- and say, 'We don’t believe we can make money on hockey. We have basically eliminated anyone who breaks news online in hockey.'" Miller noted ESPN "way overreacted to Fox/FS1 getting into cable sports," as it "caused them to make a lot of talent deals at prices they wouldn’t have done and it also made them much more ready to spend dollars” on rights fees ("SI Media Podcast," SI.com, 5/1).
ERROR ON THE PLAY: Former ESPN MLB personality Peter Gammons said of the reduced presence of "Baseball Tonight" on the net as part of the recent layoffs, "I can honestly say it breaks my heart. I was on the very first 'Baseball Tonight' in 1990. I helped lay out what the show was gonna be and I was very fortunate to be their first print person. And then some of the people that were let go. ... Jayson Stark is my oldest friend in the business. ... I called him last week and we both broke down. ... Eddie Vedder and his manager [on Saturday at the Hot Stove, Cool Music event in Boston] both said, ‘How could they fire Jayson Stark?’ OK, Jayson is good enough for Eddie Vedder, but not ESPN? ... Do the personnel running ESPN.com actually read anything? My answer, obviously, is no" (Saradev Sharma, THEATHLETIC.com, 5/2).
DROP IN THE BUCKET: SI.com's Andy Staples wrote the salaries of the staffers cut loose "won’t make much of a dent in the bigger problem" for ESPN. The excess from a "better-than-expected opening night" for "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2" might "equal the amount parent company Disney will save on those salaries." However, Disney had to show shareholders it was "serious about cutting costs" at ESPN, so it "cut people loose" (SI.com, 5/1). BLOOMBERG NEWS' Joe Nocera wrote the cost savings are "chump change, and have served mainly to show ESPN's overlords at Disney that it is serious about righting the ship." But it is a "pipe dream to think that ESPN will ever make the kind of profits [$6.4B in '14] that it once did." The internet has "shined a light on the flaws of the cable model and exploited them." Nocera: "What was the main flaw of the cable model? It was that consumers had to pay for channels they never watched. And now they don’t." Sports highlights also have "become ubiquitous online." ESPN has "responded by moving away from sports reporting and toward opinion" (BLOOMBERG NEWS, 4/28).
LASTING LEGACY? MEDIUM's Kerith Burke wrote ESPN is sports TV's "giant," and "when the giant crumbles, it feels like the whole industry is turning into dust" (MEDIUM.com, 5/1). In Daytona, Ken Willis writes it is "our nature" to criticize ESPN for the layoffs, but "if you’re among those who don’t mind a healthy choice of televised ballgames on any given night, ESPN deserves a little bit of gratitude for its major role in the sporting saturation of recent decades" (Daytona Beach NEWS-JOURNAL, 5/2). In Birmingham, John Talty wrote the major question is "what happens when ESPN and other TV networks decide they don't want to keep upping the ante each time a rights deal comes up for renewal?" Talty: "Just look to Conference USA for how that could play out." No conference has been "impacted worse by the ramifications of television money" than C-USA. The loss of significant revenue as costs "continue to rise through cost of attendance and other measures has made it difficult for CUSA schools to be competitive nationally." If ESPN continues to lose subscribers at its current rate, it "might have no choice but to pass on expensive college rights" (AL.com, 5/1).
