The extended conversation around the NCAA women’s basketball tournament is proof of two things. One: manufactured controversy, such as the discussion around LSU’s Angel Reese and Iowa’s Caitlin Clark, has a long shelf life. Two: there is an untapped potential of investing in women’s sports that is finally becoming realized. The viewership records may have been a result of dynamic play from a handful of players and teams, but the rising tide continues to lift all boats for women’s college basketball.
The NCAA, continually seeking to reap in millions of dollars from the labor of student-athletes, has an important decision to make this fall on whether it will aim to negotiate a separate deal for the women’s tournament or keep it under its current arrangement along with other low- and no-revenue sports. In the likelihood that the NCAA has discovered a new cash cow to milk, here are the pros and cons for the media companies it will likely speak with once the deal with ESPN expires in 2024.
The Challenged Incumbent: ESPN
ESPN has plenty of reasons to hold onto the tournament, starting with the slightly cynical fact that it’s great PR to stick with the sport that it helped grow over the years. Granted, it had to be dragged kicking and screaming at times to move from years of heavy focus on UConn, but there’s no question that the on-air teams are among some of the biggest advocates for women’s basketball in the country. With increased sponsorship dollars on top of historically great viewership this past season, there’s arguably no greater benefactor to the growth of women’s basketball than ESPN.
The belt tightening that’s happening throughout Disney could have an impact on future rights negotiations in the short run, however. Under new president Charlie Baker, who is now on record saying that it’s time to spin out the women’s tournament for its own media rights, the NCAA will certainly ask for a significant raise. ESPN made millions thanks to the popularity (and controversy) of the game itself and invested wisely, yet those decisions were made based on a relatively cheap deal. Whether it makes the same decisions while having to pay the NCAA more is a fair question, a question that can feel weightier considering the challenging economic conditions.
That said, broadcasting deals of this size and scope last for several seasons and at least one economic downturn.
The Darkhorse: Scripps Sports
As a newer entrant into the national sports media market, Scripps has a massive advantage that the predominantly cable-based networks don’t: a broadcast footprint through ION Television. ION calls itself a hybrid network with owned-and-operated over-the-air affiliates in most markets and cable distribution in others. That alone means there’s greater potential for tournament games to be on free television than currently with ESPN/ABC. In addition, some of the Scripps affiliates (those previously unaffiliated with ION) have a history with sports rights on a local level, which has also made it an attractive option for teams embroiled in the issues with Diamond/Bally Sports. The affiliates are largely devoid of live programming, especially on weekends when the actual tournament games are played.
If there’s one drawback for Scripps, it’s being new on the national scene. As mentioned recently by Front Office Sports, the organization hired Endeavor to review its media package and if there’s anything the agency/live events company does well, it’s push for every single dollar available. Would Scripps be compelled to pay a premium just to prove itself as a major player in sports TV?
A second concern would be that Scripps doesn’t have the massive bundle of cable channels to use for additional live programming. That matters because in the first weekend of the tournament, it won’t be able to broadcast all 32 first round and 16 second round games solely on ION. Scripps would have to either utilize Court TV and Bounce TV (which don’t have the scale as other major cable networks) or partner with another company for all games to be shown.
Scripps has already declared its intention to talk with the National Women’s Soccer League (NWSL), which has an expiring media deal this year. Assuming they’d succeed in landing the league, adding the tournament would be the company’s way of claiming a huge stake in women’s sports. But even for the handful of days March Madness takes place, Scripps needs to further build its infrastructure for the games to have close to the reach they currently have with ESPN/ABC.
Worth Considering: Comcast (NBC Sports)
Two months ago on this site, I mentioned how Comcast could be interested in a reunion of the NBA with NBC, breaking down some of the pros and cons of having the network reacquire rights after walking away from the league in 2002. (Comcast confirmed interest not much long afterwards.) To sum up that piece, it says that the infrastructure to take on the NBA is there, from the over-the-air component of NBC to the cable networks such as USA and Bravo to the streaming option of Peacock. In terms of scale, no other sports broadcaster outside of ESPN can boast that type of scale and potential programming availability.
Ideally, this would be a great partner if the NCAA is going to spin the women’s tourney out of ESPN as NBC would have the scheduling room to broadcast and promote the games across multiple channels. Sunsetting NBC Sports Network was done to shift resources towards Peacock two-plus years ago, but NBC Sports has always used its sister entertainment channels for spillover live programming.
However, NBC hasn’t committed to increasing college basketball coverage on linear TV just yet, regardless of gender. Though it broadcasted a women’s game for the first time this season (Notre Dame vs. Cal back in November), the only games on the linear networks are Atlantic 10 men’s hoops on USA. With its massive commitment to the Premier League, those matches are going on at the same time as March Madness, making it unlikely that Comcast would bump the former for the latter.
Should, Could, But Probably Won’t: FOX Sports
FOX, with the over-the-air channel, FS1, FS2 and the Big Ten Network, has long served as a broadcaster for college basketball. It’s currently the home of the Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac 12 and Mountain West conferences. For the first time this past season, FOX showcased select Big Ten women’s basketball games on the broadcast network. All of this is to say that outside of ESPN and CBS, no other group is more invested in college sports than FOX, and its experience with the sport is something that stakeholders in the women’s game can greatly appreciate.
However, since winning the rights to FIFA’s World Cup (for both the men and women), FOX hasn’t shown a huge appetite for adding any other major live sporting events. Main FOX is fairly crowded as is between the sports it already has rights to and its popular scripted and unscripted fare — believe it or not, legacy networks try to avoid tinkering with the Sunday primetime window if they have strong performing shows. Though it would be a desperately needed shot in the arm for FS1 and FS2, the smaller reach compared to incumbent ESPN and its own secondary channels would not satiate the growing fan base.
Perhaps if the Women’s World Cup lifts those channels much like the men’s event had done in December — for uniquely different reasons, to be fair — that would intrigue the NCAA a bit more as further proof that other media companies will support women’s sports.
Low Probability: The standalone streamers (Apple TV+, Prime Video)
Desperate for tentpole programming that will drive subscriptions or provide value-adds for their current users, Apple TV+ and Amazon’s Prime Video have been mentioned in plenty of speculation around rights deals (this site included). They have each added deals from major men’s pro leagues – Apple TV+ with MLS and Major League Baseball, Prime Video with the NFL’s Thursday Night Football — but neither have notable agreements with college sports just yet, though both are rumored to have spoken with the Pac-12 about the conference’s future rights. Amazon does have a bit of experience with women’s sports: it has held the rights to the WNBA’s Commissioner Cup Final since the in-season tournament’s inception in 2021.
There are two significant roadblocks for the streamers if they are considering the women’s tournament, though these are applicable to all sports leagues and events under consideration. For starters, if the NCAA is trying to strike while the iron is hot, then moving the tourney from ESPN’s wider distribution to the walled gardens of these exclusive streamers immediately means the loss of millions of current and potential viewers. There’s a difference between sharing then eventually purchasing exclusive rights to the least viewed NFL regular season window every week as ‘an experiment’ as Amazon has with TNF and taking a sport’s premier showcase and asking people who are still joining the bandwagon to fork over extra money.
The second issue is related: measurement of live sports on the streamers is still a hot topic among those in the know. The open debate on how TNF really performed this past season is a shining example as what Nielsen reported generally differed from what Amazon/the NFL reported. The measurement debate has raged for years for the legacy networks, so that it’s unsettled with streamers doesn’t bode well for anyone. Advertisers seeking involvement with the women’s game want to see if their investments are worthwhile, and without metrics everyone can agree on, they’ll be hesitant to put their money with these standalone streamers.
Nope: Paramount (CBS Sports) and Warner Bros Discovery (Turner)
Quite simply, having the men’s tournament makes the logistics and finances impossible.
