Why isn't viewing the Olympics free?

The Game Room
1

It’s athletics so is monetized similarly. Peacock get’s their days, Disney gets theirs, NBC a few so each get to call themselves ‘Home of the Olympics’ and sell ad time on their allotted days.

But these are not sports. These people are funded by tax payers to represent all of us against other nations. It’s soft power, it’s a PR move, it’s actually advertising itself. Why isn’t it readily available and free for it to have an affect on us like it’s supposed too? Why aren’t these events running on every channel in real time all day so we as a nation can experience SOMETHING together as one people be it success or failure.

Could you imagine sitting in your living room in July 16th, 1969 and you can only witness the First Moon Landing if you have the Disney Plus package.

“We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard , because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which will require a credit card, sign in password and monthly fee.”

2

Really simple: because the Olympics are a business. NBC has paid a crap-ton of money to the IOC for exclusive U.S. broadcast rights for the games.

And, one of the annoyances of how sports on television works now is how fractionalized it’s gotten. In 1969, everything was on free, over-the-air television. By the 1980s, some sports started to move onto cable TV, so you needed a subscription. And, now, with streaming channels, you may need multiple subscriptions just to see the sports you want.

3

NBC, as a broadcast network, is available for free. But they have many events on paid networks and on their streaming service because they paid billions for the rights.

4

I wasn’t aware you could watch everything on NBC, thought they only had a few days in the middle but I can’t find the schedule. We’re in the middle of this and stuff is getting shuffled around so maybe the IT guys at NBC are not on it.

If you can see everything for free at some point I will be significantly less salty.

5

Of course you can’t watch everything on NBC. There are only 24 hours in a day and there are events going on simultaneously throughout the duration.

And this is wrong as well. Disney, not being part of the Comcast/NBC Universal family of companies, doesn’t have any of the rights. And Peacock is the streaming service of NBC Universal so it doesn’t have rights separate from NBC.

6

That sounds like a terrible idea. Some of us have absolutely no interest in these games and would like to watch our regular TV shows.

7

This is the answer. When I was a kid, I remember distinctly being given an idealized version of the Olympic games that were all about international harmony, but it’s really just a business. And a corrupt business at that. The IOC is going to do whatever they can to line their pockets.

8

Well a big chunk of the American broadcast rights money goes to staging the games, building the facilities, and for other associated costs.

9

Alas, this is not the case. NBC, as an entity, has the exclusive US broadcast rights to the Olympics, but only a small fraction of their total coverage is on the “free” over-the-air NBC network (i.e., your local NBC affiliate). Much of the rest is on Peacock and their other cable/streaming services, and are not “free.”

10

In the UK various events like the Olympics are required to be available on free-to-view TV:

But how that affects the financing of rights payments, I don’t know

11

I’m not sure where you live - I assume the US since you mention NBC. Everything I’ve ever seen indicates that the US taxpayers do not fund its Olympic team, unlike pretty much every other participating country. They’re are funded by donations to the USOPC Team USA fund.

12

Exactly. The U.S. Olympic team does not receive any public/taxpayer funding. The USOC is privately funded, and many U.S. Olympic athletes rely on their own funding to pay for training.

13

I thought that the host city was on the hook for that.

14

OK, then grouchy hat back on.

That’s dumb and serves no useful purpose to our nation. The Olympics has a purpose and if it is not viewed by everyone, particularly the poorest, then it is not serving it’s purpose. Like purchasing a street cleaner with town funds to clean a road only 10% of people are allowed to drive on.

15

Again, U.S. taxpayers don’t pay a dime for the Olympics. It’s a professional sporting event, even though the athletes are “competing for their country,” and some people may feel loyalty or patriotism for them, due to this.

The original “purpose” of the Olympic Games has, for a long time now, been dwarfed by financial interests.

16

And I am sure it was donated with the intent to generate wealth for television executives.

17

And to generate wealth for the sponsoring companies, which can advertise that they are the “Official [whatever] of the U.S. Olympic Team.”

18

The poorest citizens are not the target demographics of Olympic advertisers.

19

No , it was donated with the intent to support the athletes. Who need that support to be able to compete even if no TV/streaming entity chose to pay for the rights. Do you object to professional sports selling broadcast rights or only the Olympics?

20

Agree. And thinking about how lopsided the whole thing is - the networks invest a ton of money and resources to show to their select audiences (not to mention advertizing revenue) events like the men’s gymnastics final, but those 5 guys on the USA team had to get to that point pretty much all on their own. Do the networks contribute anything to any sport, so they will have something good to cover?

Yeah, if our tax money supported the teams directly, the OP may have a case for allowing free viewing.