Will there be a day when I can just order ESPN? (1 Viewer)

[Joe T]

I know the internets and Google solve a lot of issues with poor customer service, but will we see a day soon when I can pick up the phone and order ESPN for the 4 or 5 months of football season and then cancel at the end of the season?

I just ordered ESPN through a cable provider, but I now I also get a bunch of other channels that I have no use for. I'd like to see a day when I can order just the channels or channel I want.

Can that happen soon?

 

[culdeus]

no

 

[Joe T]

no

I think you are a bit pessimistic here.

 

[Fennis]

yes

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Maybe

 

[Long Ball Larry]

ask again later

 

[NewlyRetired]

Read these articles for reasons why it won't happen

A la carte TV pricing would cost industry billions, report says

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-a-la-carte-pricing-would-cost-billions-of-dollars-20131204-story.html

A la Carte Cable TV Could Cost Consumers More

http://www.thestreet.com/story/12459069/1/a-la-carte-cable-tv-could-cost-consumers-more.html

 

[culdeus]

Just look at the Dodgers TV package to see how this is NEVER going to happen.

They would take sports off the air before going to an al-a-carte model.

Dodgers TV by all accounts has only 100,000 people that watch more than 9 innings of baseball a week in the regional LA area.

My rangers had last year less than 40,000 people watching 9 innings a week. That's not one game, that's one game spread out over an entire week.

It's just a stunningly low number that nobody talks about.

But how did the Dodgers get a 6 Billion dollar payout? It's from the millions and millions of people that don't watch baseball and don't even know what channel it's on. (Yes, for the moment I realize there are lawsuits around this and the details might change, but work with me)

So who in power is going to kill this golden goose and allow al-a-carte buy-in?

 

[Joe T]

So who in power is going to kill this golden goose and allow al-a-carte buy-in?

The same people that killed Blockbuster, record stores, Barnes and Noble, and other antiquated business models?

 

[culdeus]

So who in power is going to kill this golden goose and allow al-a-carte buy-in?

The same people that killed Blockbuster, record stores, Barnes and Noble, and other antiquated business models?

MLB would shut it doors before changing, much like blockbuster, because that's what would have to happen.

 

[Dentist]

Just look at the Dodgers TV package to see how this is NEVER going to happen.

They would take sports off the air before going to an al-a-carte model.

Dodgers TV by all accounts has only 100,000 people that watch more than 9 innings of baseball a week in the regional LA area.

My rangers had last year less than 40,000 people watching 9 innings a week. That's not one game, that's one game spread out over an entire week.

It's just a stunningly low number that nobody talks about.

But how did the Dodgers get a 6 Billion dollar payout? It's from the millions and millions of people that don't watch baseball and don't even know what channel it's on. (Yes, for the moment I realize there are lawsuits around this and the details might change, but work with me)

So who in power is going to kill this golden goose and allow al-a-carte buy-in?

We would all probably end up spending just as much or more just to buy a-la carte than we do with the current system that is in place.

What we should be afraid of is people who have zero interest in live sports wising up and realizing there is absolutely no reason that they should be paying for an entire cable suite when between the over-the-air TV + netflix/Hulu (and maybe some creative torrenting) they can have most of what they would need to be satisfied.

 

[GoFishTN]

Read these articles for reasons why it won't happen

A la carte TV pricing would cost industry billions, report says

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-a-la-carte-pricing-would-cost-billions-of-dollars-20131204-story.html

A la Carte Cable TV Could Cost Consumers More

http://www.thestreet.com/story/12459069/1/a-la-carte-cable-tv-could-cost-consumers-more.html

It has everything to do with the first article and nothing to do with the second.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Just look at the Dodgers TV package to see how this is NEVER going to happen.

They would take sports off the air before going to an al-a-carte model.

Dodgers TV by all accounts has only 100,000 people that watch more than 9 innings of baseball a week in the regional LA area.

My rangers had last year less than 40,000 people watching 9 innings a week. That's not one game, that's one game spread out over an entire week.

It's just a stunningly low number that nobody talks about.

But how did the Dodgers get a 6 Billion dollar payout? It's from the millions and millions of people that don't watch baseball and don't even know what channel it's on. (Yes, for the moment I realize there are lawsuits around this and the details might change, but work with me)

So who in power is going to kill this golden goose and allow al-a-carte buy-in?

We would all probably end up spending just as much or more just to buy a-la carte than we do with the current system that is in place.

What we should be afraid of is people who have zero interest in live sports wising up and realizing there is absolutely no reason that they should be paying for an entire cable suite when between the over-the-air TV + netflix/Hulu (and maybe some creative torrenting) they can have most of what they would need to be satisfied.

Or sports people who cut cable but use MLB.tv, NBA League Pass, Center Ice package, etc.

Cut my monthly tv costs by about $70~ a month and still get the sports I want.

 

[Osaurus]

Stream on XBMC.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

Just look at the Dodgers TV package to see how this is NEVER going to happen.

They would take sports off the air before going to an al-a-carte model.

Dodgers TV by all accounts has only 100,000 people that watch more than 9 innings of baseball a week in the regional LA area.

My rangers had last year less than 40,000 people watching 9 innings a week. That's not one game, that's one game spread out over an entire week.

It's just a stunningly low number that nobody talks about.

But how did the Dodgers get a 6 Billion dollar payout? It's from the millions and millions of people that don't watch baseball and don't even know what channel it's on. (Yes, for the moment I realize there are lawsuits around this and the details might change, but work with me)

So who in power is going to kill this golden goose and allow al-a-carte buy-in?

We would all probably end up spending just as much or more just to buy a-la carte than we do with the current system that is in place.

What we should be afraid of is people who have zero interest in live sports wising up and realizing there is absolutely no reason that they should be paying for an entire cable suite when between the over-the-air TV + netflix/Hulu (and maybe some creative torrenting) they can have most of what they would need to be satisfied.

Or sports people who cut cable but use MLB.tv, NBA League Pass, Center Ice package, etc.

Cut my monthly tv costs by about $70~ a month and still get the sports I want.

You're out-of-market of your "home" teams, though, right? The local blackouts on those packages are still a challenge.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Just look at the Dodgers TV package to see how this is NEVER going to happen.

They would take sports off the air before going to an al-a-carte model.

Dodgers TV by all accounts has only 100,000 people that watch more than 9 innings of baseball a week in the regional LA area.

My rangers had last year less than 40,000 people watching 9 innings a week. That's not one game, that's one game spread out over an entire week.

It's just a stunningly low number that nobody talks about.

But how did the Dodgers get a 6 Billion dollar payout? It's from the millions and millions of people that don't watch baseball and don't even know what channel it's on. (Yes, for the moment I realize there are lawsuits around this and the details might change, but work with me)

So who in power is going to kill this golden goose and allow al-a-carte buy-in?

We would all probably end up spending just as much or more just to buy a-la carte than we do with the current system that is in place.

What we should be afraid of is people who have zero interest in live sports wising up and realizing there is absolutely no reason that they should be paying for an entire cable suite when between the over-the-air TV + netflix/Hulu (and maybe some creative torrenting) they can have most of what they would need to be satisfied.

Or sports people who cut cable but use MLB.tv, NBA League Pass, Center Ice package, etc.

Cut my monthly tv costs by about $70~ a month and still get the sports I want.

You're out-of-market of your "home" teams, though, right? The local blackouts on those packages are still a challenge.

http://www.unblock-us.com/

$5 a month. Works like a charm.

 

[Dentist]

Just look at the Dodgers TV package to see how this is NEVER going to happen.

They would take sports off the air before going to an al-a-carte model.

Dodgers TV by all accounts has only 100,000 people that watch more than 9 innings of baseball a week in the regional LA area.

My rangers had last year less than 40,000 people watching 9 innings a week. That's not one game, that's one game spread out over an entire week.

It's just a stunningly low number that nobody talks about.

But how did the Dodgers get a 6 Billion dollar payout? It's from the millions and millions of people that don't watch baseball and don't even know what channel it's on. (Yes, for the moment I realize there are lawsuits around this and the details might change, but work with me)

So who in power is going to kill this golden goose and allow al-a-carte buy-in?

We would all probably end up spending just as much or more just to buy a-la carte than we do with the current system that is in place.

What we should be afraid of is people who have zero interest in live sports wising up and realizing there is absolutely no reason that they should be paying for an entire cable suite when between the over-the-air TV + netflix/Hulu (and maybe some creative torrenting) they can have most of what they would need to be satisfied.

Or sports people who cut cable but use MLB.tv, NBA League Pass, Center Ice package, etc.

Cut my monthly tv costs by about $70~ a month and still get the sports I want.

this doesn't work when you live in the same cities as your team, and you like the NFL, and the ATP

 

[Brady Marino]

Just look at the Dodgers TV package to see how this is NEVER going to happen.

They would take sports off the air before going to an al-a-carte model.

Dodgers TV by all accounts has only 100,000 people that watch more than 9 innings of baseball a week in the regional LA area.

My rangers had last year less than 40,000 people watching 9 innings a week. That's not one game, that's one game spread out over an entire week.

It's just a stunningly low number that nobody talks about.

But how did the Dodgers get a 6 Billion dollar payout? It's from the millions and millions of people that don't watch baseball and don't even know what channel it's on. (Yes, for the moment I realize there are lawsuits around this and the details might change, but work with me)

So who in power is going to kill this golden goose and allow al-a-carte buy-in?

We would all probably end up spending just as much or more just to buy a-la carte than we do with the current system that is in place.

What we should be afraid of is people who have zero interest in live sports wising up and realizing there is absolutely no reason that they should be paying for an entire cable suite when between the over-the-air TV + netflix/Hulu (and maybe some creative torrenting) they can have most of what they would need to be satisfied.

Or sports people who cut cable but use MLB.tv, NBA League Pass, Center Ice package, etc.

Cut my monthly tv costs by about $70~ a month and still get the sports I want.

You're out-of-market of your "home" teams, though, right? The local blackouts on those packages are still a challenge.

http://www.unblock-us.com/

$5 a month. Works like a charm.

This.

There is also a first option in a row of sports streaming options.

 

[Dentist]

Just look at the Dodgers TV package to see how this is NEVER going to happen.

They would take sports off the air before going to an al-a-carte model.

Dodgers TV by all accounts has only 100,000 people that watch more than 9 innings of baseball a week in the regional LA area.

My rangers had last year less than 40,000 people watching 9 innings a week. That's not one game, that's one game spread out over an entire week.

It's just a stunningly low number that nobody talks about.

But how did the Dodgers get a 6 Billion dollar payout? It's from the millions and millions of people that don't watch baseball and don't even know what channel it's on. (Yes, for the moment I realize there are lawsuits around this and the details might change, but work with me)

So who in power is going to kill this golden goose and allow al-a-carte buy-in?

We would all probably end up spending just as much or more just to buy a-la carte than we do with the current system that is in place.

What we should be afraid of is people who have zero interest in live sports wising up and realizing there is absolutely no reason that they should be paying for an entire cable suite when between the over-the-air TV + netflix/Hulu (and maybe some creative torrenting) they can have most of what they would need to be satisfied.

Or sports people who cut cable but use MLB.tv, NBA League Pass, Center Ice package, etc.

Cut my monthly tv costs by about $70~ a month and still get the sports I want.

You're out-of-market of your "home" teams, though, right? The local blackouts on those packages are still a challenge.

http://www.unblock-us.com/

$5 a month. Works like a charm.

This.

There is also a first option in a row of sports streaming options.

I do enjoy sitting in the front row of sporting events, so i'll definitely be checking this out

 

[Cliff Clavin]

this doesn't work when you live in the same cities as your team, and you like the NFL, and the ATP

See post above for local teams.

For NFL, it is going to be illegal streams until they'll accept my money for an online package.

I have no interest in watching Tennis but there seems to be services available. No idea how legit they are.

ETA: And it looks like I can get NFL GamePass to get all the games for $220. Available to people outside of the US.

Using the service above (unblock-us) you could do this from the US.

 

[Craig_MiamiFL]

You can stream online NFL Network live + NFL Ticket Max (includes RZ) for not much more than last year's Madden deal. Directv online NFL Sunday Ticket isnt the only game in town that you can see every touchdown pass

There's also the option for sports noted in previous posts.

 

[Brady Marino]

Having gotten the Madden NFL Sunday Ticket online package last year, I can tell you that I still watched illegal streams because the service was sketchy for the first couple weeks.

 

[pollardsvision]

Maybe. And when that day comes, your internet access will cost you $300 a month.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Maybe. And when that day comes, your internet access will cost you $300 a month.

And when that day comes Google will make the internet free.

 

[Dentist]

Having gotten the Madden NFL Sunday Ticket online package last year, I can tell you that I still watched illegal streams because the service was sketchy for the first couple weeks.

are illegal streams of high enough quality that it's better than either listening to the radio or just not watching at all?

 

[Premier]

Maybe. And when that day comes, your internet access will cost you $300 a month.

Not sure about this, but paying for ESPN only would cost likely 80-90 bucks a month.

So no you'll never ever ever be able to just order ESPN for 6 bucks a month.

 

[Premier]

Having gotten the Madden NFL Sunday Ticket online package last year, I can tell you that I still watched illegal streams because the service was sketchy for the first couple weeks.

are illegal streams of high enough quality that it's better than either listening to the radio or just not watching at all?

#### no.

All the people on this forum who crow about their illegal streams always fail to mention that the telecast they are watching looks like a broadcast from 1997. It's horrid.

 

[Dentist]

Having gotten the Madden NFL Sunday Ticket online package last year, I can tell you that I still watched illegal streams because the service was sketchy for the first couple weeks.

are illegal streams of high enough quality that it's better than either listening to the radio or just not watching at all?

#### no.

All the people on this forum who crow about their illegal streams always fail to mention that the telecast they are watching looks like a broadcast from 1997. It's horrid.

yeah.. that's about what i thought.. not to mention the virus risk and the endless ads on the sides of the screen.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

can I just pay for the live sports coverage on ESPN and blackout all the Skip Bayless and Stephen A Smith talking head shows?

 

[GoFishTN]

Maybe. And when that day comes, your internet access will cost you $300 a month.

Not sure about this, but paying for ESPN only would cost likely 80-90 bucks a month.

So no you'll never ever ever be able to just order ESPN for 6 bucks a month.

This article says ESPN has 100 million subscribers and the average price per person is $5.06. If we assume that is correct, and that other reports stating ESPN has around 75 million viewers are also correct, the cost would be about $7 to maintain that same revenue level, if all 75 million subscribed.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Having gotten the Madden NFL Sunday Ticket online package last year, I can tell you that I still watched illegal streams because the service was sketchy for the first couple weeks.

are illegal streams of high enough quality that it's better than either listening to the radio or just not watching at all?

#### no.

All the people on this forum who crow about their illegal streams always fail to mention that the telecast they are watching looks like a broadcast from 1997. It's horrid.

yeah.. that's about what i thought.. not to mention the virus risk and the endless ads on the sides of the screen.

There really isn't a need to watch the illegal streams any more; you just need to use a DNS service.

NFL: GamePass

NBA: League Pass

NHL: Center Ice

MLB: MLB.tv

The only problem is that you don't get the playoff games in some of the packages so you have to activate cable for a month or two for for those.

 

[cstu]

http://www.unblock-us.com/

$5 a month. Works like a charm.

This.There is also a first option in a row of sports streaming options.

I went to that link but only got audio and it wanted me to install "hd_video.exe", which looks like malware.

 

[Politician Spock]

Sports is the only significant reason to pay for cable/satellite anymore.

All the other non sports reasons are niche situations that make up a minority of the population. As the majority of the populace begins to wake up to this, cable/satellite is going to pass on the costs to the sports fans who have to stick with them.

Sorry about your luck, but someone has to pay for all those multi-million dollar salaries and soon it ain't gonna be the fans of Project Runway paying for it anymore.

 

[Dentist]

Having gotten the Madden NFL Sunday Ticket online package last year, I can tell you that I still watched illegal streams because the service was sketchy for the first couple weeks.

are illegal streams of high enough quality that it's better than either listening to the radio or just not watching at all?

#### no.

All the people on this forum who crow about their illegal streams always fail to mention that the telecast they are watching looks like a broadcast from 1997. It's horrid.

yeah.. that's about what i thought.. not to mention the virus risk and the endless ads on the sides of the screen.

There really isn't a need to watch the illegal streams any more; you just need to use a DNS service.

NFL: GamePass

NBA: League Pass

NHL: Center Ice

MLB: MLB.tv

The only problem is that you don't get the playoff games in some of the packages so you have to activate cable for a month or two for for those.

many playoff games in the NFL are over-the-air

with the NBA or MLB you'd have a problem

 

[Dentist]

Sports is the only significant reason to pay for cable/satellite anymore.

All the other non sports reasons are niche situations that make up a minority of the population. As the majority of the populace begins to wake up to this, cable/satellite is going to pass on the costs to the sports fans who have to stick with them.

Sorry about your luck, but someone has to pay for all those multi-million dollar salaries and soon it ain't gonna be the fans of Project Runway paying for it anymore.

might be a good time for me to quit caring about sports the day this happens.

But you're absolutely right.. I only watch about 2-3 "shows" and then do some channel surfing generally to end up on some movie i've already seen.

My TV is occupied almost always by ATP, Royals, NFL, NBA come playoff time, etc.

And I'm lucky that a lot of people who really shouldn't be buying cable are subsidizing my habit.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Having gotten the Madden NFL Sunday Ticket online package last year, I can tell you that I still watched illegal streams because the service was sketchy for the first couple weeks.

are illegal streams of high enough quality that it's better than either listening to the radio or just not watching at all?

#### no.

All the people on this forum who crow about their illegal streams always fail to mention that the telecast they are watching looks like a broadcast from 1997. It's horrid.

yeah.. that's about what i thought.. not to mention the virus risk and the endless ads on the sides of the screen.

There really isn't a need to watch the illegal streams any more; you just need to use a DNS service.

NFL: GamePass

NBA: League Pass

NHL: Center Ice

MLB: MLB.tv

The only problem is that you don't get the playoff games in some of the packages so you have to activate cable for a month or two for for those.

many playoff games in the NFL are over-the-air

with the NBA or MLB you'd have a problem

Yep. Either way, still a lot cheap than paying for cable year round, especially if you don't get all 4 packages.

 

[Joe T]

Maybe. And when that day comes, your internet access will cost you $300 a month.

Not sure about this, but paying for ESPN only would cost likely 80-90 bucks a month.

So no you'll never ever ever be able to just order ESPN for 6 bucks a month.

I thought the cable companies only paid ESPN like $10-12 per month per subscriber. <----------- not sure if that number is correct, but how did you come up with the 80-90 buck figure?

 

[Joe T]

I would happily pay ESPN 20 buck per month directly for ESPN if they agree to cut out the cable company. That should be an increase on what they are getting paid now via the cable nazis.

 

[Politician Spock]

Maybe. And when that day comes, your internet access will cost you $300 a month.

Not sure about this, but paying for ESPN only would cost likely 80-90 bucks a month.

So no you'll never ever ever be able to just order ESPN for 6 bucks a month.

I thought the cable companies only paid ESPN like $10-12 per month per subscriber. <----------- not sure if that number is correct, but how did you come up with the 80-90 buck figure?

Because if only those who actually watch ESPN were the only paying customers of ESPN, they'd have to pay a lot more a month for ESPN.

Not sure if the math above is right, but today ESPN is collecting money from people who don't watch ESPN because part of the contract ESPN negotiated with cable/satellite companies says ESPN gets paid for EVERY subscriber.

 

[CBusAlex]

can I just pay for the live sports coverage on ESPN and blackout all the Skip Bayless and Stephen A Smith talking head shows?

It costs extra to get rid of Bayless.

 

[Joe T]

Maybe. And when that day comes, your internet access will cost you $300 a month.

Not sure about this, but paying for ESPN only would cost likely 80-90 bucks a month.

So no you'll never ever ever be able to just order ESPN for 6 bucks a month.

I thought the cable companies only paid ESPN like $10-12 per month per subscriber. <----------- not sure if that number is correct, but how did you come up with the 80-90 buck figure?

Because if only those who actually watch ESPN were the only paying customers of ESPN, they'd have to pay a lot more a month for ESPN.

Not sure if the math above is right, but today ESPN is collecting money from people who don't watch ESPN because part of the contract ESPN negotiated with cable/satellite companies says ESPN gets paid for EVERY subscriber.

So ESPN can't sell through the (A) cable companies AND separately to someone like me through something like (B) WatchESPN for $20 per month?

Your scenario is A or B only and excludes A and B. I suggest that one day ESPN with be both in cable packages and available to individual subscribers which is no where near what you are suggesting above.

 

[Abraham]

Just look at the Dodgers TV package to see how this is NEVER going to happen.

They would take sports off the air before going to an al-a-carte model.

Dodgers TV by all accounts has only 100,000 people that watch more than 9 innings of baseball a week in the regional LA area.

My rangers had last year less than 40,000 people watching 9 innings a week. That's not one game, that's one game spread out over an entire week.

It's just a stunningly low number that nobody talks about.

But how did the Dodgers get a 6 Billion dollar payout? It's from the millions and millions of people that don't watch baseball and don't even know what channel it's on. (Yes, for the moment I realize there are lawsuits around this and the details might change, but work with me)

So who in power is going to kill this golden goose and allow al-a-carte buy-in?

Google?

 

[culdeus]

I would happily pay ESPN 20 buck per month directly for ESPN if they agree to cut out the cable company. That should be an increase on what they are getting paid now via the cable nazis.

That won't cut it.

Just do the math on the Rangers where it's black and white.

75,000,000year/100,000 subscribers (agressive

=

$750 per season

For the Rangers.

 

[culdeus]

To continue paying salaries where they are ESPN would probably need to be in the neighborhood of $500 a year. Each regional package would be in the range of $500 a year per sports team.

ESPN + all 4 = $2500

And that's a really low estimate.

 

[Joe T]

I would happily pay ESPN 20 buck per month directly for ESPN if they agree to cut out the cable company. That should be an increase on what they are getting paid now via the cable nazis.

That won't cut it.

Just do the math on the Rangers where it's black and white.

75,000,000year/100,000 subscribers (agressive

=

$750 per season

For the Rangers.

Huh? ESPN is only going to have 100,000 subscribers?

 

[Premier]

Maybe. And when that day comes, your internet access will cost you $300 a month.

Not sure about this, but paying for ESPN only would cost likely 80-90 bucks a month.So no you'll never ever ever be able to just order ESPN for 6 bucks a month.

I thought the cable companies only paid ESPN like $10-12 per month per subscriber. <----------- not sure if that number is correct, but how did you come up with the 80-90 buck figure?

Because what you want and the model they have in place now are two totally different things. ESPN for 10 bucks a month now props up ESPN2, U, News and likely some Disney channels. Are you also going to pay for those other Disney-owned channels as well? Will all 75-million? Otherwise your model fails.

 

[17seconds]

I think we need to root for the likes of Fox Sports 1 and NBCSN so ESPN is forced by competition to eventually offer a la carte.

 

[GoFishTN]

Maybe. And when that day comes, your internet access will cost you $300 a month.

Not sure about this, but paying for ESPN only would cost likely 80-90 bucks a month.

So no you'll never ever ever be able to just order ESPN for 6 bucks a month.

This article says ESPN has 100 million subscribers and the average price per person is $5.06. If we assume that is correct, and that other reports stating ESPN has around 75 million viewers are also correct, the cost would be about $7 to maintain that same revenue level, if all 75 million subscribed.

 

[CBusAlex]

This article says ESPN has 100 million subscribers and the average price per person is $5.06. If we assume that is correct, and that other reports stating ESPN has around 75 million viewers are also correct, the cost would be about $7 to maintain that same revenue level, if all 75 million subscribed.

That's just for ESPN. How much for ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPNNews, ESPNClassic, ESPNDeportes, ESPN360, ESPNKids, ESPNLite, ESPNOcho, and ESPNOMGWTFBBQ?

If ESPN packaged all these channels together, they'd need to maintain the revenue level for all of them. If they sold them separately, they'd need to raise the price on ESPN and ESPN2 to make up for the lost revenue on the less popular ones.

 

[culdeus]

I would happily pay ESPN 20 buck per month directly for ESPN if they agree to cut out the cable company. That should be an increase on what they are getting paid now via the cable nazis.

That won't cut it.

Just do the math on the Rangers where it's black and white.

75,000,000year/100,000 subscribers (agressive

=

$750 per season

For the Rangers.

Huh? ESPN is only going to have 100,000 subscribers?

The Rangers. Who are on Fox Sports SW