I don't follow sports -- let me state this at the outset. I have no idea what the Patriots are doing right now, I'm not sure when hockey begins, and I have only a passing understanding about the evil curse that seems to plague a certain team from Boston. I actually find sports entertainment -- such as the programming developed by World Wrestling Entertainment
And I don't really possess any affinity for the Super Bowl; I couldn't even tell you what number Bowl they're up to without checking (OK, I'll check: It's No. 39). About the only thing I recall from this year's outing was the Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction."
Like a lot of anti-sports enthusiasts, however, I do find a certain fascination with the crazy commercials that are shown during the game. Whether it's PepsiCo
Which is why Fox
My only criticism would be this: Why not go for more? Fox should've tried for a higher increase, as the range mentioned in the article seems intuitively too low. Trying to figure out what people -- or institutions -- will pay for such a hot commodity as the Super Bowl is like figuring out the pricing stress point of a concert by the Rolling Stones; in other words, you'd be surprised what people would pay for a 30-second spot during the game (as well as elderly rockers still searching for satisfaction).
The broadcast should be an earnings driver for the Fox network in the first quarter of 2005. Time will tell, of course, and it is worth noting that the stock has experienced something of a run-up recently. And then there is the issue of published reports indicating that Rupert Murdoch might be interested in taking Fox back entirely; his News Corp.
Recent articles on Fox and its competitors:
Fool contributor Steven Mallas owns none of the companies mentioned.