> Instead, parents are forced to subscribe to these companies’ exclusive recording and streaming service, which can cost many times more than the streaming costs for professional sporting events. Meanwhile, the firms’ exclusive contracts have prohibited alternative video services from being made available.
> In some instances, parents have been threatened that if they choose to defy the rules and record the game, they may end up on a blacklist that punishes their kids’ teams. Those threats were even reportedly made to a sitting US senator.
> Black Bear’s streaming service costs between $25 and $50 a month, depending on the package and additional fees.
In addition to its recording rules and associated costs, Black Bear is starting to add a $50 “registration and insurance” fee per player for some leagues. That’s on top of what players already spend on expensive equipment, team registration, and membership to USA Hockey, the sport’s national governing body.
Feeling bad for the folks having a hard time pulling the plug on scams like these and going back to a more sensible and sustainable way of life.
I feel like this article is trying to make this seem like this is becoming a widespread thing despite the entire thing being about hockey. In my experience hockey was always the sport that the wealthier households participated in due to the costs (equipment, rink time, travel, etc..).
As a parent with two younger kids I haven't run into this at all so I wonder how much of it is more sport dependent where the company controls the infrastructure. Maybe I'm being naive here but I struggle to imagine this is going to make its way very far into other sports where you simply are out in a field.
Anywhere there is money, making an everyday man some money, these pests creep in. I generally dislike what has become of recreational sports and how the parents are either forced to spend for things that really don't matter, when learning to play. But learning Private Equity is eyeing this give me creeps. There must be some guy who observed how families are spending and decided it would be the next destination for PE.
A private equity company has purchased every sports league, indoor sports complex, pool, and summer camp in my area. They then drop prices to destroy the local competition and then buy them too. After that they raise prices.
Considering that these people are the class that use youth sports credentials to sneak their mediocre kids into top schools, the situation is bound to get interesting. Tension at the fundraiser ever since Bob priced Janice out of her son's cheap in to UPenn. She's going to have to actually make a donation now.
This article is about deterring everyone from being on their phones the whole time during the event
Most of the people here would be for varying forms of these deterrents in a VC model or some other potentially non-monetized user experience, if it was independent of the owner of the game
Part of the reason PE succeeds is their choice of things that have a large or lengthy startup cost or other supply restrictions. Most towns will support only 1 hockey arena. Or lately, with veterinarians. New supply is complex and doesn't appear overnight. If PE is to be controlled (so they don't ruin everything), we need to lessen the barriers to create more supply, like in housing. Also, perhaps it would be good to make them actually pay some taxes, if only to mitigate a fraction of the problems they cause. PE is sort of like cigarettes. They exist, and do damage to everyone.
If PE causes so many problems and needs to be controlled, why not... control it? Regulate it heavily, or ban it outright, or make it very difficult for them to own a large portion of businesses in any given area, etc, etc
It's just the "remove barriers to do X" arguments tends to be used to justify removing important regulations that protect consumers, or the environment, or institutional integrity - all of which may indeed help the little guys, but it also certainly helps the big guys.
I'm also wary of the idea that regulations and the like are the real issue small businesses have a hard time of things - and not just that operating a business has become more expensive/difficult in the modern age (even after taking out regulations), as well as the simple fact that big businesses can, for example, tank losses for a lot longer than a small business in order to win out a market. How would less regulation for the smaller businesses help situations like that?
15 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 27.5 ms ] thread> In some instances, parents have been threatened that if they choose to defy the rules and record the game, they may end up on a blacklist that punishes their kids’ teams. Those threats were even reportedly made to a sitting US senator.
> Black Bear’s streaming service costs between $25 and $50 a month, depending on the package and additional fees. In addition to its recording rules and associated costs, Black Bear is starting to add a $50 “registration and insurance” fee per player for some leagues. That’s on top of what players already spend on expensive equipment, team registration, and membership to USA Hockey, the sport’s national governing body.
Feeling bad for the folks having a hard time pulling the plug on scams like these and going back to a more sensible and sustainable way of life.
As a parent with two younger kids I haven't run into this at all so I wonder how much of it is more sport dependent where the company controls the infrastructure. Maybe I'm being naive here but I struggle to imagine this is going to make its way very far into other sports where you simply are out in a field.
Routine layoffs, increased costs, and worse quality of service have crept in over the past 6 months.
Average turnover went from 4 years to 1 year, hes one of the last few people who are there from when they were purchased.
In practice, humans are frogs, and eager to prove their fitness as the pot of water grows hotter and hotter.
Most of the people here would be for varying forms of these deterrents in a VC model or some other potentially non-monetized user experience, if it was independent of the owner of the game
It's just the "remove barriers to do X" arguments tends to be used to justify removing important regulations that protect consumers, or the environment, or institutional integrity - all of which may indeed help the little guys, but it also certainly helps the big guys.
I'm also wary of the idea that regulations and the like are the real issue small businesses have a hard time of things - and not just that operating a business has become more expensive/difficult in the modern age (even after taking out regulations), as well as the simple fact that big businesses can, for example, tank losses for a lot longer than a small business in order to win out a market. How would less regulation for the smaller businesses help situations like that?