See, this is what you just don't get on ESPN.com or anywhere. Real, intelligent, substantive analysis of a hugely important issue that is changing all of sports, instead of Sean Salibury or Steven A. Smith once again making outlandish predictions that they are 100% certain about but never come true. Thanks King.

I never was an avid boxing fan, but I do remember when the big fights were on Showtime or HBO, and I would tune in and enjoy. We had the pay channels for a while, then I had to go to friends places to watch them, but I was able to access them. Then the big fights went to Pay-Per-View. I never watched another big fight in my life, or any of the lesser bouts on cable. If boxing were in the midst of its great renaissance I wouldn't know and wouldn't care. It's gone for me.

As a Chicago-transplant living in New York, I'm used to the extra effort to follow my teams; I head to a bar for the Bear game on Sundays to watch, I subscribe to MLB radio pass to hear my White Sox, and the Bulls I only read about unless they are on national TV. I'm willing to do all of this because I do not expect to be able to see the games 1000 miles from their market.

We are heading towards a pay-per-view market with season subscriptions. If the trend continues I worry about the future of the sports fan. I hear boxing used to be the biggest sport there was. I believe it now trails pro-wrestling.

That's a great point about boxing. It's probably my favorite sport, but you're right, you never get to see any of the big fights. The only bar in town that shows big PPV fights is a strip club.

Now, I isolate myself in a cocoon fora week so I can watch the rerun on Friday Night on HBO without knowing the outcome. But even then, Jim Lampley prefaces the replay with a summary of the fight, when all the knockdowns happened, etc., so you really have to watch it live to get a good experience. End result, the last time I watched a big fight, I had 4 male roommates who also loved boxing, so we could watch for $10/person, $5 if we invited friends over. Sadly, those days left with my single-ness, so no more boxing for me. They haven't even released a DVD of the Corrales-Castillo fight. Anyway... enough of my rant about never getting to see boxing anymore. It's only a matter of time before I complain in the same way about the Super Bowl.

Sports fans have a special way of turning what is a business for club owners into an intensely personal experience. When strikes affect the MLB, NHL or NBA the question always rises "how damaging will this strike be to the game"? The reason that question is raised is because there's a percentage of sports fans - mostly casual sports fans - who wake up and realize that maybe this stuff isn't actually important, in any sense of the word.

Fans will tell you that sports bring communities closer together and inevitably they'll use phrases like 'purity of the game' or some other nonsense in their argument. These are the same people that see the steroid issue as one about the spirit of the game instead of a way for a player to improve his financial standing. For the player, it's business baby!

And that's more or less the crux of all PROFESSIONAL sports, isn't it? It's business baby! These guys are doing it for the money, not the love. Sports purity isn't always a pretty thing. It's a lot closer to watching 8-year olds running up and down a soccer field than it is watching a home run race or the NBA Finals.

Bodie Miller has a point when he says that the Olympics are about golds, not about the pure thrill of competition.

I guess what I'm getting at is that sports is a money game. It's moneyball. Fans build some additional layer (with help from the marketing departments of their favorite teams) of meaning on top of these businesses that really doesn't exist. The same is true for people that worship Apple products or shell out hundreds upon hundreds of dollars to the The Stones. You may do it for the love, but make no mistake, they're doing it for the money.

So... poor people are going to find it harder to get free games on TV? It's not surprising. They aren't part of the bottom line.

I think a convincing argument could be made that a certain level of fandom is required to keep these leagues running. Look at the XFL. No fans = no league. So it's in the best interest of the NFL to keep as many people interested as possible. But, when you're trying to launch your network and build a(nother) money making machine, I can't think of anybody who would pass that up on behalf of the non-paying public - even if the longterm interest of the NFL would be served by such a decision.

An interesting wrinkle in all of this is to consider what public money went towards getting a team to settle in a city. Unfortunately, if you're a Cowboys fan living in San Antonio - you're SOL. You didn't pay in, so you're not owed anything - fan or no.

This move isn't about the fans. And I suppose, that's your point.

King, as usual, makes good points about average (poor) fans being priced out of the market for sports viewing. I have Comcast basic without the NFL network. But cable carriers like Comcast decide to carry new channels when there is great public demand and they can bump up the total monthly fee. Something tells me that Tags and Crew are going to find a way between now and the start of the 2006 season to sweeten the deal for Comcast and its peers. Ultimately, the NFL may be strong enough to help push the cable companies to a-la-carte packages, a movement that's slowly gaining traction.

anyway, I attended a "business of sports" forum in which Dick Ebersol himself proclaimed that within 10 years, it was entirely possible that EVERYTHING would be on Pay per view/on-demand. Ebersol may have had a point but there's one problem with his analysis: this forum took place in 1991.

as long as the NFL/broadcast networks/beer advertisers triumvirate have their nice gig going, there will be plenty of free football on the tube. moreover, King noted that the networks have the right to "protect" up to five games per week. so look for Cardinals vs. Browns on Thursday night while Colts/Patriots stays firmly esconced on Sunday.

here's a question for King and the board: in the last years of MNF, ABC started making noise about wanting to cherry pick good games as the season unfolded. will ESPN or NBC be able to do this? I haven't heard more about it