Longhorns TV Deal: Texas Can Fire ESPN Broadcasters
The licensing agreement between ESPN and the University of Texas (through rightsholder IMG College) for the soon-to-launch Longhorn Network specifies that while ESPN will make decisions with respect to the hiring of on-air talent, the University of Texas retains the rights to fire them.
From a copy of the agreement obtained by the Austin American-Statesman:
"[I]n the event that UT reasonably determines that any on-air talent does not reflect the quality and reputation desired by UT for the Network based on inappropriate statements made or actions taken by such talent and so notifies ESPN, ESPN will cause such talent to be promptly replaced (and will in any event no longer allow them on air following such notice)."
Does this mean that the University could fire a broadcaster for saying, on-air, that "Garrett Gilbert looked really lost on the field this afternoon"?
Probably not. For the contract specifies a two-part test: First, UT must determine that the on-air talent's statements were inappropriate and, as such, did not reflect the quality and reputation desired by UT for the Network. But second, such determination must be reasonable.
In other words, expect to read a lot of whiny comments from fans at other schools who misconstrue this provision as giving UT the right to fire any on-air broadcaster who offers honest, fairly held criticism. UT is not authorized to fire such persons, nor would it. (Whether ESPN winds up hiring for this work commentators who are going to offer much fairly held criticism is another matter.)
An ESPN spokesman explained: "This is not common in ESPN agreements because this UT network is so unique/new for us ...The provision does not allow for random replacement of commentators or reaction to critical comments... it's more about potential situations where a commentator makes completely inappropriate comments or gets involved in inappropriate actions."
What this clause is really about is ensuring that UT gets to draw the line between what is and is not appropriate, a sensible request considering the different interests of the two entities. The University's charter is different from that of Disney's, such that there potentially exist on-air statements or behavior that would not necessarily cross the line to being a fireable offense for a corporation, but would for a university.
In practice, it is likely that the gulf between the two entities' standards isn't particularly wide. For the most part, a statement or action that prompts UT to remove the broadcaster likely would have resulted in the same action being taken by ESPN, as well. Think, for example, of a broadcaster who is arrested for soliciting prostitution.
Where UT is protecting itself is in cases such as the 2009 on-air incident involving ESPN broadcaster Bob Griese. As you may recall, during a telecast of a game between Minnesota and Ohio State, the commentators began discussing a graphic displaying the top five drivers in the NASCAR points standings. When fellow broadcaster Chris Spielman asked where Juan Montoya (a Colombian) was, Griese replied that Montoya was "out having a taco."
Griese would later apologize for the remark, first later on during the same broadcast, then again during halftime of a different game broadcast on the network. ESPN released a statement calling the remark "inappropriate," but did not take any further action. Griese continues to broadcast games for ESPN.
Now imagine if Griese had made that insensitive remark during a telecast on the Longhorn Network. While it is possible UT would conclude that an apology was sufficient to conclude the matter, it might well feel that Griese's remark made him untenable as, in effect, a representative of the University.
And that last part is the key: ESPN won the rights to broadcast the Longhorn Network, but it is, still, the Longhorn Network. The talent they hire to broadcast shows and events will be representing the Longhorn Network -- which is to say the University. As such, the University is reserving the right to remove such broadcasters should it reasonably determine that their statements or actions unacceptably represent the quality and reputation the University is committed to upholding.
It may well be the case that the broadcasters who are hired cheerlead to some extent (which would diminish the quality of the broadcast, in my opinion), but it will not be the case that broadcasters will be fired for offering fairly held criticisms of Texas athletics.
30 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
This should be referred to as the "Craig James" clause. nt whills.
- follow me @ http:/twitter.com/TXStampede
by TXStampede on May 4, 2011 3:48 PM CDT reply actions 3 recs
First name that came to my mind was
Andre Ware. Jerk.
Sunkist, they're aggies. They live off-guard.
-whills
Backstory? Context/what did he say?
"The only sport that should be cried over is tee ball."
- don't remember who said it, but I like it.
That wasn't on-air comments, though, was it?
I didn’t think that was really relevant to the question of what would be considered inappropriate remarks while on air.
"The only sport that should be cried over is tee ball."
- don't remember who said it, but I like it.
well...
…i see you didn’t watch the Alamo Bowl where Leach was suspended. It was so biased, there was even commentary from their own saying it was.
thanks for the link. great article.
"The only sport that should be cried over is tee ball."
- don't remember who said it, but I like it.
Oh, yes, I did miss that.
Thanks for catching me up. Unfortunately my wife gives me a football allowance every fall. But on the plus side, it gives me leverage to limit the amount of Sex and The City reruns I have to watch.
"The only sport that should be cried over is tee ball."
- don't remember who said it, but I like it.
This makes me a bit queasy
It brings me back to the hypothetical I’ve raised about how willing LSN would be to break UT-related bad news (i.e. a major recruiting scandal). I think this lessens the chances of the network being completely on the up-and-up journalistically.
Time to pimp out my photos again. Visit my new Facebook page and become a fan!
this lessens the chances of the network being completely on the up-and-up journalistically
You mean, of course, that it would not be held to the same high standard that journalism is in general? /sarcasm
Greg Davis haikus; a lot like his offenses; always go sideways.
by pleaseplaykindle on May 4, 2011 4:34 PM CDT up reply actions
Is breaking news the network's mission?
I’m not sure I understand the network’s mission to be the same as you. It is not intended to be an independent news-gathering entity, nor is it holding itself out as one. It is a broadcast vehicle — no more, no less.
The Longhorn Network will be hiring broadcasters and commentators, not news reporters. Its mission is limited to broadcasting Longhorns-related content, as determined by the athletics department and university. It does not exist to serve the purpose of reporting anything other than that.
You ain't hurt...
So you don't foresee anything like a "Longhorn Sportscenter" on LSN?
Time to pimp out my photos again. Visit my new Facebook page and become a fan!
Also...
…broadcasters and commentators do have relationships and have the capability of breaking news. What if the Erin Andrews equivalent finds out something on the sidelines during a game (perhaps regarding an injury status) that our coaching staff doesn’t want made public yet reports it anyway? I don’t think it’s naive to believe that Bellmont would lean on ESPN not to use such an aggressive sideline reporter again.
Time to pimp out my photos again. Visit my new Facebook page and become a fan!
What if the Erin Andrews equivalent finds out something on the sidelines
The assumption, or the certainty we all feel, that there will be an Erin Andrews equivalent is amusing to me, but in some ways kind of dark.
by BrooklynHorn on May 4, 2011 11:34 PM CDT up reply actions
I sort of assumed that we would have Erin Andrews in a pom girl outfit
doing the sideline reporting in every game. Here’s hoping.
"The only sport that should be cried over is tee ball."
- don't remember who said it, but I like it.
LSN Carrying Live Sports?
I thought football, etc was staying on ABC/ESPN and the LSN was to carry replays/highlights/content programming.
I don’t think any of that sounds like “journalism” if my understanding is correct.
I don't hear too many problems like this coming up with the Big Ten Network.
Although I don’t get that channel.
I'm with you
This network is going to remove our collective abilities as Longhorns to defend ourselves against charges of media favoritism… or with a straight face anyway.
by BrooklynHorn on May 4, 2011 11:40 PM CDT up reply actions
Yes there will be a Longhorn Sportscenter
but as Peter Bean points out, it will be populated with Longhorn centric commentatorsand broadcasters. For the Athletics Departmetn, controlling the message (at least to some extent) is one of the perks of having your own network
This makes me a little uncomfortable
It makes broadcasters look more like PR figureheads and pseudo cheerleaders rather than legit journalists …
Let’s say during a UT-Kansas softball game the broadcasters break news of a men’s basketball player who got drunk and beat up one of the softball players at an off-campus party. Then broadcaster gets fired for having content that’s “not appropriate.”
Well, whatever it takes for the gorilla to get its money.
"Excuse me while I whip this out."
I guess if ESPN is doing the hiring
that means we can forget hearing Ron Franklin. Not defending him for his misdeed, but he’s a pro with a background in UT athletics.
He paid his dues. Bring him on.
Burnt Orange is the color of a beautiful sunset. Maroon is the color of a used tampon.
If Marv Albert still has a job...
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. If they get mad, you're a mile away AND you have their shoes.
The longhorn network is no more "media" than the "what's happening on campus" section of the UT website is "news"
Greg Davis haikus; a lot like his offenses; always go sideways.
by pleaseplaykindle on May 5, 2011 2:23 PM CDT reply actions
I appreciate your contractual interpretation, Peter.
But it’s never really going to matter. What happens in cases like this (where the standards —i.e., “reasonable” and “inappropriate” are subjective) is the parties just work it out between themselves regardless of what the contract says because they want to maintain a good working relationship.
If Texas has a problem with an announcer, then they tell ESPN to take him off the LHN. ESPN may just do what UT says, even if they don’t think it’s reasonable, in the interest of keeping UT happy with their situation. These two parties aren’t going to court over a TV personality at a minor network (where definitive interpretation of this provision would come into play).
So this 2-part restriction on UT’s right to remove ESPN personalities that you outline doesn’t really mean that UT can’t have people taken off the air for very minor criticisms. It can, unless ESPN decides that it wants to fight back against that request. Now, I highly doubt UT would do anything as silly as request removal of a personality for merely critical statements. But it’s not really an outright restriction on UT doing these things.
now (periodically) tweeting @BZatBON

by 
































