Yes I think more people will pay for an specific triathlon coverage at a more affordable price point similiar to triathlon live (~$45/year). But again the $90 price point for you to watch the coverage isn't paying just for triathlon on demand. Your getting their entire inventory, thus it's more expensive than just triathlon coverage. ITU had 315k subscribers either in annual or monthly. Yes I think you could get 1/6th or 1/8th of that at $50 a pop and help offset some of the 7 figure costs it likely has to broadcast 20 events.

It's covering expenses because Outside likely said as part of the finanical agreement- we will give you X money to be broadcast partner in US in exchange, we need specific terms of the agreement. Thus no longer is the tri content free for eternity. If you want to watch it free, you watch it live. If you don't, you have to pay for our service. Again that's likely how they are able to support doubling their race broadcast schedule.

I don't think the broadcast lost tons of sponsors. They've never had a ton of sponsors to begin with, so your point on happy sponsors is irrelevant. They had 5 sponsors that we counted during the broadcast.

Your stuck on subscribers.....subscribers isn't what is going to pay IM. It's the financial agreement Outside is willing to pay them to be the exclusive broadcast partner, so again I don't really think you understand it completely. Your caught up on the wrong thing. Outside is the one that is likely going to lose out on likely not gaining a ton of new subscribers from this financial deal. They are the ones that are likely to only gain $30k-$90k that we theorized. And I'm guessing the contract was easily 6 figures between Outside and IM, there is a reason why they were able to afford to double their broadcast inventory. It would take 333 people to want to buy Outside subscription for them to make $30k, and then $90k they would only need 1k people. So for Outside with their subscritipn being $90, you don't need a ton of people to subscribe to it, so in that aspect it likely works for them as well. They don't need a ton of subscribers from this (which is the point we agree upon)

So your point about sacking the person- guess what that person is going to be at Outside, not at IM. Outside has paid IM to be the exclusive partner for this series. IM has it's money from that agreement. The subscribers money will then go to Outside. So I think your stuck on the wrong information. IM has made an agreement that has Outside paying them to be the broadcast partner. I certainly don't think it covers all the expenses of it, but it certainly covers way more than $90k. IM wouldn't be broadcasting their races if it wasn't. They'd simply make you follow on the tracker.

Let's just say it's a $1mi contract between Outside and IM. Outside would need ~11k subscribers to "break even" on the deal. If it was $500k, they would need ~6.5k subscribers from the deal. So it's not really like they need a ton of subscribers to make it work for them either.

So if your going to call me a troll, or come with witty comebacks, atleast make sure you understand what you are arguing for and against. It's ok to not understand the fiances of it, but your "should be free" aint how the world worlks. And again IM has already gotten paid by Outside so they can be the broadcast partner. That's how contracts work. Pick any sport you want, and whoever broadcasts it, they paid said sport to broadcast it. Subscribers $$ is an Outside problem, not IM.

I saw her on the bike course, walking in the opposite direction to us, in the grass, with her bike shoes in her hand. Forget at what point in the ride. Not sure if it was a mechanical, or what. I hope she finds her mojo.