ESPN, far more than its competitors, is chained to expensive contracts for live programming rights. These contracts generally limit or prohibit ESPN’s ability to shift its programming to corporate sibling ABC, where they might reach a larger pool of potential viewers. Thus, the virtuous circle becomes a vicious cycle, as a smaller audience depresses the fees ESPN can charge carriers or collect from advertisers to pay for the live events.

What is a network to do? Like their competitors and regular cable news, ESPN turned to controversy in an attempt to draw or hold an audience. As Roger Ailes discovered decades ago when creating Fox News, it is far cheaper to air a panel discussion (or shouting match) about an event than to expand straight news coverage. This is doubly or triply true when the alternative is paying hefty exclusive rights fees to a major sports league.

Accordingly, ESPN, like a sizeable segment of sports media, acceded to the talent’s proclivity for “hot takes,” discussions and debates wherever the world of sports could collide with the hot-button political issues of the moment. The play is for woke millennials, not the older demographics who (ironically) are less likely to cut their cords.

ESPN might have been better off if it had tried to offer its core audience more in-depth coverage, more education regarding the nuances and strategies of the games it is paying so much to air.