和CBA为何没谈妥？咪咕有苦难言，双方核心分歧显露（与CBA谈判缘何搁浅？咪咕难言之隐，核心分歧浮出水面）

时间：2026-01-17 来源：竞技宝

Analyzing broadcasting rights disagreement

封禁覆盖率

The user’s input suggests they want an article analysis about why an agreement between CBA and Migu wasn’t reached. This involves examining broadcasting rights negotiations, focusing on factors like pricing, revenue share, production standards, and digital rights. There are many details to explore, such as sublicensing, advertising control, and technical requirements. I'll aim to provide a concise yet thorough commentary on these core differences and historical context concerning Tencent Sports' previous partnership.Clarifying CBA's broadcasting history

CBA has used various broadcasters like Tencent, PP Sports, and Migu for live streaming rights. Historically, Tencent held these rights from 2015 to 2020. Then, Migu took over digital rights for 2022-2023, along with rights from CCTV5. I need to be careful not to make any incorrect claims, especially since I can't browse or verify current details. It’s best to provide a general analysis and follow up by asking the user for their sources or timeline.Identifying core divergences in broadcasting negotiations

these

I think it’s best to outline the key divergences in the CBA and Migu negotiations. These include factors like pricing, exclusivity scope, ad rights splits, and content control among others. I need to additionally mention issues around production costs, local feed rights, and service quality. The user’s note about Migu facing difficulties could relate to ROI pressure and budget cuts. I should also consider competition for sports rights and previous commitments like the FIFA World Cup 2022.Discussing broadcasting rights dynamics

Okay, I recall that Migu had the FIFA World Cup 2022 live streaming rights, and they also sublicensed those digital rights after making a significant investment. They might have CBA rights for 2023 too, but I need to be careful about assumptions since Tencent Sports still holds NBA rights. It could be helpful to outline our uncertainty about current official information, highlighting typical issues in negotiations.

I should emphasize core differences like price, exclusivity, and desired rights scope.

核心分歧在哪里

价格与保证金：CBA倾向于多年代价+较高最低保底（MG），以对冲广告周期波动；咪咕更希望降保底、加绩效分成，减少现金流压力。
权利范围与独家度：是否包含移动/OTT/IPTV三端，短视频剪辑、二创分发、球队自媒体、海外/酒店/线下大屏等子权利的独占边界如何划线。
广告与商业化控制：场边/转播信号内置资源（贴片、虚拟广告、冠名）由谁统筹；电信套餐、会员联名、赛事电商带货的收益分配与品牌冲突条款。
生产标准与成本归属：4K/8K HDR、全景声、鹰眼/回放、远程制作与信号主控由谁投资与背书；制作SLA、故障赔付与版权期“可用性”定义。
反盗版与平台生态：短视频平台的二次分发治理强度与可量化KPI；侵权连坐条款是否过严；内容外溢对付费转化的影响评估口径。
数据与二级权利：实时技术统计、球员跟踪数据、博彩/泛娱乐接口的独占期与授权费；是否允许第三方数据服务商并行。
可见度与免费场次：联盟要“曝光+提升影响力”，倾向保留一部分免费外放；平台为拉新付费，倾向更多付费墙或会员优先。
转授与联营：咪咕希望对抖音/快手/电视台做转授分摊成本；联盟担心稀释品牌与价格体系，限制层级或设高额分成门槛。

咪咕的“苦难言”

ROI与现金流压力：大盘广告复苏不稳，体育版权回本周期长；世界杯、奥运等大项目后预算收紧，母公司更看重可验证的转化。
会员与ARPU瓶颈：纯体育会员渗透有限、叠加运营商合约后结算价更低；高端制作投入难以靠月费覆盖。
生态协同受限：5G/大屏/营业厅场景能导流，但对“有效观看时长”和广告单价的提升有限，考核口径常与联盟不一致。
盗版挤压：短视频平台与小站复用集锦冲击正片观看，维权成本高但效果不确定，平台不愿承担过高刚性KPI与违约金。
技术与制作成本：全赛季4K/多机位/远程制作的固定成本刚性强，一旦赛程变动或收视不达标，亏损迅速放大。

CBA的核心诉求

权益定价抬升与品牌统一：希望维持乃至抬高上周期定价，确保球队分红与联盟运营；信号与包装统一，提升观赛品质。
曝光优先与年轻化触达：要更多免费窗口和社媒扩散，带动上座率与赞助价值；对剪辑二创提出更精细的使用规范而非全面封堵。
稳定的反盗版与市场秩序：要求平台明确维权投入、响应时效与结果指标，避免价格体系被短视频冲击进一步撕裂。
数据资产沉淀：技术统计、转播数据标准化，利于未来数据商业化与国际化叙事。

破局路径（可能的折中）

低保底+高阶梯分成：以收视/会员/广告指标触发分档回款，上限给联盟确定性，下限给平台缓冲。
端口拆分与场次拆分：移动端独家+大屏非独；常规赛多平台、关键周/季后赛少量独家夜场。
短视频“白名单”机制：明确剪辑时长、延时、带货边界，平台换取更强的正片独占窗口与导流承诺。
联合制作与成本共担：联盟主导基础信号，平台升级增值信号（多机位/战术视角），按权利层级分摊。
反盗版KPI改“结果导向”到“过程合规”：以投入、工单响应、封禁覆盖率为主，减少难以控因的连带赔付。

对球迷与广告主的影响

短期：平台不确定带来观赛分散、付费策略变化、个别场次黑屏或延迟的风险。
中期：更可能出现多平台并行+重点场次独家，免费场次比例与会员权益会动态调整。
广告主建议：预留跨平台执行方案与补位物料，避开单一平台KPI绑定；优先投放联赛级资产与关键赛段。

如果你需要，我可以：

der

写一篇800–1200字的评论稿，面向体育/商业读者，给出清晰立场与数据口径占位；
做一页谈判要点清单，供你对外沟通或内部复盘；
根据你掌握的最新消息，补齐具体时间线与参与方并细化到条款级对比。

上一篇：记者：曼联、切尔西、国米关注罗比尼奥之子（曝曼联、切尔西与国米有意签下罗比尼奥之子） 下一篇：一传一射助马竞客场逆转埃因霍温，瑟洛特当选全场最佳球员（瑟洛特一传一射助马竞客场逆转击败埃因霍温，荣膺全场最佳）