We are pleased to see the Wall Street Journal cast a close eye to the cost of sports programming and in particular the role the NFL has played in the price of cable TV. It’s long overdue that the media report on (and the American public understand) the sports food chain. As reported in the story, the NFL now earns $3.7 billion in fees annually by selling games to ESPN, NBC and CBS. Astronomical salaries paid players like Peyton Manning (reportedly earning $98 million for playing the game over seven years), as well as the salaries paid to league and network executives do have direct impact on what people have to pay for cable and satellite TV, and we’re glad to see this discussed in the Journal.

While we would never argue that cable has not benefited from the popularity of sports programming and the growth of strong brands like ESPN, we are closer to the customer and we do have to deliver the bills. We know all too well that customers, sports fans and non-sports fans alike, are no longer willing to bear huge price increases driven primarily by the cost of sports programming.

The Journal’s story gave readers the opportunity to cast votes reflecting their interest in still more sports programming on cable. The question posed, “Would you like additional sports channels in your cable package?” As of 4:00 Eastern yesterday, only 11% of respondents said they were interested and willing to pay more. 36% said they were interested, but only if their bill didn’t change. A whopping 53% said that they were not interested, and that there were too many sports channels already. Can there be a clearer message? 89% of the respondents to the survey said that they were unwilling to pay for more sports in their cable bill.