Sports Media

zambonir 2025-08-20 15:39:15 UTC #922

No, they definitely still do. I suppose they could actually sell that back (or just give it up) as part of a re-negotiation, since that stake was in lieu of more cash. I believe the Sixers will now have a stake too as part of the new arena deal.

But either way, the Phillies and MLB and all other teams with RSN deals that remain in force for a long time will have to negotiate a carve-out with NBC (or whatever it is now) or the other RSNs for both the actual streaming rights and the end of blackouts. On top of that the larger market teams are going to want a bigger cut if it's really a single deal for the entire league's local package.

Philsmania 2025-08-20 16:00:14 UTC #923

In the case of the Phillies, Giants and Athletics (for now), NBC and the RSN are one and the same.

andyb 2025-08-20 16:13:28 UTC #924

An ownership stake in an RSN is basically owning a piece of the rights fees and all the income (subscriptions, ad revenue) associated with that. Now with NBCSP does it extend to the Sixers and Flyers rights too?

These legal entanglements might take a decade or more to sort out.

zambonir 2025-08-20 16:19:57 UTC #925

Yeah, it's still a real patchwork. NBC actually owns a minority stake in SNY too (which is otherwise owned by the Wilpons - not Cohen - and Charter). Yankees are plurality owners of YES but the former Diamond/Bally/Fox company is #2, with Amazon #3. I don't imagine Amazon will just rubber-stamp any streaming that involves a competitor either.

Yeah the Phillies make money off ad sales for Sixers and Flyers games, along with carriage fees etc. The Flyers of course are also owned by Comcast so I'm sure they have their own internal/paper way of allocating the $.

Comcast is supposed to take a minority stake in the 76ers, I guess the 76ers don't get anything as far as the TV network.

Let the lawsuits fly! Some of them will be negotiated/bought. Comcast is probably the only one in a stable position, the main reason this is all on its way to happening is because of the end of Fox/Diamond implosion.

Of course the owners wanting a salary cap is, in their mind, related too.

andyb 2025-08-20 16:53:21 UTC #926

Andrew Marchand in his podcast yesterday did talk about a new Baseball Tonight exclusively for the app.

In other news Manfred wants 32 teams and 8 divisions and realignment and expanded playoffs for his new agreement which would start in 2029. I guess this could mean 16 playoff teams and maybe even longer early series in the playoffs.

julio 2025-08-20 16:55:12 UTC #927

Shorten the regular season (back to 154 games?)? Or extend the post-season to Thanksgiving?

andyb 2025-08-20 17:06:45 UTC #928

If they went to 16 teams in the playoffs I wonder if they would go to 5 game series but give the division winners 1 win automatically. My guess on the schedule is they would go 8 divisions. 13 games against your own division (39). 3 games against the other league (48). Then if you played 6 against the other 12 teams in your league you would have 159 total. 160 if you added a 4th game against your interleague travel partner.

That would shorten the regular season by half a week which would allow you to add 2-3 days to the playoffs for those 5-game series.

This is not what I would prefer, but it would be logical for MLB. 154 is not magic but neither is 162 I suspect.

zambonir 2025-08-20 17:18:10 UTC #929

Players don't get paid in the playoffs (only their share per series) so I wonder how they would handle that if the regular season was reduced by eight games. The original expansion (in 2020) came with more money for the players from the one-time extra TV deal; obviously it would be built-in with whatever comes out of the next CBA, realignment and TV deal.

I'd say doubleheaders too but that probably doesn't replace lost revenue sufficiently (as single-admission anyway).

andyb 2025-08-20 17:21:18 UTC #930

I do not think MLB wants to go anywhere near scheduled double headers. The players would hate it and I imagine the revenue is less even with split admissions. TV ratings probably less too. No reason to even romanticize the idea because it is so impractical.

julio 2025-08-20 17:27:32 UTC #931

Really shouldn't matter. MLB players are on annual contracts, with specified annual salaries. They're not paid by the game, nor on hourly/daily/weekly wage scales. They're getting paid the same amount (salary), regardless of how may "paydays" that is spread over - and realistically, they're paid at rates that make the idea of "living paycheck to paycheck" somewhat absurd.

zambonir 2025-08-20 17:30:23 UTC #932

Yeah but the owners would definitely use "we're making less money and you're working fewer days" as a hammer when discussing the revenue percentage split, and the regular season TV package would also be less. The actual money would still be more due to the expanded playoffs, but the players don't benefit from that as consistently or directly.

And no the players aren't living paycheck to paycheck but they also aren't overpaid. And nobody gets paid in spring training, which is something they finally addressed for the non-40 man guys with the minor league CBA.

zambonir 2025-08-20 18:55:29 UTC #933

According to this Xfinity doesn't have a deal with ESPN for app access yet either

jimbomill 2025-08-20 19:59:31 UTC #934

Nothing like a World Series game to go with Thanksgiving Dinner!

Philsmania 2025-08-21 03:02:50 UTC #935

Ah, but with climate change, November will be the new October.

zambonir 2025-08-21 13:21:55 UTC #936

Or the new February

andyb 2025-08-21 16:30:29 UTC #937

Looks like ESPN is getting 30 midweek games and the ability to sell in market games for 5 teams (along with out of market rights everywhere).

mdougherty12 2025-08-21 19:22:59 UTC #938

It sounds like this will double the cost of an out of market MLB.TV subscription.

phillychuck 2025-08-21 19:25:08 UTC #939

If I were out-of-market this would be the final straw. MLB is killing the goose.

andyb 2025-08-21 19:26:47 UTC #940

Not at all. This is just a different way to bundle MLB.tv. The article actually notes the cost will be the same or slightly less for the out of market package purchased through ESPN. Right now I get it for free from T-Mobile so it does not apply to me, but that is separate from this. Now whether they offer discounts for in-market rates for the 5 teams they control is a different question.

The overall new pricing for MLB.TV is not yet decided, but is expected to be similar or slightly cheaper than the current $29.99 per month rate.

The package is often sold as a yearly package so we'll have to see if discounts there are similar, but it sounds like ESPN is willing to offer a small discount to keep users (and their data) within their walled garden.

mdougherty12 2025-08-21 19:41:35 UTC #941

For digital consumers, fans are likely to need an ESPN direct-to-consumer subscription to go along with MLB.TV. The overall new pricing for MLB.TV is not yet decided, but is expected to be similar or slightly cheaper than the current $29.99 per month rate.

This reads to me that one would need to pay for ESPN'S DTC service ($30/month), in addition to MLB.TV ($30/month).