Golden_Jet
Registered User
- Sep 21, 2005
- 25,366
- 12,943
Yes, Covid screwed up most businesses.
Just one correction, know mattter what league revenues are, cap can only increase by max 5% a year until the MOU expires.
Collapse of Regional Sports Networks (Diamond Sports Group files bankruptcy, Warner-Discovery looking to leave business, Xfinity drops Bally)
- Thread starter Headshot77
- Start date
Just one correction, know mattter what league revenues are, cap can only increase by max 5% a year until the MOU expires.
awfulwaffle
Registered User
MLB announcement.
- Primary broadcast team retained. All local blackouts removed.
MLB producing, distributing D-backs games
Major League Baseball will take over production and distribution of all Arizona Diamondbacks locally distributed games starting today, July 18 when the Diamondbacks face the Atlanta Braves at 7:20 p.m. EDT /4:20 p.m. MST. The new arrangement, which gives fans the option to watch on television or...www.mlb.com
How exactly are local blackouts removed? People in AZ still have to pay $19.99 per month(same as Bally) for access through MLB TV. I don't really see the difference here between Bally running the show and MLB running the show currently. Obviously curious what happens going forward, but I don't see any change for the remainder of this season after the change.
Golden_Jet
Registered User
- Sep 21, 2005
- 25,366
- 12,943
How did you come up with local blackouts removed?MLB announcement.
- Primary broadcast team retained. All local blackouts removed.
MLB producing, distributing D-backs games
Major League Baseball will take over production and distribution of all Arizona Diamondbacks locally distributed games starting today, July 18 when the Diamondbacks face the Atlanta Braves at 7:20 p.m. EDT /4:20 p.m. MST. The new arrangement, which gives fans the option to watch on television or...
When I read the article, it basically says local blackouts are removed if you pay $20 a month.
awfulwaffle
Registered User
They've been claiming the same thing on today's broadcast against the Braves, I really don't understand because people in AZ could have paid that $20 a month to Bally and have the same thing. I don't think anything changed whatsoever with the change from Bally to MLB. Just a different channel number on the existing providers and who the $$ is going to.
rsteen
Registered User
- Oct 1, 2022
- 385
- 277
That's what the cap is meant to do. Ideally it rises exactly in line with revenues. Before the pandemic the NHLPA used the optional escalator almost every year, which lead to the cap being too high and thus more escrow, but this was removed in the 2020 MOU.
IU Hawks fan
They call me IU
It's $19.99/mo if you don't already have MLB.TV, no?
If you're already a subscriber, you don't pay anything more, it's no longer blacked out from your subscription.
awfulwaffle
Registered User
Per the article:
The wording says this is a separate service than the MLB.TV out of market package. And this:
D-backs Games: How to Watch | Arizona Diamondbacks
The Official Site of Major League Baseball
www.mlb.com
Golden_Jet
Registered User
- Sep 21, 2005
- 25,366
- 12,943
Isn’t MLB.tv for out of market games, just like centre ice is in hockey. Not sure as don’t have the MLB.tv, just assuming.
IU Hawks fan
They call me IU
awfulwaffle
Registered User
Yes, I have MLB.TV in Dallas, and I'm blacked out from Rangers/Astros games here. So those in AZ would be blacked out if they had MLB.TV, and have to pay $20(same as Bally cost for their app) for access to the games. And what's funny is, Bally you would have had access to Suns/Diamondbacks/Coyotes, but now $20 JUST for the Diamondbacks. Kind of funny how that works out.
KevFu
Registered User
I don't NOT understand you. We're having a chicken/egg conversation here.
There was no domestic league to put on TV. How does soccer get on TV without a domestic league?
Well, the NASL starting in 1967 based on investors seeing the TV ratings for the 1966 World Cup (tape delayed, without US involvement); AND if the 4.1 million households watched the USMNT on TV in 1994 (before MLS started).
So there's your answer: The US making more than zero World Cup appearances from 1951-1989 would increase the amount of soccer on TV and therefore popularity.
And the effect would have been greater back in the 1950s/1960s compared to the 1990s. Because soccer on TV in the 1950s/1960s would be one of THREE or FOUR options for TV viewers, compared to 40 TV options in the 1990s and the unlimited number of options today.
KevFu
Registered User
It's pretty incredible how MLB is able to take over the broadcasts in a day (or in a matter of like four hours in the DBacks case).
I think people are getting confused about blackouts by the fact that MLB is using MLBtv for in-market DTC streaming for the Padres and DBacks...
They're using MLBtv for in-market DTC streaming in those markets because it was existing infrastructure that works. All they had to do was just remove zip codes from the list of places blocked from watching to serve their purpose.
Blackouts exist on MLBtv because of the LOCAL RIGHTS that the teams have always had to sell and MLB can't control. Streaming was a new technology, and MLB already had the rights to distribute OUT of Market games. So they did. But to meet the contractual obligations of the local rights being sold to RSNs, they had to blackout the home teams.
MLB can't simply vote to eliminate blackouts. (Well, they CAN, but nothing would change immediately). MLB would have to wait for each teams TV contract to expire and then the rights of streaming would be returned to teams, who'd sign them over to MLB to enable MLBtv to be a DTC streaming service everywhere, blackout free.
I think people are getting confused about blackouts by the fact that MLB is using MLBtv for in-market DTC streaming for the Padres and DBacks...
They're using MLBtv for in-market DTC streaming in those markets because it was existing infrastructure that works. All they had to do was just remove zip codes from the list of places blocked from watching to serve their purpose.
Blackouts exist on MLBtv because of the LOCAL RIGHTS that the teams have always had to sell and MLB can't control. Streaming was a new technology, and MLB already had the rights to distribute OUT of Market games. So they did. But to meet the contractual obligations of the local rights being sold to RSNs, they had to blackout the home teams.
MLB can't simply vote to eliminate blackouts. (Well, they CAN, but nothing would change immediately). MLB would have to wait for each teams TV contract to expire and then the rights of streaming would be returned to teams, who'd sign them over to MLB to enable MLBtv to be a DTC streaming service everywhere, blackout free.
MLS didn't come into existence because of how many people watched the USMNT on TV during the '94 WC.
Forming/having a D1/domestic league was started when the WC was awarded to the U.S. in 1988. Was part of being awarded the World Cup. It just took until 1996 for the maiden season, even though it was planned/supposed to begin before then.
KevFu
Registered User
I know this, and didn't mean to imply otherwise. I had revised that post before posting it and inadvertently removed that detail.
Hockey-wise, any news on this front seems to have dried up.
As a Pens fan in the East-Central part of the state, I am getting more antsy about what is going to happen.
As a Pens fan in the East-Central part of the state, I am getting more antsy about what is going to happen.
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
Something ironic is that the NFL pantsed MLB so hard with the advent of TV in the 50s but MLB, a league traditionally behind the times, was so far in front on internet broadcasting that it isn't funny.
KevFu
Registered User
Yeah, it's absolutely crazy that MLB "created" Disney Streaming Services!
LightningStorm
Lightning/Mets/Vikings
Headshot77
Bad Photoshopper
Sportsnet is fine for now, as is the MSG teams and NESN. It's just Bally's and ATT Sportsnet that's going under right now. Granted that's like HALF the league so that's no small number, but Canada is fine.
I'm surprised the Pens haven't announced a deal with NESN yet.
LightningStorm
Lightning/Mets/Vikings
Teams out here in the Pacific NW are in the same bind with Root Sports part of AT&T Sportsnet.
With Bally and AT&T going under, it looks like it'll mostly just be Canada and the NE US that will still have RSN's for now.
Bally’s is probably not going under. Yes, in a few places, they might shut down because they don’t have enough deals left to support a network in that region. But the purpose of the bankruptcy is to reorganize, shed some deals that don’t include streaming (mainly baseball), and come out the other side.
As for Root Sports Northwest, WBD (AT&T) only owns 40%, the Mariners own the other 60%. So, WBD may just sell their share, perhaps to other teams on the network. Or maybe the Mariners take over the whole thing.
There was a Q&A out from the entertainment reporter at the Pittsburgh Trib that mentioned AT&T SportsNet.
He is expecting something in early August that will basically be that - FSG will buy the station from WBD. That takes care of the nuts and bolts of it, with the only real question being if they buy the channel outright, or if they partner with the Pirates on it.
FSG owns NESN 70/30 with the Bruins, right? I am wondering if it is a mirror image in Pittsburgh… 70 Penguins / 30 Pirates.
The only downside of that scenario is it all but guarantees Nickel Bob Nutting never sells the Pirates. He made his money in newspapers - the Bucs are his only money maker left.
KevFu
Registered User
It's probably really unrealistic, but....
MLB, NHL and NBA teaming up as investors for a system of RSNs with DTC streaming that has no blackouts would be ideal.
MLB, NHL and NBA teaming up as investors for a system of RSNs with DTC streaming that has no blackouts would be ideal.
Crede777
Deputized
- Dec 16, 2009
- 14,810
- 4,522
I think one major league partner would be better as it's fewer ways to split the pie and with the MLB there's relatively little overlap in seasons compared to the NBA. When you have significant season overlap, my concern would be around discussions on how to attribute subscribers and thus revenue to either league to inform what the revenue split would be. You could analyze direct viewing data but this would likely result in the NHL getting squeezed as it's the smallest of the 3. Compare that to a revenue share between two leagues with each league getting the revenue allocated based on viewership during specific quarters of the year.
Also there would be the hold up on national contracts with ESPN and Sportsnet. A streaming partner would want to get the NHL in its entirety, not just teams as their local deals fall off. But the ESPN and Sportsnet deals still have term left.
Golden_Jet
Registered User
- Sep 21, 2005
- 25,366
- 12,943
That would have to be an expensive deal, if each team averages 30-40 million in RSN deal, to have to replace that, and make it like one big National deal.
Or the league just gives up on a billion in revenue, which would lower the cap by about 15 million.
Ad
Latest posts
-
GDT: 9/28/24 - 8:00PM EDT - Tampa Bay @ Nashville [Preseason Game 3]- Latest: LordStanlersCup
-
Patrick Laine injured in pre-season game after knee on knee- Latest: Ianturnedbull
