MLB TV deals

[jethreauxdawg]

MLB Plots a New TV Model After Striking Out With ESPN

The big sports network is walking away from the national pastime, accelerating baseball’s need to cope with the demise of the TV economy that fueled its growth for decades.

www.wsj.com

Jethreaux Summary: MLB commissioner, Manfred, is trying to completely change MLB revenue sharing. It currently works similar to how the Big 12 did in the early 2000’s where Texas got most of the money because they were the biggest. Each team can negotiate their own deals with regional broadcasts and they keep all that money, nationally televised games share revenue across the league. Manfred is trying to convince the teams to give up individual regional broadcast rights and allow MLB to control the entire thing and market it all in one large bundle. Each team would share revenue more like the SEC structure. The Yankees and Dodgers are not going for it at the moment. The Cubs and Red Sox don’t like it either. Brewers and Pirates love the idea. Manfred is trying to convince the big teams this would make the entire league healthier and therefore be better for them in the long run. The article mentions waning fan interest in small markets. A lot due to payroll differences and blackouts of local games. Blackouts are one of the issues Manfred wants to change with a new league wide tv deal.

ETA: the biggest push for this comes from ESPN saying your current product isn’t worth $550 million per year like we originally thought, we’ll give you $200 million

 

[OG Goat Holder]

Hard to argue against this, right? They also need to shorten the season about 60 games and bring some prices down.

 

[8dog]

Like I said before. Not nearly enough people are tuning into an MLB game they have no rooting interest in when there are 162 of them. Fanbase and regions matter. And ESPN found that out.

 

[jethreauxdawg]

Like I said before. Not nearly enough people are tuning into an MLB game they have no rooting interest in when there are 162 of them. Fanbase and regions matter. And ESPN found that out.

I don’t see the number of games changing. Teams still get a lot of revenue from people attending games. I think if the games are more entertaining, people will watch. I think having more equal tv revenue sharing will help that. Of course, you’ll always have the pirates whose only goal is to reduce expenses and don’t care about winning.

 

[Colonel Kang]

MLB Plots a New TV Model After Striking Out With ESPN

The big sports network is walking away from the national pastime, accelerating baseball’s need to cope with the demise of the TV economy that fueled its growth for decades.

www.wsj.com

Jethreaux Summary: MLB commissioner, Manfred, is trying to completely change MLB revenue sharing. It currently works similar to how the Big 12 did in the early 2000’s where Texas got most of the money because they were the biggest. Each team can negotiate their own deals with regional broadcasts and they keep all that money, nationally televised games share revenue across the league. Manfred is trying to convince the teams to give up individual regional broadcast rights and allow MLB to control the entire thing and market it all in one large bundle. Each team would share revenue more like the SEC structure. The Yankees and Dodgers are not going for it at the moment. The Cubs and Red Sox don’t like it either. Brewers and Pirates love the idea. Manfred is trying to convince the big teams this would make the entire league healthier and therefore be better for them in the long run. The article mentions waning fan interest in small markets. A lot due to payroll differences and blackouts of local games. Blackouts are one of the issues Manfred wants to change with a new league wide tv deal.

ETA: the biggest push for this comes from ESPN saying your current product isn’t worth $550 million per year like we originally thought, we’ll give you $200 million

Manfred is right here. MLB can't reach it's ceiling until it has more of an NBA/NFL TV model

 

[DesotoCountyDawg]

MLB will always be 162 games because of the numbers. Baseball is all about the stats and numbers and 162 is the benchmark for seasonal records and stats. If you change that then I think you lose more people than you would gain.

 

[8dog]

I don’t see the number of games changing. Teams still get a lot of revenue from people attending games. I think if the games are more entertaining, people will watch. I think having more equal tv revenue sharing will help that. Of course, you’ll always have the pirates whose only goal is to reduce expenses and don’t care about winning.

Oh it’s definitely not changing. But that crazy high supply will always hamper them.

The rules changes have made the game so much better. But they are still limited by the fact that superstars are so limited. In a 3 hour game you get to see Aaron Judge at bat for about 2-3 minutes. You get to see a star pitcher once every 5 games. No way to succeed hoping random Joes tune into the Rays and Orioles on a random night.

Whereas Mahomes is involved in half the plays.

 

[8dog]

MLB will always be 162 games because of the numbers. Baseball is all about the stats and numbers and 162 is the benchmark for seasonal records and stats. If you change that then I think you lose more people than you would gain.

I think a 100 game season would be awesome. But you would have to increase prices by about 50% which would drive down attendance. They are in a pickle bc 162 games is just terrible.

 

[MississippiTexan]

Can't happen soon enough. To me it's what is killing MLB. I live in Houston and am Astros fan, but the only options to watch the Astros to is get their regional network which is only available on cable, satellite, or Fubo. I cut the cord and have had Youtube TV which doesn't carry regional sports networks. So I haven't gotten to watch the Astros or Rockets unless they are on a national broadcast on ESPN, Apple TV, or Peacock. The fact they have a baseball fan who can't watch their local team is a problem. They either need to get the regional networks on more platforms or find a way to drop the regional networks and blackouts. If people can't watch your product, then you will die a slow death.

 

[ronpolk]

If they don’t change the tv and revenue sharing model, pro baseball will continue to die.

 

[OG Goat Holder]

I don’t see the number of games changing. Teams still get a lot of revenue from people attending games. I think if the games are more entertaining, people will watch. I think having more equal tv revenue sharing will help that. Of course, you’ll always have the pirates whose only goal is to reduce expenses and don’t care about winning.

Ratios of college to pro regular season:

Football - 71%
Basketball - 38%
Baseball - 34%

Which one is the most popular sport in the world and which ones are struggling? Not only that, but now (finally since FBS got on board) football has a similar postseason structure throughout. People will continue to watch. Basketball and baseball just drag drag drag.....and the NCAA has already shown that the sudden death tournament is wildly popular. That said, obviously the NBA and MLB will continue to get eyes because it's the best players in the world, but there's also a slow dying burnout here too, thus the whole purpose of this thread and topic.

Some might say, "well college baseball is not nearly as popular as MLB and it plays a tournament". That's stupid. MLB has decades of history built before college came around, and has always benefitted from being able to get the best players. And back in the old days, it was a good alternative to watching crops grow. College is just too behind to really ever overtake it. But MLB could learn some lessons by looking at all other levels of baseball, and learning what people are demanding (sudden death tournaments, for example....i.e., excitement).

MLB will always be 162 games because of the numbers. Baseball is all about the stats and numbers and 162 is the benchmark for seasonal records and stats. If you change that then I think you lose more people than you would gain.

That all went out the window with the strike, steroids and now analytics.

I think to save MLB they need to get back to winning and losing, and make it exciting.

 

[jethreauxdawg]

Ratios of college to pro regular season:

Football - 71%
Basketball - 38%
Baseball - 34%

Which one is the most popular sport in the world and which ones are struggling? Not only that, but now (finally since FBS got on board) football has a similar postseason structure throughout. People will continue to watch. Basketball and baseball just drag drag drag.....and the NCAA has already shown that the sudden death tournament is wildly popular. That said, obviously the NBA and MLB will continue to get eyes because it's the best players in the world, but there's also a slow dying burnout here too, thus the whole purpose of this thread and topic.

Some might say, "well college baseball is not nearly as popular as MLB and it plays a tournament". That's stupid. MLB has decades of history built before college came around, and has always benefitted from being able to get the best players. And back in the old days, it was a good alternative to watching crops grow. College is just too behind to really ever overtake it. But MLB could learn some lessons by looking at all other levels of baseball, and learning what people are demanding (sudden death tournaments, for example....i.e., excitement).


That all went out the window with the strike, steroids and now analytics.

I think to save MLB they need to get back to winning and losing, and make it exciting.

I’m just gonna let you in on a secret…MLB is not going to reduce the number of regular season games.

 

[aTotal360]

MLB will always be 162 games because of the numbers. Baseball is all about the stats and numbers and 162 is the benchmark for seasonal records and stats. If you change that then I think you lose more people than you would gain.

I disagree. Baseball has to decide what it wants to cherish. Money or stats?

162 game is idiodic. IMO, if they want to standardize it, they should come up with something easy. I vote for an 80-90 games season. Play everyone in your league 6 times (two 3-game weekends). Then play everyone in the other league twice. Rotate the home team in interleague games every year. Home team dictates DH (or not). League play on the weekends. Interleague during the week.

I'm not a baseball purist, so I don't care about the tradishuns. Just make the regular season more meaningful TO THE FANS.

 

[OG Goat Holder]

I’m just gonna let you in on a secret…MLB is not going to reduce the number of regular season games.

I'm just telling you what I think they SHOULD do.

They obviously are willing to stick to draconian practices and die on the vine. That wasn't the point of my post. We all know that. But it also looks like this Manfred guy at least acknowledges that there is a problem.

 

[DesotoCountyDawg]

I disagree. Baseball has to decide what it wants to cherish. Money or stats?

162 game is idiodic. IMO, if they want to standardize it, they should come up with something easy. I vote for an 80-90 games season. Play everyone in your league 6 times (two 3-game weekends). Then play everyone in the other league twice. Rotate the home team in interleague games every year. Home team dictates DH (or not). League play on the weekends. Interleague during the week.

I'm not a baseball purist, so I don't care about the tradishuns. Just make the regular season more meaningful TO THE FANS.

I’m good either way they do but those purists are going to shít a brick.

 

[OG Goat Holder]

I’m good either way they do but those purists are going to shít a brick.

Those purists are generally over 60 and becoming a smaller and smaller portion of the population.

I think this trend is clearly shown with MLB's popularity peaking in the 70s/80s/90s right up until the strike. It has been way down since then, especially when you consider it as a percentage of the U.S. population. It's like 12% of the country watched the World Series in 1984 vs. 4% last year. And the numbers were like 28M vs. 15M.

They can twist stats all they want, and say year over year, or whatever, or compare the last 10 years, etc. Bottom line is, MLB has lost so much standing that it really doesn't matter what the purists think. It can't get much worse if you look at the long term trends. It needs a radical shift.

 

[Bulldog45]

You get to see a star pitcher once every 5 games.

For around 5 innings and about 75 pitches

 

[OG Goat Holder]

I think a 100 game season would be awesome. But you would have to increase prices by about 50% which would drive down attendance. They are in a pickle bc 162 games is just terrible.

Why not just pay the players less? 38% less to be exact.

 

[o_dawgnabit]

Can't happen soon enough. To me it's what is killing MLB. I live in Houston and am Astros fan, but the only options to watch the Astros to is get their regional network which is only available on cable, satellite, or Fubo. I cut the cord and have had Youtube TV which doesn't carry regional sports networks. So I haven't gotten to watch the Astros or Rockets unless they are on a national broadcast on ESPN, Apple TV, or Peacock. The fact they have a baseball fan who can't watch their local team is a problem. They either need to get the regional networks on more platforms or find a way to drop the regional networks and blackouts. If people can't watch your product, then you will die a slow death.

I was in a similar situation. I lived 10 minutes from the Braves stadium but I couldn't watch the games because I had Youtube TV. And I watched almost every Braves game that was on national tv and went to a decent amount in stadium. It's killing the sport.

 

[DesotoCountyDawg]

Why not just pay the players less? 38% less to be exact.

That horse has left the barn.

 

[Maroon13]

minutes from the Braves stadium but I couldn't watch the games because ....... It's killing the sport.

In my opinion this is why the sport has lost fans.

Whatever rev share formula they pick, pick the one that puts the Braves, cubs, Cardinals back on regional tv for fans to follow and regain interest.