This article is free for anyone to read, but please consider becoming a Patreon subscriber to allow me to keep writing posts like this one. Sign up to receive articles like this one in your inbox here.
It’s felt, for some time, like MLB was moving toward having some kind of national streaming package in place as a replacement for the regional sports network model. It just hadn’t been explicitly said by anyone in a position of power with the league yet: instead, it’s been a lot of putting pieces together and projecting from there, something I’ve been doing in this space and at Baseball Prospectus for some time now.
Now, though, MLB commissioner Rob Manfred has outright said this is something they’re considering, due to what he describes as the “deteriorating” of the RSN business: “We know the future is going to be streaming. What we’re hearing from the streamers is they want a more national product, and we need to be responsive to what people want to buy.”
The Sports Business Journal has the full discussion, which admittedly is not very lengthy, but I want to pull this part out:
While the MLBPA is not currently engaged in RSN conversations happening between the league, clubs and broadcasters, MLBPA Exec Dir Tony Clark said the union has remained in contact with MLB about the ongoing situation as it would have a major impact on team revenue.
“Our antenna are up, both near term and long term,” Clark said. “We’re being assured that, as you guys have heard as well, the league is still encouraged by what tomorrow may look like, even with some of the near-term challenges.”
In a vacuum, with the RSN model “deteriorating,” a national streaming package makes sense. There are concerns, of course, given MLB’s love of hiding revenue to pretend there’s less money than there is, and their already hiding RSN revenues, specifically, from the public. Besides how this could impact players and their salaries, though, there’s another concern, which is how this impacts fans.
If MLB cuts out the middleman, it’s going to be great for them. But will it be great for fans? On the one hand, you don’t currently have much of a choice with regards to how you can see your favorite team play, given blackout restrictions and that these deals with RSNs are made without your input, how cable replacements for cord cutters are well past their own days of being inexpensive alternatives, in no small part due to the licensing fees that give them the content they host. On the other hand, if MLB says pay this or you don’t get to watch MLB, well. The price doesn’t have to be a fair one, really.
We’ll see, though. MLB could end up partnering with Amazon in some kind of package with a Prime membership that makes a lot of financial sense for consumers. They could keep things relatively low-priced to pull in more and more subscriptions: MLB.tv isn’t exactly cheap, but for how much you get access to over the course of most of the year, it’s also not expensive (and hell, it’s free for T-Mobile customers who bother to redeem that, an indication MLB is willing to make deals via partnerships). Consider, though, that MLB.tv involves all 30 teams, but MLB’s current rights agreements mean they don’t actually have national streaming access for half the league right now. Hmm.
As usual, I’m a little cautious about what could go on here, considering MLB is an exceptionally greedy business filled with equally greedy businessmen, and these elements love to make terrible long-term decisions to benefit themselves in the short-run. It’s not a given that we’ll all regret this shift, but it’s still something to keep an eye on, alongside how it ends up impacting players, for the RSN money hose to finally shut off.
My latest for Baseball Prospectus (subscription required) published on Monday, and it’s on Athletes Unlimited Pro Softball. This league, formed in 2020, has no team owners, includes caps on the return of investors, and features players in a profit-share model, while also giving them a say in day-to-day operations for the league.
I spent more time in the BP piece focusing on how their version of softball works — it’s condensed seasons, tournament-style, with the emphasis on players and a point system to determine the MVP/league champion rather than on teams, to the point that each week of the five-week season begins with a redrafting of the squads performed by the four current point leaders, who also serve as captains — but this whole thing, with how it’s run and operated, is intriguing to me. I’m pulling for the success of the model for a number of reasons, one of which is, of course, that it shows that there’s another way to do things.
What we know in pro sports, what we’re more familiar with, is huge money doing this because sports are a way of making these guys even richer. But it can also be player-centric, and the early success of Athletes Unlimited is a good reminder of that sort of thing. Granted, these players aren’t pulling in what their MLB counterparts do, but is that the only marker of success? If the league can sustain itself and the players get paid, and they aren’t struggling financially, and fans are entertained, can that be enough? It could be, but we never really get a chance to find out, because big money and the allure of the capitalistic lie of infinite growth is always involved in these processes.
Speaking of big money, the WNBA has a new TV deal in the works, which will reportedly pay them $200 million per year. That’s a huge lift from the current $60 million per year the league gets in rights, but there are still some reasons to be concerned that this is an undervaluation. The WNBPA’s executive director Teri Jackson voiced those concerns earlier this week:
“We look forward to learning how the NBA arrived at a $200 million valuation — if initial reports are accurate or even close. Neither the NBA nor the WNBA can deny that in the last few years, we have seen unprecedented growth across all metrics, the players continue to demonstrate their commitment to building the brand, and that the fans keep showing up. There is no excuse to undervalue the WNBA again.”
The thing to wonder about is why the deal is so long: $200 million per year sounds great right now, but this is as part of a $76 billion contract for rights that (1) includes the NBA as well and (2) lasts for 11 years. Will $200 million be an outright bargain by the mid-2030s, or even sooner? Given the rate of growth of the WNBA — the increasing popularity occurred before Caitlin Clark arrived, but that’s certainly helped matters — it sure seems like it. This is how the NBA does things, however. The expiring deal is a nine-year, $26 billion one. Which is to say, they’ll do this again, the contract will end with it being a huge bargain, and then they’ll get back to hoping two sides are fighting over them to raise prices once more.
Hopefully, while this goes down, the WNBA is not held back from growing because there isn’t enough money there for them to do so. It’s certainly happened before, and the last thing they need is for it to happen again.
Visit my Patreon to become a supporter and help me continue to write articles like this one.