Bally’s Sports
- Thread starter larry55
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 40
- Views 6K
-
WELCOME TO THE NEW SERVER!
If you are seeing this you are on our new server WELCOME HOME!
While the new server is online Scott is still working on the backend including the cachine. But the site is usable while the work is being completes!
Thank you for your patience and again WELCOME HOME!
CLICK THE X IN THE TOP RIGHT CORNER OF THE BOX TO DISMISS THIS MESSAGE
This gets a little complicated.
Bally’s (Sinclair) and the other RSNs clearly have the right to traditional linear presentation (i.e. via cable, dish or a linear streaming alternative like DirecTV Stream) of MLB games in-market.
They also clearly have the right to stream in-market to linear subscribers (i.e. if you have DirecTV or cable, you can log into the Bally’s app and watch your local team on your phone, table, etc.)
MLB unquestionably has the right to sell out of market games on a linear basis (i.e. MLB Extra Innings) or on a streaming basis (i.e. MLB TV app).
Now that leaves us with one remaining set of rights. The right to stream games IN-MARKET to NON-SUBSCRIBERS of linear television (AKA cord cutters).
Sinclair (and I am sure the other RSNs) think THEY own those rights; MLB, and their mouthpiece commissioner, think THEY own those rights.
Sinclair wants to sell the right to log into the Bally’s app to people who do not have linear TV including the Bally’s channel.
MLB wants to sell an ungraded form of MLBTV which would include the local team(s).
Who is right? The contract is probably 10000 pages and for every lawyer there is an equal and opposite lawyer.
My guess is that MLB realizes that it has to deal with Sinclair, et al, and that the current MLBTV, which makes it easier and cheaper to watch other people’s teams and not your own, was a mistake. So they will cut a deal, probably with Sinclair, et al, paying far less than they are contracted for in return for the in-market streaming rights.
Right now I can stream YES through their app as long as I have an active service provider. The Yankees own the rights outright to their games. I wonder how much the issue is MLB or the providers not wanting to give up the exclusivity.
MLB. Sinclair just licenses it from them. And that license does not allow them to use the content for a stand alone service.
Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys
Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys
The teams are in long term contracts with the RSNs. The RSNs produce the games for showing in market to linear subscribers and then MLB uses their coverage OUT OF MARKET for both linear (MLBEI) and non-linear (MLB.TV) customers.
Who owns the remaining rights? Which is to say the rights to sell IN-MARKET to NON-LINEAR customers?
THAT IS THE QUESTION. Nobody really knows. The contracts were written before “cord cutting” was a thing. It is not really covered in clear and precise language.
Both sides need each other.
Sinclair, et al, are on the hook for long term contracts, some going well into the 2030s, that were predicated on “everyone” having cable/dish and the out-of-market games being a SUPPLEMENTAL service,.
For the teams, bankrupting their media partners is really stupid, and the RSN’s $$ are 50% of an average team’s revenue. Further, I think everyone realizes that MLB.TV, which makes it easier and cheaper to watch any baseball team except your own (a new concept, as previously with cable/dish you needed a basic package, which included you local RSN to get MLBEI) is a REALLY bad idea, especially for small market teams with regional followings.
Who owns the remaining rights? Which is to say the rights to sell IN-MARKET to NON-LINEAR customers?
THAT IS THE QUESTION. Nobody really knows. The contracts were written before “cord cutting” was a thing. It is not really covered in clear and precise language.
Both sides need each other.
Sinclair, et al, are on the hook for long term contracts, some going well into the 2030s, that were predicated on “everyone” having cable/dish and the out-of-market games being a SUPPLEMENTAL service,.
For the teams, bankrupting their media partners is really stupid, and the RSN’s $$ are 50% of an average team’s revenue. Further, I think everyone realizes that MLB.TV, which makes it easier and cheaper to watch any baseball team except your own (a new concept, as previously with cable/dish you needed a basic package, which included you local RSN to get MLBEI) is a REALLY bad idea, especially for small market teams with regional followings.
The Yankees outright own the game footage. Their owned network has the broadcast rights. So YES is producing the games for the Yankees. Most RSNs own the game footage not the teams. I believe the Red Sox own their footage as well as they own 80% of NESN.
“Footage” and the rights to broadcast it in particular locations and circumstances are two totally different concepts.
YES and/or the Yankees can own all the “footage” they wish. They cannot show it outside of their agreed upon market region. MLB, as a collective, owns all out of market rights and the team, as a part of league membership, must provide the material for this joint venture.
YES and/or the Yankees can own all the “footage” they wish. They cannot show it outside of their agreed upon market region. MLB, as a collective, owns all out of market rights and the team, as a part of league membership, must provide the material for this joint venture.
Contract law is clear. If the contract doesn't explicitly offer those rights, they remain with the rights owner.
If the contracts don't have clear and precise language, Sinclair is out of luck.
Sinclair is going to end up in financial trouble following the RSN purchase from Fox. They've really dragged their feet on the transition (a year or so), have made no progress in signing carriers (they've continued to lose streaming carriers) and their costs keep rising. From what I've read this acquisition is big enough that it could put a real strain on the company if they don't get this better positioned soon. Their direct-to-consumer model that they hope to launch will face challenges (looks clear per MLB) and will also struggle to get consumers (likely looking at $25/month range for your local RSN via streaming).
The hard part, it's probably getting too late to get streaming providers back on board, they've shown they can get by without the RSN just fine (like Dish has). If DirecTV or Comcast pulls back that will be a major shift. I hope they don't as there needs to be some level of availability for this content for sports fans, but if either of those two don't renew their next agreement we will see some major shifts.
The hard part, it's probably getting too late to get streaming providers back on board, they've shown they can get by without the RSN just fine (like Dish has). If DirecTV or Comcast pulls back that will be a major shift. I hope they don't as there needs to be some level of availability for this content for sports fans, but if either of those two don't renew their next agreement we will see some major shifts.
Actually the RSN's were purchased from Disney as Disney chose to keep their ESPN's and were then required to sell RSN's as per Justice Department requirements if Disney wanted the Fox purchase to proceed. Fox kept its broadcast stations group, Fox News, FS1 and FS2 and a few other things, but sold the vast majority of its Fox Studios empire to Disney.
try $10-$15/mo (price may vary per market?) and let direct / dish / others sell them like ANY Other Premium (this is how some RSN stated out) and as an Premium then cable co must let you buy them at the lowest level limited basic package.
If the direct-to-consumer has issues with the MLB selling the channel as an pay cable channel can work or even as ATSC 3.0 PAY channel (this is how some of the RSN stated out in non cable citys)
$15/month as a premium will not cover the money that Sinclair (and the other RSN owners) owe the teams under the contracts signed in a bygone era. Sinclair estimates that $39/month is what it would need to get in an ALC system.
Yet more proof, as if any were necessary, why the traditional package method protects the consumer and keeps your TV filled with CONTENT.
- Nov 29, 2003
- 14,302
- 18,366
Yep, a traditional package method where customers are forced to pay for channels they will never watch, the majority of those channels show nothing but reruns or content they have no interest in ( reality TV makes me want to barf), where most of the new content on a Traditional Service is shown on a streaming service before, same time or the next day.
Yep, and it is the ‘traditional’ methods that are losing customers seemingly every day. I currently have a YTTV sub that is expiring soon. Over the month I’ve had it I’ve watched almost nothing on it since the same shows are on one or the other on demand service in at least as good PQ and in all cases, better audio.
YTTV is $65/month, my on demand services total less than $50/month and have more original and interesting content. Since I also have an OTA DVR and can get the locals via antenna just fine, there is less reason to pay the premium for a live streamer.
