MLB forms economic group as regional TV in peril

[Radioguy41]

Looks like MLB finally figured out the RSN's are in trouble and Sinclair in particular. Better late than never I guess. Article dated 6 hrs ago.

AP source: MLB forms economic group as regional TV in peril

 

[harshness]

They should be doing more than establishing an "economic study committee" to figure out where the money is going to come from.

I think the only way this is going to work is if they parcel out the RSNs. Maybe create some regional coops with other teams and interested parties.

I got a kick out of the third paragraph: "The committee also will examine revenue disparity among MLB clubs."

I certainly don't want to see the non-Bally's aspects of Diamond Sports Group go away and I expect that they might survive without the RSN gorilla on their backs.

 

[SamCdbs]

Wow. An Economic Study Committee?

Problem solved.

 

[Bruce]

What is happening to Bally’s/Diamond/Sinclair now with rights issues and the upcoming bankruptcy will soon be happening to all RSNs.

Just 8 years ago, 100 Million Households subscribed to Live Pay TV and the majority of them were paying per sub fees to the RSNs.

Now it is under 48 Million ( 20 million have services that do not have the RSNs, like Dish), with the high rights fees and advertising down because of less people watching Live TV and the exodus from Live TV is increasing ( less per sub fees), there is not a bright future.

ESPN will soon have the same problem in 2 years, rights fees too high and less income coming in.

 

[Howard Simmons]

Well there's good old RADIO

 

[harshness]

Well there's good old RADIO

Is there?

 

[Don in CT]

This problem will hit all the leagues that rely on cable rights fees for the majority of their income.

 

[harshness]

This problem will hit all the leagues that rely on cable rights fees for the majority of their income.

The problem is the failure to admit the real problem. The real problem is player and coaching contracts for hundreds of millions of dollars.

 

[Yespage]

The problem is the failure to admit the real problem. The real problem is player and coaching contracts for hundreds of millions of dollars.

The problem is that there are many problems and it isn't a simple situation. I think the MLB is less wondering about money income as much as "How in the world are they going to have teams getting their games broadcasted if there is no cable channel to do it?!?!?!?!"

The Pay TV market has shifted quite a bit. Yes, contracts are higher now, but they were getting higher in the 80s and 90s and 00s, and the system was working-ish. Then sports got too expensive AND the Internet opened up a world of on demand access to entertainment. So less demand and the everyone is paying for sports programming even those that don't watch it model for Sat/Cable is on the verge of collapse. Then add the ridiculously poorly planned out Sinclair gambling without the rights leveraged buyouts and the channels themselves are at great risk of insolvency, leaving no one but lenders to broadcast the games, which could get pretty dry when a VP from Goldman Sachs is trying to call a baseball game.

Regarding player pay, I get tired of people complaining about player salary... when the salaries are being signed off by the sports teams. They keep raising them.

 

[SamCdbs]

Everyone understands the real problem. The government prevents the owners from doing anything about it. The idea that the salaries are somehow the owner's fault is naive. They tried being reasonable and were found guilty of "collusion" without any evidence. They tried to lock out the players and were found guilty of "unfair labor practices" against a union that REFUSED to bargain about wages. How can a thing be a union if it refuses to bargain? There is nothing that can be done about it.

But, yes, the RSN problem is just the first chicken to come home to roost. Mainly due to incompetence at Sinclair (don't carry the RSN, no retransmission consent, not negotiable) and MLB (don't first pay for your local team, no access to out-of-market packages), but next will come the pure sports channels such as ESPN, FS1, etc. Then the sports specific channels (Golf, MLBN, NBATV, etc), and finally the general rerun channels that include a lot of sports (TNT, TBS, USA, etc).

There is no real solution. Selling sports either a particular sport or a channel, a la carte, is a non-starter. The amount needed to break even is way more than most people can afford. Including sports (not over-flows and out-of-markets, as on ESPN+, real primary contracts as with Apple and MLS) in general streaming has the same issue. Those looking to save money, which is the primary (only) streaming only customer will simply look to save money with non-sports-containing streamers.

Remember when there was a system where everyone paid a little towards a MOUNTAIN of content. Everyone had what they wanted. It worked. It protected the consumer.

 

[Don in CT]

MLB did this to themselves by blocking out out of market games. If they want a solution it’s put every game online with no restrictions.

 

[navychop]

Remember when there was a system where everyone paid a little towards a MOUNTAIN of content. Everyone had what they wanted. It worked. It protected the consumer.

It certainly did not protect the consumer. Forcing people to pay, even a little bit, for something they don’t want and don’t watch is wrong. By that standard, we should have Opera channels and pad everyone’s bill. Bird calling, competitive tiddly winks, etc.

I watch less Dish than ever. If they forced me to pay an RSN or other sports fee, it might be the last straw. We watch more free YT today than anything else. Loss of Dr. Jeff and not seeing Project Runway for some time, and fewer Food Truck shows- it all adds up to reduce the product value.

If the people that consume the product cannot pay full freight, then the product should cut costs or cease to exist. Forcing “the innocent” to subsidize the minority is way out of line.

We aren’t talking pennies here. We’re talking dollars onto your bill.

 

[Yespage]

It certainly did not protect the consumer. Forcing people to pay, even a little bit, for something they don’t want and don’t watch is wrong. By that standard, we should have Opera channels and pad everyone’s bill. Bird calling, competitive tiddly winks, etc.

I watch less Dish than ever. If they forced me to pay an RSN or other sports fee, it might be the last straw. We watch more free YT today than anything else. Loss of Dr. Jeff and not seeing Project Runway for some time, and fewer Food Truck shows- it all adds up to reduce the product value.

If the people that consume the product cannot pay full freight, then the product should cut costs or cease to exist. Forcing “the innocent” to subsidize the minority is way out of line.

We aren’t talking pennies here. We’re talking dollars onto your bill.

Their point was everyone was subsidizing everyone else's programming. It wasn't 1 to 1, but it worked, until sports got a bit too much (and the Internet), and now locals have gotten way out of hand.

Of course, the elephant in the room is the DVR, which made commercial income become an issue.

 

[navychop]

No. Sport$ cost dollars- significant bucks on everyone’s bill. The other, rarely watched channels cost pennies, and some (That’s Jesus’ money in your pocket, bring it up here) actually pay the cable and satcos to be carried

Big difference.

And IMHO, it’s bye bye time for locals. Are any significant locals NOT streaming? Antennas are relatively cheap for those that can get OTA. If no OTA and no Internet, you may be where nothing is happening locally.

 

[harshness]

Regarding player pay, I get tired of people complaining about player salary... when the salaries are being signed off by the sports teams.

I'm pretty sure the consumers are going to get the final word on how much is too much in the long run as they are where the money ultimately comes from.

 

[Bruce]

It certainly did not protect the consumer. Forcing people to pay, even a little bit, for something they don’t want and don’t watch is wrong. By that standard, we should have Opera channels and pad everyone’s bill. Bird calling, competitive tiddly winks, etc.

I watch less Dish than ever. If they forced me to pay an RSN or other sports fee, it might be the last straw. We watch more free YT today than anything else. Loss of Dr. Jeff and not seeing Project Runway for some time, and fewer Food Truck shows- it all adds up to reduce the product value.

If the people that consume the product cannot pay full freight, then the product should cut costs or cease to exist. Forcing “the innocent” to subsidize the minority is way out of line.

We aren’t talking pennies here. We’re talking dollars onto your bill.

A little info on the person you are responding to, I asked him what he pays for DirecTV, the reason was to figure out why he was ok for everyone paying such high bills and if he does the same, he actually responded with what I believe to be a honest answer, but I was still amazed-

OK.

It is included in my rent. I could live elsewhere, but life it too short. But to be fair, the package I get is $65/retail.

 

[Juan]

The problem is that there are many problems and it isn't a simple situation. I think the MLB is less wondering about money income as much as "How in the world are they going to have teams getting their games broadcasted if there is no cable channel to do it?!?!?!?!"

The Pay TV market has shifted quite a bit. Yes, contracts are higher now, but they were getting higher in the 80s and 90s and 00s, and the system was working-ish. Then sports got too expensive AND the Internet opened up a world of on demand access to entertainment. So less demand and the everyone is paying for sports programming even those that don't watch it model for Sat/Cable is on the verge of collapse. Then add the ridiculously poorly planned out Sinclair gambling without the rights leveraged buyouts and the channels themselves are at great risk of insolvency, leaving no one but lenders to broadcast the games, which could get pretty dry when a VP from Goldman Sachs is trying to call a baseball game.

Regarding player pay, I get tired of people complaining about player salary... when the salaries are being signed off by the sports teams. They keep raising them.

OTA and radio worked for 50 years or so for MLB before cable..baseball got greedy..now they pay the price...the real losers will be players and their sky high salaries

 

[Juan]

Everyone understands the real problem. The government prevents the owners from doing anything about it. The idea that the salaries are somehow the owner's fault is naive. They tried being reasonable and were found guilty of "collusion" without any evidence. They tried to lock out the players and were found guilty of "unfair labor practices" against a union that REFUSED to bargain about wages. How can a thing be a union if it refuses to bargain? There is nothing that can be done about it.

But, yes, the RSN problem is just the first chicken to come home to roost. Mainly due to incompetence at Sinclair (don't carry the RSN, no retransmission consent, not negotiable) and MLB (don't first pay for your local team, no access to out-of-market packages), but next will come the pure sports channels such as ESPN, FS1, etc. Then the sports specific channels (Golf, MLBN, NBATV, etc), and finally the general rerun channels that include a lot of sports (TNT, TBS, USA, etc).

There is no real solution. Selling sports either a particular sport or a channel, a la carte, is a non-starter. The amount needed to break even is way more than most people can afford. Including sports (not over-flows and out-of-markets, as on ESPN+, real primary contracts as with Apple and MLS) in general streaming has the same issue. Those looking to save money, which is the primary (only) streaming only customer will simply look to save money with non-sports-containing streamers.

Remember when there was a system where everyone paid a little towards a MOUNTAIN of content. Everyone had what they wanted. It worked. It protected the consumer.

Its hard to pay sky high salaries when there is no cash on hand..they can strike all day long

 

[navychop]

Imagine, if you can, my great sympathies for those players.

How many of them die rich?

 

[Juan]

Imagine, if you can, my great sympathies for those players.

How many of them die rich?

Just pure poverty..not

What MLB Players Can Expect For Their Pension After Retirement | Tbones Baseball

tbonesbaseball.com