# The Cubs and Sinclair want to offer direct-to-consumer streaming, against MLB’s wishes



## glrush (Jun 29, 2002)

18 bucks/month seems a little pricey, but ok....

The Cubs and Sinclair want to offer direct-to-consumer streaming, against MLB's wishes (awfulannouncing.com)


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

Hmmmm...I would need to know more about this as Marquee/Cubs original launch was a disaster so I'm skeptical with anything these two outfits can dream up. Would this $18 per month get you full access to Marquee no matter where you live? Could you decline this offer and still get the Cubs games on MLB EI and/or MLB TV? As a lifelong Cubs fan I would not consider this $18 per month offer if I could still get the Cubs on MLB EI and/or MLB TV. If it was the only way to get Cubs games I'd probably pay the $18 per month but just during the regular season. Content of Marquee outside of Cubs games has been pretty dismal. And last year the Cubs games were pretty dismal as well. I think it will be a hard sell for them.


----------



## B. Shoe (Apr 3, 2008)

At first glance, it does feel/seem pricey. Comparing it to a single-team plan on MLB.tv, the two services would be similarly priced:

$18 x 6 months (April-September) = $108
MLB.tv 2021 single-team plan = $110
The key assumption is that you could purchase this streaming service in-market, which would be the true game changer.


----------



## WestDC (Feb 9, 2008)

IF that model is approved -- for all sports --that will do away with the rsn's everyone is paying for that no longer don't watch any sports --in about 12 years


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

b4pjoe said:


> Hmmmm...I would need to know more about this as Marquee/Cubs original launch was a disaster so I'm skeptical with anything these two outfits can dream up. Would this $18 per month get you full access to Marquee no matter where you live? Could you decline this offer and still get the Cubs games on MLB EI and/or MLB TV? As a lifelong Cubs fan I would not consider this $18 per month offer if I could still get the Cubs on MLB EI and/or MLB TV. If it was the only way to get Cubs games I'd probably pay the $18 per month but just during the regular season. Content of Marquee outside of Cubs games has been pretty dismal. And last year the Cubs games were pretty dismal as well. I think it will be a hard sell for them.


No, this wouldn't be for those who live outside of the Cubs television market area. Those fans would need to subscribe to the MLB's out-of-market package (MLB.tv on streaming or MLB Extra Innings on cable).

This proposed streaming service would just be a way to get the existing Marquee channel as a standalone streaming service inside that local area, as opposed to having it as part of a larger cable channel package.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

B. Shoe said:


> At first glance, it does feel/seem pricey. Comparing it to a single-team plan on MLB.tv, the two services would be similarly priced:
> 
> $18 x 6 months (April-September) = $108
> MLB.tv 2021 single-team plan = $110
> The key assumption is that you could purchase this streaming service in-market, which would be the true game changer.


Out of market vs IN MARKET that the team has rights to.
against MLB’s wishes well that may be for the courts to decide as teams have the rights to act on there own.





American Needle, Inc. v. National Football League - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

NashGuy said:


> No, this wouldn't be for those who live outside of the Cubs television market area. Those fans would need to subscribe to the MLB's out-of-market package (MLB.tv on streaming or MLB Extra Innings on cable).
> 
> This proposed streaming service would just be a way to get the existing Marquee channel as a standalone streaming service inside that local area, as opposed to having it as part of a larger cable channel package.


well that may be some thing for the courts to rule on.

WGN was able to offer games to all for an LONG time.


----------



## AZ. (Mar 27, 2011)

JoeTheDragon said:


> well that may be some thing for the courts to rule on.
> 
> WGN was able to offer games to all for an LONG time.


That was a very very long time ago!.....Thats why a team that takes 108 years to win a world series has such a big fan base?....Sure aint from winning!


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

The “superstation” loophole has, finally and thankfully, been closed. 

This is about buying Marquee IN MARKET as a stand alone product. It has nothing to do with OUT OF MARKET issues, as out of market rights are shared communally.

No court rulings needed. Well settled.


----------



## AZ. (Mar 27, 2011)

SamC said:


> The “superstation” loophole has, finally and thankfully, been closed.
> 
> This is about buying Marquee IN MARKET as a stand alone product. It has nothing to do with OUT OF MARKET issues, as out of market rights are shared communally.
> 
> No court rulings needed. Well settled.


I will be shocked if MLB allows any team to be in market streaming....Thats is a huge can of worms MLB never addresses!...Look at those crazy territorial restrictions all over, and strange borders on the high density east coast.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

For years RSNs fought to be part of a basic cable tier. Now they are content on offering their own tier. Why, because there's a lot of money to be made. I fully expect, in the next 10 year, regional sports, like baseball, to be streaming only. RSNs will transition into that. They have gotten too expensive for cable systems. But sadly, they may be the last reason why people stick to cable/sat altogether because in a lot of areas, they aren't available on streaming services. I still think in 10 years, the TV landscape that we know will be on it's deathbed.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

Back when Marquee launched they expressed their interest in making Marquee available outside of the Cubs market eventually like other teams RSN so I don't think it is out of the question that the streaming service could be offered outside of their territory too although I'm sure the Cubs game would be blacked out for everyone outside of their market territory (also like other RSN's are outside of their teams market).

I'm sure Comcast is thrilled about this idea. It was a hard sell to get Comcast to carry them to begin with.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Steveknj said:


> For years RSNs fought to be part of a basic cable tier. Now they are content on offering their own tier. Why, because there's a lot of money to be made. I fully expect, in the next 10 year, regional sports, like baseball, to be streaming only. RSNs will transition into that. They have gotten too expensive for cable systems. But sadly, they may be the last reason why people stick to cable/sat altogether because in a lot of areas, they aren't available on streaming services. I still think in 10 years, the TV landscape that we know will be on it's deathbed.


Yep. I saw a report from one of those industry analytics groups yesterday predicting that pay TV penetration in the US will drop from the current level, about 60%, to under 50% in 2026. Which sounds kinda bad but would actually mean the drop-off rate would be less steep in the next few years than it's been in the past few years. I think that's because they believe that we're getting closer and closer to a floor of households who value sports, news and locals enough that they just won't walk away from some form of channel-based pay TV, regardless of ongoing price hikes.

But if the RSNs all become available as standalone streaming packages, I'm not sure I see their prediction holding. Combine that with the fact that more and more folks are realizing that they can watch a lot of NFL games on one SVOD or another (Paramount+, Peacock, Prime Video, ESPN+) and also get local and national newscasts via various free apps and it could mean that we see an acceleration, not a moderating, of the "cord cutting" trend.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

b4pjoe said:


> Back when Marquee launched they expressed their interest in making Marquee available outside of the Cubs market eventually like other teams RSN so I don't think it is out of the question that the streaming service could be offered outside of their territory too although I'm sure the Cubs game would be blacked out for everyone outside of their market territory (also like other RSN's are outside of their teams market).


I can see a market for an RSN outside of their market. Fans that can only get the games on MLB could pay something to get the other content not part of the MLB coverage.

Would MLB be interested in such a channel? Buy the game and other content from MLB.

Is Marque available out of market in sports pack?


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

James Long said:


> Is Marque available out of market in sports pack?


Nope.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

That is what I was thinking. Kinda blows a hole in the "national" part of the rumor. Expect in market only (if MLB allows).


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

Like I said the Cubs stated they would like to see Marquee expand outside of the Cubs territory in the future when it launched. I haven't heard of them saying more than that since that time. Maybe they no longer feel that way. Maybe they do. They also said they planned to carry minor league games but I don't think they ever did. I was moved out of the Cubs territory at the same time that Marquee launched so the only time I get to see anything on Marquee is via MLB Extra Innings. I just know there has been a lot of grumblings from Cubs fans in the Chicago market about the programming outside of Cubs games.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

AZ. said:


> I will be shocked if MLB allows any team to be in market streaming....Thats is a huge can of worms MLB never addresses!...Look at those crazy territorial restrictions all over, and strange borders on the high density east coast.


But for the MLB to do there own and cut the teams out of the local rights they own may end up in court.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

AZ. said:


> I will be shocked if MLB allows any team to be in market streaming....Thats is a huge can of worms MLB never addresses!


In 2019 the MLB owners voted to return in market streaming rights to the teams effective with the 2020 season. Teams are expected to respect their RSN contracts, but this gave the teams the right to sell streaming of the games in market.

The catch is that prior to the 2020 season teams could not sell streaming rights - so it is logical that their RSN contract would not include them (unless there was a clause that would allow carriage IF the league allowed).

It seems that the statements last year of MLB wanting to start their own service conflict with the decision made in 2019 - but if a rule can be changed in one direction it can be changed back.


----------



## evotz (Jan 23, 2014)

The simpliest solution (although when has MLB done anything simple?) - teams have a right to stream their games within their "territory" if they so choose. If this is an issue with what ever sports network a team has signed on to carry their games... then that's an issue between the team and the sports network.

All out of market games would require Extra Innings or MLB.tv.

What's so wrong about that?

If you live in Granite, Iowa - which is technically Cubs territory - you can't get the Cubs games with Extra Innings or MLB.tv. But you may not get Marquee with your cable or satellite provider. So you're SOL if you want to watch the Cubs.

Enter Marquee OTT streaming. Now if you live in Granite, Iowa - Cubs territory - you can subscribe to Marquee OTT and get the Cubs games through the Marquee OTT app.

Why would MLB have any problem with that? They're not going to lose an Extra Inning or MLB.tv subscriber, because the person living in Granite, Iowa wasn't subscribing to these services because it did them no good.

If MLB really wants to keep their greedy hands in things, then start restricting what territories a team can claim as "their" territory.

Now... maybe the Cubs and Sinclair are at odds over whether to allow this OTT streaming. Perhaps Sinclair is worried this would encroach on their subscriber numbers with the various cable and satellite providers in the Cubs territory. That's an issue that Sinclair and the Cubs (or whatever team vs. whatever their RSN is) would need to address.


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

evotz said:


> The simpliest solution (although when has MLB done anything simple?) - teams have a right to stream their games within their "territory" if they so choose. If this is an issue with what ever sports network a team has signed on to carry their games... then that's an issue between the team and the sports network.
> 
> All out of market games would require Extra Innings or MLB.tv.
> 
> What's so wrong about that?


Because it takes us back to the bad old days of the superstations, when it was easier to follow other places teams, than your own. That harmed the sport greatly, and we cannot let that mistake happen again.

With MLBEI, more or less, 99% of people already had a basic package, with the local team(s) included, MLBEI was a SUPPLEMENT. MLB.TV is not, many people have it, without first paying for the local team. Cannot be that way and have the sport be healthy. MLB needs to figure a way to make buying the local team, on the linear RSN or by streaming, an absolute predicate to buying mlb.tv.



> If MLB really wants to keep their greedy hands in things, then start restricting what territories a team can claim as "their" territory.


No argument. Bud Light “Kennesaw Molehill” Selig promised this. Did nothing, of course. Manfred doesn’t have a clue, too concerned with idiot moves to shorten games. 

Do a study of an area. Fans, ticket sales, local media, polls and surveys, interviews. If a team has no local presence. INFORM the team its claims are cancelled. That simple. Just takes leadership.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

evotz said:


> The simpliest solution (although when has MLB done anything simple?) - teams have a right to stream their games within their "territory" if they so choose. If this is an issue with what ever sports network a team has signed on to carry their games... then that's an issue between the team and the sports network.
> 
> All out of market games would require Extra Innings or MLB.tv.
> 
> What's so wrong about that?


There would have to be some kind of revenue sharing amongst the teams in that scenario or else the rich big market teams will continue to get richer widening the gap further than it already is.


----------



## B. Shoe (Apr 3, 2008)

SamC said:


> Because it takes us back to the bad old days of the superstations, when it was easier to follow other places teams, than your own. That harmed the sport greatly, and we cannot let that mistake happen again.
> 
> With MLBEI, more or less, 99% of people already had a basic package, with the local team(s) included, MLBEI was a SUPPLEMENT. MLB.TV is not, many people have it, without first paying for the local team. Cannot be that way and have the sport be healthy. MLB needs to figure a way to make buying the local team, on the linear RSN or by streaming, an absolute predicate to buying mlb.tv


I guess I don't understand this rationale. Why should I have to pay any amount of attention to my local market team, if I'm not a fan of that team? What harm is my friend, who is a Dodgers fan in a St. Louis Cardinals market, doing to the league by purchasing MLB.tv to watch Dodgers games, even though he's not subscribed to a carrier that also carries Bally Sports Midwest (St. Louis Cardinals)?


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

B. Shoe said:


> I guess I don't understand this rationale. Why should I have to pay any amount of attention to my local market team, if I'm not a fan of that team? What harm is my friend, who is a Dodgers fan…


MASSIVE harm. The mlb.tv material is supposed to be supplemental, like MLBEI is/was. Fair weather bandwagon fans who pay little to nothing (T-Mobile its free) to watch other place’s teams, harm the sport. 

Unless you just want to have 4 to 6 big time teams.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

SamC said:


> MASSIVE harm. The mlb.tv material is supposed to be supplemental, like MLBEI is/was. Fair weather bandwagon fans who pay little to nothing (T-Mobile its free) to watch other place’s teams, harm the sport.
> 
> Unless you just want to have 4 to 6 big time teams.


Ummmm...what? You think I shouldn't be able to buy MLB-TV to watch out of market games unless I subscribe to a provider that carries my local teams games? That would be as draconian as the current MLB blackout rules.


----------



## B. Shoe (Apr 3, 2008)

SamC said:


> MASSIVE harm. The mlb.tv material is supposed to be supplemental, like MLBEI is/was. Fair weather bandwagon fans who pay little to nothing (T-Mobile its free) to watch other place’s teams, harm the sport.
> 
> Unless you just want to have 4 to 6 big time teams.


I don't understand how you feel that is a harm. If you're a fan of an out-of-market team, packages like MLBEI or MLB.tv aren't supplemental; they're essential to be able to watch your favorite team. I would suspect that the league would rather you watch some content, whether it be in-market or out, rather than little to none at all.

We're steering off-topic a bit from the proposed Cubs streaming platform, but I'm genuinely trying to understand your position.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

evotz said:


> Enter Marquee OTT streaming. Now if you live in Granite, Iowa - Cubs territory - you can subscribe to Marquee OTT and get the Cubs games through the Marquee OTT app.
> 
> Why would MLB have any problem with that? They're not going to lose an Extra Inning or MLB.tv subscriber, because the person living in Granite, Iowa wasn't subscribing to these services because it did them no good.


The reason why MLB may be opposed to that idea is because they're considering handling ALL direct-to-consumer subscription streaming of MLB games, not just out-of-market (as is currently the case) but in-market too. Which makes sense, IMO. Imagine downloading the existing MLB.tv app and being able to purchase a season ticket for _any_ team (or all teams) regardless of where you live. Maybe the price would vary per team and based on your location, but there would be one single app that would handle all MLB streaming.


----------



## evotz (Jan 23, 2014)

b4pjoe said:


> Ummmm...what? You think I shouldn't be able to buy MLB-TV to watch out of market games unless I subscribe to a provider that carries my local teams games? That would be as draconian as the current MLB blackout rules.


Doesn't make a lot of sense to you and I. But this is MLB we're talking about. I can TOTALLY see the talking heads that run MLB to say "Why would you want to watch an out of market team without being able to watch your in-market team?". They are clueless when it comes to the viewing habits of their fans and really have no idea what it means to be a baseball fan.


----------



## glrush (Jun 29, 2002)

Baseball is a regional game, stuck in the past when most people were born, lived, and died close to their hometown. I live in Iowa, but was born in Philly, grew up in Mississippi, joined the Navy, and became a Red Sox fan when I was stationed in Groton, CT. The TV model that MLB uses is outdated and does not fit today's demographic. Baseball should be all about growing the game, not sticking to outdated idea. 
The first thing that needs to happen id the MLB blackout rule needs to be scrapped. 
At least with Sirius/XM I can listen to the Sox on the radio anttime I want and it's glorious !


----------



## cmasia (Sep 18, 2007)

I would imagine any baseball fan who follows their local team, and who has cut the cord, has a very real understanding of how to satisfy their

V ery
P ersonal
N eeds


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

evotz said:


> Doesn't make a lot of sense to you and I. But this is MLB we're talking about. I can TOTALLY see the talking heads that run MLB to say "Why would you want to watch an out of market team without being able to watch your in-market team?". They are clueless when it comes to the viewing habits of their fans and really have no idea what it means to be a baseball fan.


They are doing their best to keep fans from watching baseball. From their illogical blackouts to the team home market territories to their locking out the players. I doubt we're going to have to worry about any of these baseball issues this year.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

SamC said:


> evotz said:
> 
> 
> > The simpliest solution (although when has MLB done anything simple?) - teams have a right to stream their games within their "territory" if they so choose. If this is an issue with what ever sports network a team has signed on to carry their games... then that's an issue between the team and the sports network.
> ...


How does allowing teams or a local RSN stream games within their own market lead to making it easier to watch teams other than their own? MLB.tv is available today without an RSN subscription and it does not seem to be destroying the world.

The MLB offering a single team streaming subscription may make it more affordable to watch other market's teams (except when they are playing a team in one's own arbitrary market). But that isn't what is being proposed. What is being proposed by Marque is an in market service to their local viewers who you believe should be watching the Cubs (or the White Sox since they share the market).


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

NashGuy said:


> The reason why MLB may be opposed to that idea is because they're considering handling ALL direct-to-consumer subscription streaming of MLB games, not just out-of-market (as is currently the case) but in-market too. Which makes sense, IMO. Imagine downloading the existing MLB.tv app and being able to purchase a season ticket for _any_ team (or all teams) regardless of where you live. Maybe the price would vary per team and based on your location, but there would be one single app that would handle all MLB streaming.


and then the teams may want to be owners / part owners of that in market thing like they are with the RSN's?
also will RSN's sue to block MLB from doing that as that app hurts them and they get zero from it? and they own the in market rights?
Will comcast try to pull an CSN philly and say want the phillys you must sub to comcast ISP and buy our RSN?


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

JoeTheDragon said:


> and then the teams may want to be owners / part owners of that in market thing like they are with the RSN's?
> also will RSN's sue to block MLB from doing that as that app hurts them and they get zero from it? and they own the in market rights?


These are good questions that we don't know the answers to and may end up being decided in court.


----------



## schmave1 (May 20, 2016)

There was nothing wrong with the superstation era at all. The Cubs and Braves, as well as the Mets and Yankees among other teams, were simply smart enough to be on board with their stations that in turn were smart enough to go national at the right time. Why is that their fault?
Why is no blame placed on, say, the Reds for only televising 45-50 games a year forever? Even into my teenage years here in central Ohio, it was far easier to watch the Cubs and Braves every day than the Reds, who are 100 miles from me. That's a giant reason the Reds' longtime radio team of Marty Brennaman and Joe Nuxhall became so legendary. But no one but the Reds themselves stopped them from televising 100 or more games every year, something that did not happen until the early 2000s.
Same for other small-market teams in those days.


----------



## schmave1 (May 20, 2016)

b4pjoe said:


> Nope.


Just ridiculous. I get it if Sinclair was able to expedite in-market carriage with DirecTV by excluding Sports Pack carriage at first, because that's most important, but I hope this changes someday. Unfortunately, I'm no longer a DirecTV customer because my condo neighborhood doesn't allow satellite dishes, but I do get the games on MLB TV. I also won't be able to get this Marquee streaming package, if it comes to that, because I'm out of market.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

Same here. Out of market. I was in market until I was moved out of market when Marquee was launched. I didn’t move. They just changed the market. It is like their main goal was to get as few viewers as possible.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

glrush said:


> Baseball is a regional game, stuck in the past when most people were born, lived, and died close to their hometown. I live in Iowa, but was born in Philly, grew up in Mississippi, joined the Navy, and became a Red Sox fan when I was stationed in Groton, CT. The TV model that MLB uses is outdated and does not fit today's demographic. Baseball should be all about growing the game, not sticking to outdated idea.
> The first thing that needs to happen id the MLB blackout rule needs to be scrapped.
> At least with Sirius/XM I can listen to the Sox on the radio anttime I want and it's glorious !


I get this feeling, but the problem is, if baseball foraaked it's local teams by essentially allowing any team to broadcast in your area and not prioritizing broadcasts to the local market, it's going to kill off a lot of franchises, You'll have a lot of super teams and teams nobody cares about. The NFL can get away with it because for years, the local teams don't mean as much as the super teams. Watch any national games, and you have the same 4-5 teams every week, plus a couple of "hot" teams. The rest of the teams they could care less about. And they can get away with it, because there's so few games, so it works in their marketing plans. Filling an NFL stadium means much less than their TV contracts. Baseball, STILL lives and dies by fans showing up at the ballpark, but if your a fan who grew up in Cleveland but the Yankees are easily accessible, maybe even more accessable than the Guardians are, and you don't have a history of rooting for your local team, why bother with the Guardians? Just root for any team that's good, or has a national following. That's happened a lot in the NBA, where many fans just watch whatever team James plays for or Curry, and care little about their home team. You are an exception to most fans, as you've moved around a bit and never developed an allegiance to your original home team. You might find nothing wrong with that, but I definitely see plenty wrong with it. If baseball loses the chance to fill their home stadiums and have local press, those teams will eventually go bankrupt. Best way to draw interest to the home team is have the games on TV, and as freely as possible and easily accessible. But in the lust for greed, they are going to kill the golden calf. You'll have the Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, Cardinals, Dodgers and maybe Giants, and the rest nobody will care about, because local interest in those teams will dry up.


----------



## B. Shoe (Apr 3, 2008)

The best way to draw interest to the home team is winning games. And even that's not enough, sometimes. (Ex: Tampa Bay Rays.) MLB's reasonably documented issues with teams trading the farm and tanking out during the season doesn't help fan interest in markets where they're playing with guys no one has heard of in late July-early August. That's not a fan's fault for caring about what else is happening in the league and taking viewer interest elsewhere.

I still don't understand why I should have to care about a team just because they're the closest one to my home. I live in a Nielsen market that, during the darkest times for the two franchises, aired Kansas City Chiefs games nearly each week on CBS, and St. Louis Rams games on FOX. There were plenty of other exciting, more competitive games each week. But this was the first option for local broadcasts. And it was BRUTAL for fans without Sunday Ticket.

Professional sports are a business. Fans are the consumer. The onus is on the content creator to make content that fans are interested in. If not, they take their business elsewhere.


----------



## mickat1 (Dec 14, 2021)

Well said B. Shoe.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

schmave1 said:


> There was nothing wrong with the superstation era at all. The Cubs and Braves, as well as the Mets and Yankees among other teams, were simply smart enough to be on board with their stations that in turn were smart enough to go national at the right time.


It could be argued that having the "superstation" teams providing daily games helped baseball as a whole. People built up an appetite seeing games more than once or twice per week.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

B. Shoe said:


> The best way to draw interest to the home team is winning games. And even that's not enough, sometimes. (Ex: Tampa Bay Rays.) MLB's reasonably documented issues with teams trading the farm and tanking out during the season doesn't help fan interest in markets where they're playing with guys no one has heard of in late July-early August. That's not a fan's fault for caring about what else is happening in the league and taking viewer interest elsewhere.
> 
> I still don't understand why I should have to care about a team just because they're the closest one to my home. I live in a Nielsen market that, during the darkest times for the two franchises, aired Kansas City Chiefs games nearly each week on CBS, and St. Louis Rams games on FOX. There were plenty of other exciting, more competitive games each week. But this was the first option for local broadcasts. And it was BRUTAL for fans without Sunday Ticket.
> 
> Professional sports are a business. Fans are the consumer. The onus is on the content creator to make content that fans are interested in. If not, they take their business elsewhere.


Nobody is forcing you to do anything (though, why someone from New York would want to root for a team in Dallas is beyond my comprehension, but that's me.) Like you said sports is a business and businesses have business models, and baseball's doesn't work without a strong following from the local region. If fans stop going to the stadium and local RSNs get no ratings and no advertising dollars, the team is done. TB, yeah, they manage to win, but if they didn't have an owner who's somewhat committed to the region, they would have left long ago. All I'm saying is that without a strong local following, most teams will fold, or they will concentrate in larger markets. The business model for the NFL is different due to the once a week nature of the sport and the HUGE amounts of TV revenue on a national level. And even with that the National focus is always on a few elite franchises and whoever is hot at the moment, otherwise the rest of the teams can suck eggs. Baseball can't work that way.


----------



## B. Shoe (Apr 3, 2008)

Steveknj said:


> Nobody is forcing you to do anything (though, why someone from New York would want to root for a team in Dallas is beyond my comprehension, but that's me.) Like you said sports is a business and businesses have business models, and baseball's doesn't work without a strong following from the local region. If fans stop going to the stadium and local RSNs get no ratings and no advertising dollars, the team is done. TB, yeah, they manage to win, but if they didn't have an owner who's somewhat committed to the region, they would have left long ago. All I'm saying is that without a strong local following, most teams will fold, or they will concentrate in larger markets. The business model for the NFL is different due to the once a week nature of the sport and the HUGE amounts of TV revenue on a national level. And even with that the National focus is always on a few elite franchises and whoever is hot at the moment, otherwise the rest of the teams can suck eggs. Baseball can't work that way.


You’re right; no one’s forcing anyone to do anything. But there’s more than one person on this thread calling out that the sky is falling for MLB franchises if fans within their home region don’t support their local team, you can hopefully understand why I feel like people are telling others to do something, even if it’s not specifically spelled out as such.

Every professional sport, from a national broadcast standpoint, focuses on its major franchises and “teams of the moment.” No one was paying attention to Golden State for 32 national broadcast games a season until Steph, Klay, Draymond and others took over. The concept of a “win-ocracy” isn’t exclusive to one major sport. Baseball, if anything, fails to not focusing on its teams of the moment and biggest stars enough. Case in point, as a Cardinals fan, if I tried to pawn off weekend tickets for a Cardinals vs. Cubs series, or a Cardinals vs. Padres series, which one sells for TRIPLE the value over the other? Cards vs. Cubs. Regardless that the Cubs were absolute trash by the time these game tickets were sold, and the Padres were red hot at the time, with one of the biggest “it” stars of the moment in Fernando Tatis, Jr., the divisional game went for triple the cost.

I say that in past tense, because it’s a true story that happened last fall at a fundraiser I attended. And it will happen again this year. Which leads to the real thing we’re overlooking…

“Baseball doesn’t work without a strong following from the local region.” *I don’t disagree with you one tiny bit.* Any professional team needs that, and to be realistic, most of them probably have the support they need. But the “business model” that we keep arguing over for baseball to be successful HAS to be allowed to evolve and change. Even if just a little. We’re discussing this on a section of a message board devoted to streaming television, something that wasn't even really anywhere near mainstream 5-6 years ago, and talking about why regional sports networks that built their living on linear TV are the key. As if the notion of direct-to-customer streaming or making access to more games is a monster that can’t be a part of the success puzzle. Baseball is a regional sport, agreed. But you've got to want people to care about more than their divisional opponents to sell more tickets and keep eyes glued on the TV screens.


----------



## evotz (Jan 23, 2014)

B. Shoe said:


> “Baseball doesn’t work without a strong following from the local region.” *I don’t disagree with you one tiny bit.* Any professional team needs that, and to be realistic, most of them probably have the support they need.


If the ability for a baseball franchise to exist in a region is dependent on forcing everyone in that region to get that team's TV broadcasts before they can get out of market broadcasts... then maybe that franchise doesn't need to exist in that region?

Local support is important, don't get me wrong. But if local people aren't interested in the team then why did a franchise start up in that region? Tampa Bay is an example of this. Tampa Bay has had some really good teams, but when you can't get 10,000 people to attend the games...the question becomes, why is there a team in Tampa Bay? Did anybody do a case study to check for local support before starting a franchise in Tampa Bay?

People should support their local team. They should want to support their local team. But if that supports has to be manufactured in terms of forcing local people to get those broadcasts... how really healthy is the local support of that team?

Where does that "local" support start to wane? 10 miles from the team's city - I'd expect to see a very large percentage of supporters of that local team. 25 miles... 50 miles.. 100 miles... 200 miles... 300 miles? When that percentage starts to wane... that's the extent of that team's "territory."


----------



## Wiseguide Deals (Nov 26, 2021)

For now, you can watch the Chicago Cubs on Marquee Sports Network, which is available on live TV streaming services like DIRECTV STREAM and fuboTV in the Chicago market. You can watch the Cubs on MLB.TV if you live out of market.

Some Cubs games may appear on Apple TV+ (Fridays) and Peacock (Sundays). Those games will be exclusive to those platforms and will not be available on any other service.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

B. Shoe said:


> I still don't understand why I should have to care about a team just because they're the closest one to my home.


I suspect that it is mostly about being able to quantify eyeballs for the courtship of advertisers.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

Wiseguide Deals said:


> For now, you can watch the Chicago Cubs on Marquee Sports Network, which is available on live TV streaming services like DIRECTV STREAM and fuboTV in the Chicago market. You can watch the Cubs on MLB.TV if you live out of market.
> 
> Some Cubs games may appear on Apple TV+ (Fridays) and Peacock (Sundays). Those games will be exclusive to those platforms and will not be available on any other service.


Marquee network is available nationwide on DirecTV Satellite with no games blacked out. You don't even need Extra Innings to view the games.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

b4pjoe said:


> Marquee network is available nationwide on DirecTV Satellite with no games blacked out. You don't even need Extra Innings to view the games.


While the channel is national, the Marquee website says that you must be in the Cubs' television territory to see live games. 


Marquee Sports Network FAQ said:


> *How can I access Cubs games if I am outside of Chicago Cubs television territory?*
> Per MLB policy, if you are outside of the Chicago Cubs home television territory, your only option to watch live Chicago Cubs games is through an MLB out-of-market streaming package.


Is this no longer true or is DIRECTV failing to handle the blackouts properly?


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

They opened it up on DIRECTV about 2 months ago and has been that way since. A week or 2 after it started someone posted an article about the change. It is around here somewhere.

I’m guessing that after fielding such a horrible team a lack of eyeballs prompted the move to make the ratings look better.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

b4pjoe said:


> They opened it up on DIRECTV about 2 months ago and has been that way since. A week or 2 after it started someone posted an article about the change. It is around here somewhere.


I don't dispute that DIRECTV is showing the games OOM. What I question is whether someone going to get spanked for it.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

Possibly. Right now it is like WGN in the 80’s except it is only happening through DIRECTV Satellite.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

b4pjoe said:


> Possibly. Right now it is like WGN in the 80’s except it is only happening through DIRECTV Satellite.


Perhaps the number of DIRECTV SPORTS PACK subscribers is viewed as not worth pursuing.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

b4pjoe said:


> Possibly. Right now it is like WGN in the 80’s except it is only happening through DIRECTV Satellite.


no other system has it other then local cable systems


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

JoeTheDragon said:


> no other system has it other then local cable systems


Marquee Sports Network is available within the Cubs home television territory in portions of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa and Wisconsin, and is carried on *DIRECTV, U-verse TV, and more than 50 cable providers, as well as streaming platforms DIRECTV STREAM (formerly AT&T TV) and fuboTV*.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

b4pjoe said:


> than 50 cable providers


in market only Does *U-verse TV* HD pack / sports pack show it out of market?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

b4pjoe said:


> *DIRECTV, U-verse TV, and more than 50 cable providers, as well as streaming platforms DIRECTV STREAM (formerly AT&T TV) and fuboTV*.


If you look at the "Channel Finder", all of those "cable providers" are located in the Cubs' television territory (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin).

The question of whether or not DIRECTV should be blacking the games out where they would be OOM remains.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

JoeTheDragon said:


> in market only Does *U-verse TV* HD pack / sports pack show it out of market?


I have no idea. I don't have U-Verse. Or Comcast or any other cable provider that has Marquee. According to the press release it says it is carried nationwide on DIRECTV. So it appears that only DIRECTV is carrying it out of market. But it does not say it is exclusive to Satellite so you would need to ask someone with Stream or U-Verse if they are getting it out of market. Notice the last sentence in the first paragraph. However the Cubs games have been showing for people that don't have Extra Innings. Don't know about the Sky game or any other local sports programming



> CHICAGO (May 9, 2022) – Marquee Sports Network and DIRECTV today announced an agreement to carry the network on the satellite provider nationwide. DIRECTV, which already carries Marquee Sports Network on channel 664 within the Cubs television territory, will now offer Marquee to consumers across the country, *carrying all programming except for live regular season Cubs and Sky games, as well as select local sports programming.*


Marquee Sports Network programming now available nationwide on DIRECTV


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

harsh said:


> If you look at the "Channel Finder", all of those "cable providers" are located in the Cubs' television territory (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin).
> 
> The question of whether or not DIRECTV should be blacking the games out where they would be OOM remains.


According to the press release I just posted the Cubs games should be blacked out for anyone that doesn't subscribe to Extra Innings or those that are in the Cubs territory.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

b4pjoe said:


> According to the press release I just posted the Cubs games should be blacked out for anyone that doesn't subscribe to Extra Innings or those that are in the Cubs territory.


DIRECTV must therefore be screwing up if your post #47 is accurate.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

Well I have Extra Innings so I can see the games but other here have reported that they are out of market and don't have EI and are getting the games unless that has changed recently.


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

Guys, DirecTV is not, and legally cannot, show Cubs games out of market. 

MLBEI is in free preview mode. That is all. Remain calm.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

I hate to tell you but they have been doing it since May. Obviously it is a mistake on DirecTV's part but I am not going to call them and tell them.


----------



## Rob37 (Jul 11, 2013)

Marquee is available nationwide on DIRECTV. They announced it back in May when the Cubs were playing on the road in San Diego. Including all of the shows that are available on the network would be available. And I also heard MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred say that in the near future all MLB Blackouts would start to be “phased out” I am thinking that the Cubs are the first team that was allowed to show all their games because they surely aren’t being Blacked Out.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

Rob37 said:


> And I also heard MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred say that in the near future all MLB Blackouts would start to be “phased out” I am thinking that the Cubs are the first team that was allowed to show all their games because they surely aren’t being Blacked Out.


Where did you hear Commissioner Rob Manfred is phasing out blackouts? With Marquee the Chicago Sky (WNBA) games are not being blacked out for me and they should be so it is not just MLB. I still think it is a DirecTV issue. Also I have seen some Cubs minor league games on Marquee. I would expect those to be blacked out too but they aren't.


----------



## evotz (Jan 23, 2014)

Rob37 said:


> And I also heard MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred say that in the near future all MLB Blackouts would start to be “phased out”


My guess is that future MLB.tv and maybe Extra Innings will have a price increase, but will include ALL games - so there's not really any blackout restrictions. Teams in your billing market may get more of the slice of pie. Trouble is, that'll potentially take a huge chunk of DirecTV and other cable providers where consumers only subscribe to get their "local" teams games. Not sure how that'll play out.

As for Cubs games on Marquee for those of you out of market - I can't speak to that, because I no longer have DirecTV. But are you sure you are out of market?

I don't know if minor leagues or WNBA have any out of market arrangement for their broadcasts - I'd kind of doubt that they have enough muscle to demand such treatment, any viewer is a good viewer.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

Yes I am out of market. And in the press release by Marquee that they were now available nationwide on DirecTV it clearly stated that Cubs and Sky games would be blacked out for out of market users.

Marquee Sports Network programming now available nationwide on DIRECTV



> CHICAGO (May 9, 2022) – Marquee Sports Network and DIRECTV today announced an agreement to carry the network on the satellite provider nationwide. DIRECTV, which already carries Marquee Sports Network on channel 664 within the Cubs television territory, will now offer Marquee to consumers across the country, *carrying all programming except for live regular season Cubs and Sky games, as well as select local sports programming.*


----------



## Rob37 (Jul 11, 2013)

b4pjoe said:


> Where did you hear Commissioner Rob Manfred is phasing out blackouts? With Marquee the Chicago Sky (WNBA) games are not being blacked out for me and they should be so it is not just MLB. I still think it is a DirecTV issue. Also I have seen some Cubs minor league games on Marquee. I would expect those to be blacked out too but they aren't.











Rob Manfred calls ending MLB's blackout policy a "top priority"


In a long profile at ESPN, Rob Manfred addressed MLB's blackout policy, claiming it's a "top priority" to fix while blaming contracts.



awfulannouncing.com


----------



## Rob37 (Jul 11, 2013)

b4pjoe said:


> Where did you hear Commissioner Rob Manfred is phasing out blackouts? With Marquee the Chicago Sky (WNBA) games are not being blacked out for me and they should be so it is not just MLB. I still think it is a DirecTV issue. Also I have seen some Cubs minor league games on Marquee. I would expect those to be blacked out too but they aren't.


He actually made some comments about Blackouts during an owners meeting in late June. In an interview he said that MLB will phase out all Blackouts within 10 years & he even went on to add that it won’t take 10 years. It will be much sooner than that. So let that countdown begin. This is his actual quote. “Many fans also complain that too many networks now broadcast MLB games, many behind paywalls. Fans say games are difficult to find and access, and blackout rules remain an irritant. “Our No. 1 business priority right now is reach,” Manfred says. The topic was a main discussion at an owners meeting in June. “Believe me,” he says, “we hate blackouts as much as fans do.” Manfred notes that the blackout clauses are written into broadcast deals — which he has overseen — but he says it’s now a “top priority” for MLB to phase them out.”


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Rob37 said:


> He actually made some comments about Blackouts during All-Star week. In an interview he said that MLB will phase out all Blackouts within 10 years & he even went on to add that it won’t take 10 years. It will be much sooner than that. So let that countdown begin.


I think that big deal that Apple struck with MLS is going to have a ripple effect through US sports. It's very fan-friendly. One service that includes all games, in and out of market, regular season and playoffs, zero blackouts. It may take until the 2030s, but I think we'll eventually see something along those lines for all the major US sports.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

Rob37 said:


> Rob Manfred calls ending MLB's blackout policy a "top priority"
> 
> 
> In a long profile at ESPN, Rob Manfred addressed MLB's blackout policy, claiming it's a "top priority" to fix while blaming contracts.
> ...


Thanks for the link. I'll believe something Rob Manfred says when it actually happens. Not sure why he is saying it is because of broadcast contracts. The only ones I can think of is the national games that are exclusive which are not that many. The need to fix the territories that teams claim.


----------



## Rob37 (Jul 11, 2013)

To answer b4pjoe the actual interview where MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred is asked about Blackouts is in an L.A. Times article that was given at the time of All Star week in Los Angeles. Just have to read the article. In it he specifically says Blackouts will be phased out and it will not take much longer. He says “there is going to be some wood to chop with RSN’s but it will happen sooner rather than later.” Q&A: Rob Manfred on Trevor Bauer, payroll disparity, rule changes and TV blackouts


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

Rob Manfred has been known to lie. Just a few examples.

Rob Manfred Was Lying From The Start

Rob Manfred seemingly got caught lying about his knowledge of the Marlins' fire sale

All Rob Manfred Can Do Is Lie About This Stuff


----------



## Rob37 (Jul 11, 2013)

b4pjoe said:


> Rob Manfred has been known to lie. Just a few examples.
> 
> Rob Manfred Was Lying From The Start
> 
> ...


I doubt he’s lying about phasing out the MLB Blackouts. Many people are against them and apparently he doesn’t like them either. He’s on record saying they will start being phased out and Marquee being available on DIRECTV Nationwide is a start.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Rob37 said:


> I doubt he’s lying about phasing out the MLB Blackouts. Many people are against them and apparently he doesn’t like them either. He’s on record saying they will start being phased out and Marquee being available on DIRECTV Nationwide is a start.


Wait. Are you claiming that Rob Manfred said Marquee without blackouts is a start or are you assuming that a lack of blackouts is the start? If you are claiming Rob Manfred said Marquee without blackouts is a start please link that specific statement.


----------



## Rob37 (Jul 11, 2013)

James Long said:


> Wait. Are you claiming that Rob Manfred said Marquee without blackouts is a start or are you assuming that a lack of blackouts is the start? If you are claiming Rob Manfred said Marquee without blackouts is a start please link that specific statement.


 It could be. Since May, Marquee hasn’t been blacked out and their deal is "nationwide" and I am sorry there’s no link. Do you think in a 3 month period of time wouldn’t they notice Marquee not being blacked out?


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

What Manfred said was “Believe me,” he says, “we hate blackouts as much as fans do.” Manfred notes that the blackout clauses are written into broadcast deals — which he has overseen — but he says it’s now a “top priority” for MLB to phase them out.

The Marquee situation has nothing to do with it and it is NOT the start of MLB phasing out blackouts. As I linked the article previously and I will post it again with the exceprt that says the Cubs and Sky should be blacked out for out of network viewers. That fact that they are not blacked out is just a mistake by DirecTV.

Marquee Sports Network programming now available nationwide on DIRECTV



> CHICAGO (May 9, 2022) – Marquee Sports Network and DIRECTV today announced an agreement to carry the network on the satellite provider nationwide. DIRECTV, which already carries Marquee Sports Network on channel 664 within the Cubs television territory, will now offer Marquee to consumers across the country, *carrying all programming except for live regular season Cubs and Sky games, as well as select local sports programming.*


----------



## Rob37 (Jul 11, 2013)

This was part of a Question & Answer session that Rob Manfred had with someone with the L.A. Times before the All-Star game in Los Angeles this year. 

*Q: *_Let’s say I am a fan who can’t get to the ballpark, and I want to do one thing: I want to watch whatever game I want, wherever I live and I don’t want to get a headache trying to figure out which channel or streaming service has the game I want to watch on any given night. I will happily pay you for this. Can you explain to me how soon I might be able to do that, and what has to happen between then and now?

*Manfred:* You certainly have the right person as commissioner of baseball because, if there is one thing I could wish for, more than anything else, it would be the ability to give our fans that frictionless experience of being able to watch what they want to watch, where they want to watch. There is no project that we are spending more time on in the central office than trying to achieve the goal you just articulated.

*Q: *So what has to happen?_

*Manfred:* There is a lot of wood to chop. It is going to involve fundamental reordering of the control of rights in the industry. It is going to involve conversations with our partners in the broadcast space, including RSNs (regional sports networks like SportsNet LA and Bally Sports West) and distributors. It is a massive undertaking, which is the bad news. I think the good news is, there is a realization in the industry that, in order for this business to be all it can be, we need to undertake an effort to get as close to the model you are talking about as possible.

*Q: *_Is that a five-year project? A 10-year project?_

*Manfred:* It will not be a 10. It is going to happen sooner than that.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

So basically less than 10 years. The guy is a sleazy lawyer that will tell anyone what they want to hear. He blames the blackouts on TV contracts that he helped to negotiate. If he hates blackouts so much why are blackouts still in there. He has been commissioner for 7 years.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Rob37 said:


> _There is no project that we are spending more time on in the central office than trying to achieve the goal you just articulated._


So there is nothing more important than blowing up their partnerships with broadcasters? I think it isn't going to be easy to walk away from multi-million dollar deals that already stretch as far as 2028.

The complaint he was answering was about needing to easily find games without needing to search for the channel. The "obvious" solution (obvious to me) would be to put all games on one platform. The Apple TV deal signed earlier this year is the opposite of the stated goal of making it easy to find games -- removing out of market games from MLB.TV's paid offering and making games exclusive to yet another service that viewers need to search for and subscribe to.

If MLB truly intends to create a less fragmented way of viewing games they need to stop introducing further fragmentation.


----------



## Rob37 (Jul 11, 2013)

b4pjoe said:


> So basically less than 10 years. The guy is a sleazy lawyer that will tell anyone what they want to hear. He blames the blackouts on TV contracts that he helped to negotiate. If he hates blackouts so much why are blackouts still in there. He has been commissioner for 7 years.


 That’s a question you’d have to ask him. All I did was provide what he said to you.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

LOL...he never said anything to me.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Whether it is the Commissioner of MLB or the President of Russia, what they want isn't necessarily an indicator of what they will get.


----------

