# Sinclair Streaming RSN Plan Slammed by MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred



## glrush (Jun 29, 2002)

Sinclair Streaming RSN Plan Slammed by MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred | Next TV


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

Manfred is, as usual, full of bluster and illogic.

First, there is no such thing as “gambling rights”. Sports are public events, and a legal sports book can take bets on it. No “rights” involved.

But, most importantly, MLB needs the RSNs. It is 50% of team revenue. While it is unquestioned that out-of-market rights belong to MLB (and also unquestioned that it is the RSNs that produce the games MLB sells out-of-market) it is likewise unquestioned that an OTT method of selling in-market games must be found.

Further, IMHO, the main thing baseball MUST do is figure a way to force purchase of the in-market team(s) ‘ games as a predicate for buying the out-of-market packages. Baseball barely survived the Turner/Tribune system that made it easier to follow other teams but not your own.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

SamC said:


> Further, IMHO, the main thing baseball MUST do is figure a way to force purchase of the in-market team(s) ' games as a predicate for buying the out-of-market packages. Baseball barely survived the Turner/Tribune system that made it easier to follow other teams but not your own.


No. thank you. Under a strict reading of that rule an RSN that refused carriage would prohibit delivery of out of market package in that market. That would prevent the MLB from making money off of their Extra Innings package that they are currently making and give the RSNs even more leverage to force expensive carriage on systems.

The Cubs / Braves problem was due to the games being available cheaply nationwide. Initially the carriage was outside of the control of the leagues, WGN and WTBS local stations were carried nation wide as "superstations". When those feeds changed to "cable only" channels separate from the locals the leagues gained more control. They could prohibit "out of market" delivery - and eventually did. That problem cannot repeat as long as the league controls out of market delivery.

What Sinclair CAN do is national feeds with either alternate programming or blackouts when protected content is being aired. I'm not sure of the value of such programming (unless one really likes the non-game content for their team). Partnered with MLB they could offer an out of market service. The MLB is more than willing to sell their content .


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

I'm wondering why, at this point, the MLB sees it as being in their interest to use a third party like Diamond/Sinclair or other RSNs to televise/stream the bulk of their games? Why not just bring it all in-house? Hire video crews and commentators for each team. Sell games to viewers both in-market and out-of-market. Those packages could be sold by MVPDs, with games aired on linear channels, just like Extra Innings for out-of-market games now. And they could also be sold through the existing MLB.tv streaming app, which currently only offers out-of-market games. Maybe they'd only sell full-season packages or perhaps they'd also offer smaller packages of games, e.g. choose any 5 games you like.

In other words, do away with the RSN system for in-market games and instead incorporate them into their current out-of-market system. It's looking like Diamond may go bankrupt and everyone seems to recognize that the existing RSN system is broken.

Aside from all the above, MLB could still have broadcast deals for broadcast and cable nets (Fox, TBS, etc.) to air select games nationally.


----------



## glrush (Jun 29, 2002)

A Bet on Sports Programming Gone Wrong | The Motley Fool


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

glrush said:


> A Bet on Sports Programming Gone Wrong | The Motley Fool


I notice the final key point that the author of this article states agrees with my post above: "Long-term, this is a middleman in a content business where direct-to-consumer is the future."


----------



## glrush (Jun 29, 2002)

Looks like MLB might be wanting to snag local rights for MLB games.

MLB reportedly considering their own in-market streaming service (awfulannouncing.com)


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

James Long said:


> Under a strict reading of that rule an RSN that refused carriage would prohibit delivery of out of market package in that market. That would prevent the MLB from making money off of their Extra Innings package that they are currently making and give the RSNs even more leverage to force expensive carriage on systems.


No, in a streaming economy "carriage" isn't a thing any more. But the HUGE mistake, which baseball still suffers from, of allowing the Cubs and Braves to attack the other teams must never happen again.



> The Cubs / Braves problem was due to the games being available cheaply nationwide.


Much like MLB's out-of-market package is, well, free on T-mobile, and $130/year for everybody else, while Sinclair believes that $39/month is the break even point for in-market streaming.

Nope. Everyone should pay for their LOCAL team(s) (and yes, the maps need fixing) before they can get the SUPPLEMENT out of market packages. Just common sense and reason. It should never be cheaper or easier to watch some other team besides your own.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

SamC said:


> No, in a streaming economy "carriage" isn't a thing any more.


Your proposal was "baseball MUST [] figure a way to force purchase of the in-market team(s) ' games as a predicate for buying the out-of-market packages."
The MLB's current streaming based offer is out of market only ... it does not include any in-market carriage of teams.
The MLB's current MVPD based offer could require the MVPD to deliver the RSN first, but that leads to the leverage issue noted in my post.

I don't believe the MLB wants to give up the money they are making on MLB EI and give RSNs more leverage.
For the streaming solution MLB could raise the price of MLB EI and include the local RSN in the package.
I would not expect the NBA and NHL (and any other carried sports) to like the MLB selling THEIR content via streaming, so more blackouts?



SamC said:


> Everyone should pay for their LOCAL team(s) (and yes, the maps need fixing) before they can get the SUPPLEMENT out of market packages. Just common sense and reason. It should never be cheaper or easier to watch some other team besides your own.


For most people viewing their own team has been FREE (with subscription to a MVPD). That model has been broken due to the high price and low overall popularity of the RSN. The real cost of viewing their own team has been hidden - partially exposed by RSN fees but the total cost to a MVPD to have an RSN is much more than the 10% who want to watch are paying.

That is where sticker shock will hit. $20 per month for your RSN? $40 per month? I believe most people will give up their RSN before paying that much. The 10% of paying MVPD subscribers (free with MVPD subscription) will become a smaller number when they have to pay $20-$40 or more per month to cover the rights fees paid by their RSN to the local MLB team and the MLB.

Yes, the model is broken. Forcing people to buy their local team to get the team they want isn't the solution.

Under your plan a Dodgers fan in Milwaukee will be forced to pay Sinclair for the Brewers before they will be able to see the Dodgers?
$120 to MLB to view the Dodgers plus (lets say) $240 to Sinclair for a team that they don't want to see? And you expect that proposal to be supported?


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

James Long said:


> The MLB's current streaming based offer is out of market only


Which is why we are having a discussion of this idea of in-market streaming.


> For the streaming solution MLB could raise the price of MLB EI and include the local RSN in the package.


Exactly. Not "could" but "MUST". Watching other people's teams can never be easier or cheaper than watching your own.



> For most people viewing their own team has been FREE (with subscription to a MVPD).


No, it costs many dollars, it is just hidden in the overall bill. So many dollars that it constitutes 50% of team income. Income that must be protected.



> Under your plan a Dodgers fan in Milwaukee will be forced to pay Sinclair for the Brewers before they will be able to see the Dodgers?
> $120 to MLB to view the Dodgers plus (lets say) $240 to Sinclair for a team that they don't want to see? And you expect that proposal to be supported?


Become a Brewers fan. You live in Wisconsin. Not California.


----------



## AZ. (Mar 27, 2011)

SamC said:


> Become a Brewers fan. You live in Wisconsin. Not California.


Ok, your not a sports fan.....Now your opinions make it clearer!


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Most people want the ability to buy a single teams games and not the entire league. And yet you are pushing the idea you have to buy your own market before the league in general.

Right now someone can have zero services other than over the air tv, and then buy just the out of market streaming for mlb games. That seems to be working fine. I believe Manfried is mad because he wants bigger increases in money to go just to the league, not any providers.

Your become a brewers fan over being a Dodgers fan shows you don’t care if the league grows its fan base and revenue. Some fans follow players to different teams, you do not want to alienate them. Same with people who move cities. Giving people options is what matters. It’s what will grow their overall revenue, not being stingy about buy this before that because of what city you live in.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

SamC said:


> No, it costs many dollars, it is just hidden in the overall bill. So many dollars that it constitutes 50% of team income. Income that must be protected.


Your idea of protecting the team is undercutting the deals they make with their RSNs?



> Become a Brewers fan. You live in Wisconsin. Not California.


That isn't going to happen. Subscribers mistreated by MLB would be more likely to find another sport than change allegences. If Brewers vs Dodgers is not controversial enough how about Red Sox vs Yankees?


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

SamC said:


> Become a Brewers fan. You live in Wisconsin. Not California.


That is BS. I live in Illinois and somehow my in market team is in Missouri. I would not pay $40 to get my in market team. In fact I would not take it if Sinclair offered to pay me $40 to take it.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

MLB Reportedly Considering Nationwide Streaming Service with No Blackouts


----------



## glrush (Jun 29, 2002)

Sinclair currently only has direct to consumer rights for four MLB teams (awfulannouncing.com)


----------



## billsharpe (Jan 25, 2007)

I haven't watched a complete MLB game in years. The game has slowed down too much for me. I remember going to Sunday doubleheaders that got finished in a bit over four hours when I was much younger. Now World Series games feature ten pitchers and take up close to four hours.


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

That and too many statistics being talked about from the announcers. Haven't watch baseball in a long time - not the game anymore but the broadcast. Plus some of the uniforms that teams wear some of the time are just too much of a joke


----------



## B. Shoe (Apr 3, 2008)

NashGuy said:


> In other words, do away with the RSN system for in-market games and instead incorporate them into their current out-of-market system. It's looking like Diamond may go bankrupt and everyone seems to recognize that the existing RSN system is broken.
> 
> Aside from all the above, MLB could still have broadcast deals for broadcast and cable nets (Fox, TBS, etc.) to air select games nationally.


Getting back to the original intent of the post before we go down a rabbit hole of why people don't watch baseball. I'm in favor of this. It's a shell shock of a move for some fans I'm sure, but inevitably what we're likely going toward at some point, for what I'd wager are most larger sporting leagues (Maybe not the NFL, for the present.)


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

The NFL is a different animal. It nationalized its TV rights, over 60 years ago.

In baseball, and to a lesser extent the NBA and NHL, the local rights are huge. 50% of a baseball team’s income. 

As the RSN system goes away, MLB, and the other two leagues, must not make the Turner/Tribune mistake again. First a customer MUST buy his local team(s) ‘ games, as a predicate to the national “no blackouts” supplement package. Or there must be only one package, with the local team getting the lion’s share of a buyer’s cash, based on his location.

It must NEVER AGAIN be easier or cheaper to watch other teams beside you own.


----------

