DBSTalk Forum banner

Report: MLB looking into fixing blackout issue (EI & MLB-TV)

9K views 115 replies 26 participants last post by  CopyChief 
#1 ·
#5 · (Edited)
I have been following this. I think that blackouts will finally be ending. MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred himself has said “blackouts are frustrating”. I also have been following that MLB may buy the Bally Regional Sports Channels. Blackouts might come to an end this year. Fingers crossed🤞 Link Below. This is all very promising news with MLB season right around the corner.

 
#53 ·
MLB (or any other league) doesn't exist uniquely for your personal entertainment. Many jobs and a lot of money ride on ticket sales.

The teams that don't regularly sell out aren't going to survive if they can't wring the most possible value out of their franchise.
 
#8 ·
Rob37, if you believe a single word out of Manfred's mouth.... well, I don't know what to say.

This is the guy who says it's all about the kids and fans, then lets ESPN move a 1:00PM to 7:00PM on a Sunday, when families have bought tickets months in advance.

This is the guy who says it's all about the kids and fans, then lets world series games end near midnight on the east coast.

This is the guy who says it's all about the kids and fans, then lets teams wait 3 hours before postponing a game due to rain.

This is the guy who says it's all about the kids and fans, oh, well...... the defense rests.

The only reason blackouts will ever go away is because MLB will make an extra 12 cents on the deal.
 
#9 ·
The only reason blackouts will ever go away is because MLB will make an extra 12 cents on the deal.
So you're saying there is a chance? :)

There may be an opportunity for blackouts to be negotiated due to the RSNs having issues delivering the content they paid for. The MLB still needs someone to produce their games and they rely on the RSNs to do that. Working WITH the RSNs to sell the RSN's MLB content via MLB.TV in a way that is beneficial to the MLB (making 12 cents) and the RSNs (being able to easily sell via streaming) could be worked out.

I agree that the solution will be driven by finances.
 
#11 ·
"Blackouts" are a function of multiple generations of ineptitude in the leadership of MLB. RM is just the most recent occupant of the office who lacks the leadership to get MLB on one page relative to their media rights.

When RM is talking about "doing away with blackouts" that has NOTHING to do with ending the crazy quilt of over-lapping claims to places where, simply put, these teams are NOT THE LOCAL TEAM. Rather it means offering some kind of product where you pay for the entire league, including how many ever (it can be up to six) teams claim to be "local" to you. You will pay more.

A leader would simply do a study, based on ticket sales, fan polls, sports writers, history, etc. and then INFORM the various teams what their actual geographic boundaries are. The Cleveland whatevers are NOT local in eastern Kentucky, the Pittsburgh Pirates are NOT local in any part of West Virginia south of US 50, nor in Columbus Ohio, nor in Buffalo. The Reds are NOT local in Mississippi or North Carolina. The Twins are NOT local in Montana. There may, in fact, be places where no team really is a local team. A leader INFORMS the teams. A loser announces he is working on it.
 
#17 ·
"Blackouts" are a function of multiple generations of ineptitude in the leadership of MLB. RM is just the most recent occupant of the office who lacks the leadership to get MLB on one page relative to their media rights.
Blackouts are embedded in the contract between RSNs and the teams. It has to do with local broadcast rights holder making sure they protect the commercials since the same commercials are not on MLB.TV. Streaming of commercials are rarely the same as the broadcast. If you are an advertiser paying for local spots, you would be pissed if a portion of the audience isn't seeing them.

Local broadcast blackouts are not limited to just MLB. The same blackouts happen on NBA Leaguepass, CenterIce and even Sunday Ticket. So it is not the "ineptitude in the leadership of MLB" because that would include the NBA,NHL and NFL.

Now I think it is in the best interest of the RSNs to negotiate and find a solution.
 
#12 ·
It is strange that I am "local" to teams in three different MLB markets (Chicago, Detroit, Cincinnati). The NBA and NHL have decided I am only "local" to Chicago. DIRECTV has also decided that I am only local to Chicago and requires the "Sports Pack" to view Detroit and Cincinnati games.

One design (not perfect, but a design) would be to have 100% of games available either from the MVPD subscription or MLB EI. Buy those two subscriptions and never be blocked out of any game anywhere. But the MVPD subscription has become overpriced (unless one wants the hundreds of other channels) and some RSNs are not distributed throughout their entire team's footprints. Cincinnati games should not be exclusive to an RSN outside of where that RSN is distributed on ALL MVPDs. The availability of "Sports Pack" helps on DIRECTV but I can't say every MVPD would provide the Cincinnati and Detroit games where I live. I can say that MLB EI would be blacked out.

The cord cutting shift away from MVPD subscriptions breaks that old school design. People want to pay for JUST the content they want to view. They don't want to pay for RSNs and Sports Packs just to watch their one favorite team. The cord cutter needs an option that works around the RSN via MVPD model. Something that provides the games regardless of who has the rights in their area.

"Here is $200 ... give me every Detroit Tigers game and don't bore me with who has the rights to that game or what MVPD channel it would be on." Since I am in the Tigers footprint that would usually be Bally Detroit. So let's pick another team - $200 for every LA Dodgers game. Don't tell me which "local" RSN the game is on and make me subscribe to an MVPD package and Sports Pack to get the game, just deliver the game.

Of course that breaks the RSN's distribution model of "charge everybody via their MVPD whether they watch the RSN or not". A model that is fairly broken anyways now MVPDs are saying no to carrying RSNs.

The final thought I have on the issue is what to do with nationally broadcast games. Games that currently are not on any RSN or MLB EI. Would my $200 allow me to watch the Tigers when they play on ESPN or some other national feed? Nope. Getting to 100% of the games being available is more than a simple request.
 
#21 ·
The final thought I have on the issue is what to do with nationally broadcast games. Games that currently are not on any RSN or MLB EI. Would my $200 allow me to watch the Tigers when they play on ESPN or some other national feed? Nope. Getting to 100% of the games being available is more than a simple request.
go back to the old rules and let the teams sell and market there own feeds to any one (and have no blackouts even when playing an local team and you are out of market) Like the old WGN days.
 
#14 · (Edited)
This chart is a couple of years old, but look at the "end" column and the "revenue" column.


Herding cats would be easier than getting 30 teams with vastly different revenue totals and end dates to agree on a "one spot" deal. Especially when many teams have ownership positions in their RSN's.

Edit: Ooops, forgot to include the link. Sorry....
 
#15 ·
How dumb are current blackouts?

In Vegas, we are considered "in-market" to 6 teams, the nearest being the Angels at 265 miles away.

Compare to San Diego. Since they have an "in-market" team, Angel games are "out of market" - a mere 95 miles away.

Go figure.

At least DirecTV carries all 6 "in-market" teams - Dodgers, Angels, Padres, D'Backs, Giants, and A's.
So, I don't have to drive 530 miles round trip to see my "local" Angels play.
Or 1,136 miles to see my "local" Giants play.
 
#16 ·
i live 135 miles from the Twin Cities.. and 207 miles from Miller Park in Milwaukee.. and yes the Brewers are my team but .. you would like to believe that you could SEE BOTH ON BALLY"S SPORTS. but NO.. I can't even though the channel is 669.. Brewers yes.. Twins no.. and yet I have spoken to many HERE who get mulitple teams in their location.. Will this change fix this?
 
#18 ·
I remember a similar article years ago 2019

 
#27 ·
The MLB blackout rules started out as a way to protect local broadcasters and then RSNs so that:
A) they can sell local ads and show them to their local audience. If you sell a local car dealership ad, you want to make sure that the people watching are local to that car dealer and not 1000 miles away, that's wasted money.
B) keep local fans from watching out of town games, thus loss of local fan interest which leads to gate revenue. It stems from the old fears that first radio and then TV would lead to less gate. What MLB never wants to happen is that it becomes the NFL where large portions of fans start rooting for out of town teams, and only the better teams with large out of town interest. Imagine fans in Kansas City have the ability to watch, instead of their Royals, watch Dodger, or Yankee or Cubs games, and THOSE teams gain large fan bases and lead to disinterest of the local teams, and again, less gate or interest in the local RSNs. As a fan of local teams, I hate the number of Cowboy or Steeler fans in the NY Metro area. Why is that? Because those teams are on TV EVERY week.

But with that said, the blackout rules have gotten out of hand. They should be limited to either the local metro area, or in areas where the team is a statewide team (i.e. Minnesota Twins) to those states. Any area that is out of a certain range should be "free" territory and leave it up to providers to carry whatever RSNs they think their fans want, or, offer MLB packages with no black out restrictions. So if you live in Alabama, there are no teams close, you should be free to watch who you want.

To me, as long as RSNs are still viable, there will be blackout restrictions, but as said, they need to loosen them up some and restrict them to actual areas of interest. Eventually RSNs will morph into apps you can buy that might only be available in your area where you will pay a flat fee to watch your team's games, or MLB will control the whole shebang and sell you either ALL the games, or just your local teams games (Maybe all games for $400 a year, and your team only for $200, something like that).
 
#28 ·
B) keep local fans from watching out of town games, thus loss of local fan interest which leads to gate revenue. It stems from the old fears that first radio and then TV would lead to less gate. What MLB never wants to happen is that it becomes the NFL where large portions of fans start rooting for out of town teams, and only the better teams with large out of town interest. Imagine fans in Kansas City have the ability to watch, instead of their Royals, watch Dodger, or Yankee or Cubs games, and THOSE teams gain large fan bases and lead to disinterest of the local teams, and again, less gate or interest in the local RSNs. As a fan of local teams, I hate the number of Cowboy or Steeler fans in the NY Metro area. Why is that? Because those teams are on TV EVERY week.
Right now it is far easier to see teams that are not local to your area. Just buy MLB-TV.
 
#32 ·
I am not talking about my situation. I am talking about your statement that was “Imagine fans in Kansas City have the ability to watch, instead of their Royals, watch Dodger, or Yankee or Cubs games, and THOSE teams gain large fan bases and lead to disinterest of the local teams, and again, less gate or interest in the local RSNs.” which is exactly how it is in most places.
 
#42 ·
But it's not "easier" it's the same model it's always been. You want to watch your games, you get cable, or watch OTA. Nothing has changed. You STILL need a viable internet connection to get MLB.TV, same as you will with ST. So nothing has "changed". I get that folks are moving off of traditional TV. The model will have to change. But I don't think it's going to be to get rid of blackout rules, at least to some extent. I think RSNs will stream games to you for a fee. And will still be able to sell local advertising. Perhaps they tie it into MLB.TV, perhaps not. We'll see see how that goes.
 
#33 ·
MLB is working on this now because they know the existing RSN model is not sustainable. If they wait until RSNs start going bankrupt, the teams that rely on those RSNs for a large portion of their revenue may not get paid. A solution might be to charge a higher price for MLB.TV, include in-market games in the package, and give the RSNs a cut.
 
#43 ·
Or RSNs realize that they need to offer a streaming service (isn't that happening for the Cubs?) for cord cutters with no strings attached for a fee (and this maintains local ad revenue. Imagine if you can buy a streaming version of your local RSN. Here in NY both YES Network and MSG have streaming versions of their networks and apps for both, but to watch they need to be tied to your cable or sat package. If they sold those standalone, that should solve everyone's issue. They can restrict it to a local billing address to protect advertisers if they wanted to. In other words, someone in California cannot purchase the package (but obviously could still purchase the league package to watch the games).

What everyone here seems to want is MLB.TV to be allowed to show every game. I don't see that happening as currently offered.
 
#48 ·
Rob, you continue to pretend the world is here to simply serve you.
Let's say you go to Caesars Palace and you ask for a Coca Cola, and they tell you they only serve Pepsi products. Do they owe you what you want?
Let's say you go into a liquor store and, opening a 12 pack of beer, you tell the owner you only want 11? Do they owe you what you want?

Why is it so hard for you to understand businesses make decisions on how to market and sell their products?
They have no obligation to package their products based on the needs of one Rob37.

And by the way, your final sentence is absolutely wrong.
You are only paying for the package of games being offered, whether it's your RSN or any out of market package.

You may think you "deserve" something, but in truth, none of us deserve anything. We look at product offerings and vote with either our wallet or our feet.
 
#38 ·
The issue is that the main reason NY or LA is a "big market" and KC or Pittsburgh is a "small market" is the RSN. RSNs make up, depending on which website you believe (MLB is a very closed book king of operation) between 30 and 45% of team income. For every team. The difference in the size of the RSN region IS the difference in market size
Thus the big market teams and the small market teams are, once again, at odd with one another. A solution to the RSN issue must involve a no-option, you must first buy your home team(s), rule as a predicate to out of town teams. The Reds and Cardinals would love that. The Phillies and Red Sox, not so much.

A word about MLB.TV and its predecessor, MLBEI. This is gravy money. The games are produced by the RSNs for local viewing. The costs are covered by the local subscribers to the local RSN. Then baseball sell these games to the relative handful of people outside of the region that wants them. Gravy money. Extra. Not a big source of income in the overall scheme of things. The idea that you have "paid for these games" is not really true. Yes, if you live in Georgia, you have paid for Phillies-Mets, because the value of Phillies-Mets in Georgia is not very high. But, no you have not paid for Phillies-Braves. You haven't paid for any Braves content. Because Braves content in Georgia is very expensive.

The difference between MLB>TV and it predecessor, of course, is that MLBEI was in all but the most technical of technicalities, predicated on first paying your fair share for local baseball.
 
#39 ·
When did the NFL actually eliminate it's own blackout rules?

The NFL blackout rule was the dumbest of them all. If the game wasn't sold out by the middle/end of the week, no home game on local network channel that Sunday. Stupid.

I know that teams did everything to skirt it but sometimes a local game was blacked out due to a non-sellout at the stadium. This was an issue for the Jaguars, Bengals and several other teams that always had trouble selling out.
 
#44 ·
When did the NFL actually eliminate it's own blackout rules?

The NFL blackout rule was the dumbest of them all. If the game wasn't sold out by the middle/end of the week, no home game on local network channel that Sunday. Stupid.

I know that teams did everything to skirt it but sometimes a local game was blacked out due to a non-sellout at the stadium. This was an issue for the Jaguars, Bengals and several other teams that always had trouble selling out.
When they realized they are probably making more money from TV than they were from gate. In the old days gate drove revenue for the NFL. Having people NOT go to games was a major problem for them. Now that the TV money is so huge, if they sell 5k less tickets they don't care as much, it's 5k more eyeballs watching the game and more advertising money. Obviously they STILL want fans at games, and they build these colossal stadiums for that reason. But TV money is so big that a stadium that's not sold out is just not as big a deal as it was 40 years ago. And I'm sure the networks paying that big money made sure that there would be NO reason to have local games blacked out anymore (because in most local markets the larger audience is watching a local team rather than an out of town team).
 
#73 · (Edited)
For years on every sports package they say “get every out of market game” what the league could change is this. You pay for a package “MLB Extra Innings” you get each and every single MLB game. Take the “out of market” out of the advertising and give everybody all of the games. The insanity has got to end with these blackouts once and for all. The league puts out a price for their product whether it’s $139 a season or whether it’s $199 a season. The consumer can decide whether or not they want the package or not. But give us folks who are willing to pay all the games. It’s the only way to resolve this. It should be if you want to buy the games, you’ll get all the games no matter where you live. Rob Manfred has said “Blackouts are frustrating” this is the only way to resolve the issue of “Blackouts”.
 
#75 ·
Yeah, and we should also get free hot dogs and beer with that too. While your at it, how about we all get free season tickets too? Explain to me how they make money with this? EVERY FAN including myself would love that, especially those who cut the cord, who would benefit the most. But there has to be a way to make money. RSNs need to make money (and you will still need them involved to broadcast the games.) They want local revenue as their advertisers pay for local ads. Remember, the LEAGUE doesn't own broadcast rights.
 
#79 ·
There is a way to add local broadcasts to MLB.tv for cordcutters.
And it protects, somewhat, the RSN.

If O-O-M MLB.tv is $139, make "zero blackout" MLB.tv $199, with all of the $60 difference going to the local RSN.
More than one RSN in the area? Let the user pick one, and if they want more, add an upcharge.
This would be "game only" with pre and post game shows, not 24 hours.
MLB already has access to every game, every day.

Here in Vegas,we have 6 in-market teams, none anywhere local. Those 6 RSN's cost me $14 per month. $168 per year. You could do the same $60 upcharge for NHL and NBA. $60 per league X 3 is $180.

Edit: I am not talking about including the ESPN, TBS, FOX, Apple, Peacock, Amazon, et al games in this package.

Second Edit: If I switch to YTTV, an offer of MLB.TV + a local team for $200 might be worth it with the money saved by quitting DirecTV.
And the technology exists for all local ads to be shown.
I watched the NFL on Paramount+ and the Fox Sports app and they were filled with local spots.
 
#89 ·
There is a way to add local broadcasts to MLB.tv for cordcutters.
And it protects, somewhat, the RSN.

If O-O-M MLB.tv is $139, make "zero blackout" MLB.tv $199, with all of the $60 difference going to the local RSN.
More than one RSN in the area? Let the user pick one, and if they want more, add an upcharge.
This would be "game only" with pre and post game shows, not 24 hours.
MLB already has access to every game, every day.

Here in Vegas,we have 6 in-market teams, none anywhere local. Those 6 RSN's cost me $14 per month. $168 per year. You could do the same $60 upcharge for NHL and NBA. $60 per league X 3 is $180.

Edit: I am not talking about including the ESPN, TBS, FOX, Apple, Peacock, Amazon, et al games in this package.

Second Edit: If I switch to YTTV, an offer of MLB.TV + a local team for $200 might be worth it with the money saved by quitting DirecTV.
And the technology exists for all local ads to be shown.
I watched the NFL on Paramount+ and the Fox Sports app and they were filled with local spots.
How does that help MLB? Would $60 per sub be enough? I don't know the answers, but if it was that simple, I think they would have done it already.
 
#85 ·
There is no chance that "blackouts" will end as long as the current contracts with the teams are in place.

The benefit of Sinclair and the other RSNs going bankrupt is the teams will be forced to negotiate elsewhere for carriage. Once the existing contracts are gone MLB has the opportunity to buy in market rights to live games. Until then, the rights belong to the teams and the teams are bound to the contracts already in place.
 
#86 ·
My $0.02 on blackouts is that with streaming, they no longer do what they were originally intended to do. Protecting an in-market broadcast by blacking out both the in-market and out-of-market broadcast is flat-out stupid and results in people finding ways around them. And it is very, very easy to beat them with a VPN.

What I could support and would even be willing to pay more for would be a package that simply blacks out the out-of-market broadcast while allowing the in-market broadcast to be shown. An example of that for me would be Mets/Phillies in South Jersey. MLB CI or MLB.tv should be allowed to show the NBCSN Philadephia broadcast while blacking out the SNY/PIX 11 broadcast.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top