MLB dumps ESPN

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Skipscards

I'm not distancing myself from anything. MLB did dump ESPN because they have been unhappy with ESPN steadily removing it's previously superb coverage and replacing it with dreck. But when someone responds specifically to my OP by quoting it, I am going to respond to it in context.

What are your sources that the MLB dumped ESPN? Sounds like the "context" you are providing is nothing more than your own characteristically unjustified self-assuredness.

I'm pretty sure Joe Posnanski has better sources than you, and he thinks ESPN dumped MLB.

[fabiani12333]

It seems to me that because of continued cord cutting and the decline of linear TV, paired with the decline in popularity of MLB as an entertainment choice, MLB will be forced patch together how they broadcast their games, both locally and nationally. This will only continue to eat away at the shared experience of fans -- fans who used to tune into the same few channels to watch games and discuss them the following day.

[base set]

It’s a Pay-Per-View sport now.

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by base set

It’s a Pay-Per-View sport now.

Yes, it seems to be steadily regressing into a niche sport. Games used to be easily accessible to the general public on basic cable like the NFL currently is. It eventually went exclusively to the RSN model for local games, with a few weekly national games on Fox and ESPN. More recently, national regular-season games have moved over to ESPN, FS1, TBS and MLBN -- along with Apple TV and Roku. Going forward, games will be spread across multiple different streaming platforms as those platforms try to replicate the dying linear TV model of cable and satellite.

[NYBBFAN]

If baseball is dying why are cards more expensive than they used to be?

[mfw13]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

It seems to me that because of continued cord cutting and the decline of linear TV, paired with the decline in popularity of MLB as an entertainment choice, MLB will be forced patch together how they broadcast their games, both locally and nationally. This will only continue to eat away at the shared experience of fans -- fans who used to tune into the same few channels to watch games and discuss them the following day.

The reality (across all sports) is that there is minimal demand for "national" anything....people primarily want to watch the team(s) they root for.

Or to put it another way, I'm a Giants fan.....I have virtually no interest in watching any other team except for when they're playing the Giants. Same thing for football (49ers), and basketball (Warriors).

National TV deals are relics of the pre-internet days when the only chance you had to see many players was via a "Game of the Week" or Sportscenter/Baseball Tonight highlights. Nowadays, highlights are everywhere. It's a completely different media environment.

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by mfw13

The reality (across all sports) is that there is minimal demand for "national" anything....people primarily want to watch the team(s) they root for.

Or to put it another way, I'm a Giants fan.....I have virtually no interest in watching any other team except for when they're playing the Giants. Same thing for football (49ers), and basketball (Warriors).

National TV deals are relics of the pre-internet days when the only chance you had to see many players was via a "Game of the Week" or Sportscenter/Baseball Tonight highlights. Nowadays, highlights are everywhere. It's a completely different media environment.

The localization and digitalization of sports fandom hasn't adversely impacted the NFL, though. The problem with MLB is it has lost it's mainstream appeal. The game used to be more accessible and popular with average Americans. A lot of the biggest stars during the 90s were MLB players. They were cultural icons. They were featured in commercials and on magazine covers. Ever since the steroid scandal, though, the popularity of the game has gone down hill.

[blackbears86]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

ESPN wanted more games from MLB for the same money:



But MLB is gunning for 2028, when all the national media rights will be available for auction:



https://puck.news/inside-the-mlb-espn-split/

It's going to be weird not having MLB games on ESPN until at least 2028, if not forever. I don't know how you can call yourself the "Worldwide Leader in Sports" and not have any live content of one of the three major sports in North America.

On the flip side, if MLB's strategy is to go heavy on streaming for the distribution of their games, it might end hurting their popularity in the long run -- the cable/satellite model allowed the general public to discover MLB and convert them into fans. Dividing up the games among several streaming platforms is going to make it a lot harder to attract and convert people into fans -- streaming is inherently built around on-demand viewing; not live content.

100% This is not good good for baseball long term.


Like I said before, the diehards will buy streaming rights for their specific teams, but the casual fan will be less and less interested as time goes on.

[blackbears86]

Originally Posted by mfw13

The reality (across all sports) is that there is minimal demand for "national" anything....people primarily want to watch the team(s) they root for.

Or to put it another way, I'm a Giants fan.....I have virtually no interest in watching any other team except for when they're playing the Giants. Same thing for football (49ers), and basketball (Warriors).

National TV deals are relics of the pre-internet days when the only chance you had to see many players was via a "Game of the Week" or Sportscenter/Baseball Tonight highlights. Nowadays, highlights are everywhere. It's a completely different media environment.

Totally disagree. The NFL has ratings that are as strong as ever, even with crap teams playing on national TV.

[Skipscards]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

What are your sources that the MLB dumped ESPN? Sounds like the "context" you are providing is nothing more than your own characteristically unjustified self-assuredness.

I'm pretty sure Joe Posnanski has better sources than you, and he thinks ESPN dumped MLB.

I am not here to argue with you and I am certainly not here to be attacked by you. I know several people who work across, and for MLB. But that is irrelevant.

What Posnanski did is give his opinion, which is his job. Like everyone else, he is entitled to it. And he's not wrong. He never said ESPN wanted out of the deal. They did not. They wanted a cheaper deal. And again, for the last time, ESPN has diminished their coverage of baseball to the point that it is embarrassing. MLB doesn't need ESPN and getting away from them is a step in the right direction; which is why MLB dumped them. You want to say ESPN dumped MLB, cool. Go create your own thread.

[JRX]

Originally Posted by blackbears86

[/B]



100% This is not good good for baseball long term.


Like I said before, the diehards will buy streaming rights for their specific teams, but the casual fan will be less and less interested as time goes on.

Splitting across multiple platforms will hurt die hards, but could help expand reach. Netflix is on more devices than any cable package for example. However, the ability to buy the games directly is a good thing. Just the fact that in the NY market you don't need any service to get the vast majority of games for either Mets or Yankees is huge.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Skipscards

I am not here to argue with you and I am certainly not here to be attacked by you. I know several people who work across, and for MLB. But that is irrelevant.

What Posnanski did is give his opinion, which is his job. Like everyone else, he is entitled to it. And he's not wrong. He never said ESPN wanted out of the deal. They did not. They wanted a cheaper deal. And again, for the last time, ESPN has diminished their coverage of baseball to the point that it is embarrassing. MLB doesn't need ESPN and getting away from them is a step in the right direction; which is why MLB dumped them. You want to say ESPN dumped MLB, cool. Go create your own thread.

Just to recap: you created a thread with a misleading title. I called you out on it. You then claimed I am attacking you and I should go create my own thread. Solid work.

[blackbears86]

Originally Posted by JRX

Splitting across multiple platforms will hurt die hards, but could help expand reach. Netflix is on more devices than any cable package for example. However, the ability to buy the games directly is a good thing. Just the fact that in the NY market you don't need any service to get the vast majority of games for either Mets or Yankees is huge.

respectfully disagree.


MLB should be making itself easier to watch, not harder.



The NFL can get away with being on multiple streaming platforms and is still massively popular. MLB just doesn't have the same pull. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think I will be.

[Handsome Wes]

Originally Posted by blackbears86

respectfully disagree.


MLB should be making itself easier to watch, not harder.


The NFL can get away with being on multiple streaming platforms and is still massively popular. MLB just doesn't have the same pull. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think I will be.

Also I think it's universally despised by the NFL fan community that the product is on multiple streaming platforms.

[JRX]

Originally Posted by blackbears86

respectfully disagree.


MLB should be making itself easier to watch, not harder.



The NFL can get away with being on multiple streaming platforms and is still massively popular. MLB just doesn't have the same pull. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think I will be.

MLB core audience is old and has cable. Younger generation is way more likely to have Netflix then cable. The only site with more reach than Netflix would be if games were streamed on youtube.

[mfw13]

Originally Posted by blackbears86

Totally disagree. The NFL has ratings that are as strong as ever, even with crap teams playing on national TV.

I think the NFL has an advantage in that it's a "limited" product, with games occurring only on specific days/times.

You've only got about 80-90 days a year with NFL games, and roughly 30-40 of those dates have only 1 game (i.e. Thursdays and Mondays).

Whereas baseball has games on TV 200+ days a year.

[UMich92]

Originally Posted by mfw13

I think the NFL has an advantage in that it's a "limited" product, with games occurring only on specific days/times.

You've only got about 80-90 days a year with NFL games, and roughly 30-40 of those dates have only 1 game (i.e. Thursdays and Mondays).

Whereas baseball has games on TV 200+ days a year.

This is a huge difference in the comparison. The NFL can put a crap game on Thursday night and people watch because it is the only NFL game on. As a result, it's so difficult to compare ratings across sports. Much better to compare year-to-year ratings within the sport.

[Siberian13]

First good decision mlb has made in some time. Good for them.

[Spacenoid]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

The localization and digitalization of sports fandom hasn't adversely impacted the NFL, though. The problem with MLB is it has lost it's mainstream appeal. The game used to be more accessible and popular with average Americans. A lot of the biggest stars during the 90s were MLB players. They were cultural icons. They were featured in commercials and on magazine covers. Ever since the steroid scandal, though, the popularity of the game has gone down hill.

The NFL has just about every game worth watching available on national TV though, sometimes as the only game on.

You're right though, the mainstream appeal of MLB is dying

[JRX]

Originally Posted by Spacenoid

The NFL has just about every game worth watching available on national TV though, sometimes as the only game on.

You're right though, the mainstream appeal of MLB is dying

Keep in mind every nfl game is free over the air for the local market. So unlike mlb with apple or espn, if its on amazon its still on a broadcast station for the two teams.

[mfw13]

Originally Posted by JRX

Keep in mind every nfl game is free over the air for the local market. So unlike mlb with apple or espn, if its on amazon its still on a broadcast station for the two teams.

Yep....this is a huge difference.

[base set]

Originally Posted by JRX

if games were streamed on youtube.

MLB games -were- streamed on YouTube. I recall watching Ohtani’s first visit to Detroit (2018) via YouTube - in a bar. If it hadn’t been on YouTube, then I couldn’t have seen it as a lot of small bars won’t pay for the RSN in Michigan anymore.

Anyhow the YouTube experiment ended a little less quickly than the Facebook experiment; maybe only that one season?

Tarik Skubal ain’t gonna get $20,000 per pitch thrown in 2027 if we let people see that happen for free.

[fabiani12333]

Good breakdown by Alex Sherman at CNBC:

Assuming ESPN and MLB do end their relationship and don’t come back to the negotiating table, I’m told ESPN will need to sign a new deal with the league for access to highlights.

The story here is determining whether MLB is actually at a disadvantage because of its tonnage – the amount of games it’s selling in a package. ESPN doesn’t need to pay hundreds of millions of dollars for 30 regular season baseball games when it can use Sunday nights to elevate the WNBA or promote newer sports that have stronger growth potential and cost far less.

This could be a future problem for the National Hockey League, MLS, English Premier League or any non-NBA, non-NFL sport that has a lot of games. Selling big packages of games used to be lucrative for sports leagues because TV networks wanted heft for distribution deals.

Sports leagues hope that streamers will be the white knight.

But what is appealing to Netflix is to own an “event” as a way to bring people to the service. This is what the platform has done with the Jake Paul-Mike Tyson fight, or the NFL’s regular season Christmas games, which had higher ratings on Netflix than playoff games did on Amazon or Peacock. It’s why Netflix bought the rights to the 2027 and 2031 FIFA Women’s World Cup.

The Home Run Derby is an event. Wild card playoff games can be an event. That may have some interest to Netflix, according to people familiar with the matter. Thirty regular season baseball games are not an event and are of no interest to Netflix, the people said.

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/02/27/cnbc...-opts-out.html

This article does a good job breaking down the logic behind distributors owning sports rights going forward. Regular season games for MLB, unlike the NFL, aren't valuable to streamers and national broadcasters. The sheer number of games is actually a disadvantage to MLB when it comes to broadcast rights. It makes individual games a lot less important and eventful -- and therefore a lot less valuable -- compared to the NFL.

Even though ESPN can fill their MLB airtime with other kinds of sports, not having MLB probably diminishes its standing as a go-to, all-encompassing sports programmer.

[Skipscards]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Just to recap: you created a thread with a misleading title. I called you out on it. You then claimed I am attacking you and I should go create my own thread. Solid work.

Good recap, except the title is not misleading but yes, this is where you chose to make it personal:

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Sounds like the "context" you are providing is nothing more than your own characteristically unjustified self-assuredness.

And yes, if you don’t like this thread, go create one of your own. Good day, sir.

[Skipscards]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

Good breakdown by Alex Sherman at CNBC:


https://www.cnbc.com/2025/02/27/cnbc...-opts-out.html

This article does a good job breaking down the logic behind distributors owning sports rights going forward. Regular season games for MLB, unlike the NFL, aren't valuable to streamers and national broadcasters. The sheer number of games is actually a disadvantage to MLB when it comes to broadcast rights. It makes individual games a lot less important and eventful -- and therefore a lot less valuable -- compared to the NFL.

Even though ESPN can fill their MLB airtime with other kinds of sports, not having MLB probably diminishes its standing as a go-to, all-encompassing sports programmer.

And the way the MLB is structured, the national broadcast contract really doesn’t mean as much to baseball.