MLB in talks to launch nationwide streaming service for home games without cable TV

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,277
Major League Baseball is in talks to launch a nationwide video-streaming service that would enable fans to watch their teams’ hometown games without a cable-TV subscription, The Post has learned.

The web-based service — which could address a decades-old annoyance for baseball fans that some have partly blamed for the league’s steadily declining viewership — could launch as early as the 2023 season, a person with direct knowledge of the negotiations said.

The National Basketball Association and the National Hockey League are also considering partnering with MLB on the new streaming service, sources said. Insiders say subscription rates would vary by geographic market and could be between $10 and $20 a month — well below the monthly cost of most cable-TV packages, which can easily stretch past $100.
While the MLB wants to give fans the option to sidestep pricey cable packages, local games will still be broadcast on cable as they are now and the broadcasts would be identical, according to people familiar with the plans. The league’s MLB.TV service, which offers out-of-market games for a subscription fee, will also continue to operate, sources said.

Sources said MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred could end up offering cable-TV giants a piece of the streaming revenue to compensate for potential subscriber losses. Manfred’s pitch is that cable TV won’t lose many subscribers, as MLB is mainly targeting younger customers who have already cut the cord, sources said. The cable companies don’t have streaming rights but could retaliate by paying less to broadcast games if they don’t like the bargain, sources said.
Meanwhile, sources said Manfred could face still thornier negotiations with Sinclair Broadcast Group, the Maryland-based telecom giant that owns the digital broadcast rights to 14 of the league’s 30 baseball teams including the St. Louis Cardinals and Detroit Tigers.

“We believe those digital rights are crucial,” Manfred said last week at the CAA World Congress of Sports conference. “And we want to own and control the platform on which they’re delivered, we may have partners in that process.”

Manfred didn’t elaborate and an MLB spokesman declined to comment.

Both MLB and Sinclair have plausible legal claims to the hometown-game streaming rights. Nevertheless, insiders say MLB wants to launch its service independently of Sinclair’s Diamond Sports unit, which currently airs most of its MLB games through its Bally Sports-branded regional TV networks.

While Manfred’s plan looks ambitious, sources said recent troubles at Sinclair may give him a leg up in talks. As first reported by The Post, Sinclair in June tried to raise $250 million to launch its own video-streaming service, but cannot do so without MLB approval.
https://nypost.com/2021/10/17/mlb-in-talks-to-launch-nationwide-streaming-service-for-home-games/

More at the link.
It’s about damn time MLB and the rest of the professional sports leagues got rid of the damn blackout.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,670
How would this effect NESN revenue? My understanding is that this has been a big part of the Red Sox competitive advantage.
 

allmanbro

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
362
Portland, Maine
How would this effect NESN revenue? My understanding is that this has been a big part of the Red Sox competitive advantage.
It says this, which is pretty vague:
As for the teams, MLB’s streaming service would pay them based on viewership in their local markets.
I'm not sure I'm understanding the idea correctly, but it sounds like you'd subscribe for $10-20/mo for only your local team's games, and then presumably MLB.TV would still be the way to watch all the other games with its own fee. It seems a bit cumbersome, but if that's how you get it to happen it's great by me.

I wonder if they will be able to get nationally broadcast and/or playoff games into the service as well.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
How would this effect NESN revenue? My understanding is that this has been a big part of the Red Sox competitive advantage.
NESN makes the bulk of its revenue from cable subscribers who probably aren't watching NESN all that much if at all anyway, so this seems like it's a bonus to pick up a bit of revenue from cord-cutters they aren't otherwise realizing anything from. I'm sure there's a tipping point where cable revenues take a big enough hit, but I can't imagine that's anytime in the near future.
 

JCizzle

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 11, 2006
20,532
I am an out of market fan who would pay a sizable sum to get access to NESN legally. I wish they would work on that next.
Is MLB.TV not an option for you? They started to include the pregame show this year, so you really don't miss much other than the postgame show anymore. The only downside is that you're still subject to local blackouts when the Red Sox play those teams, which sucks.
 

bsj

Renegade Crazed Genius
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2003
22,774
Central NJ SoSH Chapter
Is MLB.TV not an option for you? They started to include the pregame show this year, so you really don't miss much other than the postgame show anymore. The only downside is that you're still subject to local blackouts when the Red Sox play those teams, which sucks.
Of course. I'm saying I want the network for some of the studio shows and other content. Goes for NBC SN Boston too. I get both through some ...shady....services...but I wish there was a way I could pay for them a la cart streaming.
 

Philip Jeff Frye

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2001
10,230
How would this effect NESN revenue? My understanding is that this has been a big part of the Red Sox competitive advantage.
IIRC correctly, you used to have to pay something like $10 a month for NESN beyond your existing cable bill. Consequently, not that many people subscribed. NESN's revenues soared when they changed this model to making it available to everybody, which resulted in NESN getting a dollar or two from every cable TV subscriber in New England. Making up numbers here, but they went from getting $10/month from 100,000 subscribers ($1 million) to getting $1/month from 10,000,000 subscribers ($10 million). It was a brilliant way to get money from cable subscribers who didn't want NESN at any price. With a lot more people tuning in, NESN was also able to charge a lot more for its ads, too.

Seems like this would be a step backwards for NESN, although I suppose with so many people, especially younger people, cutting the cord, maybe it wouldn't be quite a full step backwards. But they still wouldn't be getting those monthly fees from the large number of people who don't care about baseball.
 
Last edited:

TomBrunansky23

Member
SoSH Member
May 4, 2006
772
Crapchester, NY
I would be willing to pay considerably more than I do now for MLB.tv so as not to be subjected to Michael Kay and co.'s fellating of the MFYs whenever the Sox face them.

I do however thoroughly enjoy YES postgame after a crushing MFY loss.
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
72,462
Holy ducking shit. About ducking time. Makes too much sense. Been calling for this for years.
 

Catcher Block

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 7, 2006
5,825
St. Louis
MLB launching their own service also create a path where they can insert gambling/gamification on their terms.

Doing that to the Ballpark App is already a big part of their 5-year-plan--they know how much money is to be made, and they have a deal with MGM already.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
11,921
IIRC correctly, you used to have to pay something like $10 bucks a month for NESN beyond your existing cable bill. Consequently, not that many people subscribed. NESN's revenues soared when they changed this model to making it available to everybody, which resulted in NESN getting a dollar or two from every cable TV subscriber in New England. Making up numbers here, but they went from getting $10/month from 100,000 subscribers ($1 million) to getting $1/month from 10,000,000 subscribers ($10 million). It was a brilliant way to get money from cable subscribers who didn't want NESN at any price. With a lot more people tuning in, NESN was also able to charge a lot more for its ads, too.

Seems like this would be a step backwards for NESN, although I suppose with so many people, especially younger people, cutting the cord, maybe it wouldn't be quite a full step backwards. But they still wouldn't be getting those monthly fees from the large number of people who don't care about baseball.
NESN’s sub fee to cable companies is more like $6-$7 a month, I’m guessing. So, you’d have to think about the math that way…they also get a good amount of $$ from advertising and sponsorships which naturally declines with less viewers. This proposed move by MLB would be good for fans but bad for teams and their networks. Could lead to a lot less revenue for some teams…and could be a pretty devastating blow to the media industry…
 

Time to Mo Vaughn

RIP Dernell
SoSH Member
Mar 24, 2008
7,204
NESN makes the bulk of its revenue from cable subscribers who probably aren't watching NESN all that much if at all anyway, so this seems like it's a bonus to pick up a bit of revenue from cord-cutters they aren't otherwise realizing anything from. I'm sure there's a tipping point where cable revenues take a big enough hit, but I can't imagine that's anytime in the near future.
So this probably greatly reduces the rate they'll be able to leverage for each cable subscriber.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,670
IIRC correctly, you used to have to pay something like $10 a month for NESN beyond your existing cable bill. Consequently, not that many people subscribed. NESN's revenues soared when they changed this model to making it available to everybody, which resulted in NESN getting a dollar or two from every cable TV subscriber in New England. Making up numbers here, but they went from getting $10/month from 100,000 subscribers ($1 million) to getting $1/month from 10,000,000 subscribers ($10 million). It was a brilliant way to get money from cable subscribers who didn't want NESN at any price. With a lot more people tuning in, NESN was also able to charge a lot more for its ads, too.

Seems like this would be a step backwards for NESN, although I suppose with so many people, especially younger people, cutting the cord, maybe it wouldn't be quite a full step backwards. But they still wouldn't be getting those monthly fees from the large number of people who don't care about baseball.
Well I assume they get ad revenue as well.

EDIT

This article estimates the revenue at around $100,000,000

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/lets-update-the-estimated-local-tv-revenue-for-mlb-teams/
 
Last edited:

bibajesus

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
965
Is MLB.TV not an option for you? They started to include the pregame show this year, so you really don't miss much other than the postgame show anymore. The only downside is that you're still subject to local blackouts when the Red Sox play those teams, which sucks.
MLB.tv doesn't have the Mad Fisherman.
Point Nesn MLB.tv
 

section15

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 23, 2007
227
Bradford, MA and section 15
MLB is not unlike other sports - - they've come to realize

- not all cord-cutters are in a demographic that they don't care about -

- they may be alienating a good part of the next generation of fans.
 

SumnerH

Malt Liquor Picker
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
31,893
Alexandria, VA
I assume if NHL and NBA join this service it would need to be separate.
The NHL's streaming service is already based on MLB Advanced Media's streaming platform, as are a few others (including the PGA tour for a while, though I can't find a current status on that). https://www.nhl.com/news/nhl-to-team-with-major-league-baseball-on-streaming-app-cable-tv-channel/c-775950

Obviously that could change going forward, but it makes it somewhat easier.

I thought the NBA was part as well, but searching around I think I'm wrong about that.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,559
Here
The NHL's streaming service is already based on MLB Advanced Media's streaming platform, as are a few others (including the PGA tour for a while, though I can't find a current status on that). https://www.nhl.com/news/nhl-to-team-with-major-league-baseball-on-streaming-app-cable-tv-channel/c-775950

Obviously that could change going forward, but it makes it somewhat easier.

I thought the NBA was part as well, but searching around I think I'm wrong about that.
NHL moved to ESPN+, I believe. I think their independent streaming service is defunct.
 

caminante11

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2006
3,088
Brooklyn, NY
Is MLB.TV not an option for you? They started to include the pregame show this year, so you really don't miss much other than the postgame show anymore. The only downside is that you're still subject to local blackouts when the Red Sox play those teams, which sucks.
I've never seen a pregame show on mlb.tv but this year they did start having a postgame show. Though they still will not show in game updates from other games.
 

CallYaz

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
136
Studio City, CA
I've never seen a pregame show on mlb.tv but this year they did start having a postgame show. Though they still will not show in game updates from other games.
Actually on YouTube TV with the MLB package I started seeing "Pregame" show appear before Red Sox games on a channel all the way at the bottom of the guide. A nice surprise as was the addition of the post game show.
 

JCizzle

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 11, 2006
20,532
I've never seen a pregame show on mlb.tv but this year they did start having a postgame show. Though they still will not show in game updates from other games.
It randomly started being available for me at some point this year. The stream used to start at 7, but at one point during the year I started the stream early while making dinner and the pregame was going. From that point on, I was able to catch most of them which was a nice surprise. I’ll have to keep it on after the game next year to see if I can catch the postgame too. I’m accustomed to just turning it off right away.
 

ookami7m

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
5,657
Mobile, AL
If there aren’t changes to the blackout policy this won’t be a measurable difference from mlb.tv for most of us.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
11,921
It’s for local market fans. Games that now require a cable subscription to watch no longer would. That’s the whole point whereas MLB TV has always just been about out of market games.
 

brs3

sings praises of pinstripes
SoSH Member
May 20, 2008
5,200
Jackson Heights, NYC
If there aren’t changes to the blackout policy this won’t be a measurable difference from mlb.tv for most of us.
This is it for me. The article doesn't mention blackouts at all. If this doesn't remove the blackout policy, I have no idea what people are excited about.

edit: I guess showing local games essentially says it without saying it?
 

The Gray Eagle

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
16,725
NESN’s sub fee to cable companies is more like $6-$7 a month, I’m guessing. So, you’d have to think about the math that way…they also get a good amount of $$ from advertising and sponsorships which naturally declines with less viewers. This proposed move by MLB would be good for fans but bad for teams and their networks. Could lead to a lot less revenue for some teams…and could be a pretty devastating blow to the media industry…
If MLB is willing to do it, it's not going to cost the owners anything. They are always all about their own economic self-interest.

I don't have cable, so NESN can't get a dime from me, despite me wanting to give them money to watch the games. The way I imagine this system will work, MLB will go from no money from no-cable people like me to $15 a month or whatever. They will send a lot of that money to NESN, since they are the network in my home area. NESN will get as much or more money from me as they would if I had cable, instead of the zero they have been getting. And it sounds like they will send some to cable providers, to try to keep them happy. And MLB will keep the rest.

I don't think this service will be cheap, it will be at least $15 per month.

Going forward, more people will be dropping cable, so if they do this, MLB will be able to generate money from them. More money, actually.
 

ookami7m

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
5,657
Mobile, AL
This is it for me. The article doesn't mention blackouts at all. If this doesn't remove the blackout policy, I have no idea what people are excited about.

edit: I guess showing local games essentially says it without saying it?
The problem is for fans like me that are in the black out zone for several teams (ATL/MIA/TB/HOU/TX) with only one of those as part of a "normal" (read pay for the extra sports channels) package on TV (ATL). So I get hosed when the Sox play in any of those stadiums. I can't imagine what is is like for folks in Iowa and other places that are just layered.
 

Murderer's Crow

Dragon Wangler 216
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
23,480
Garden City
Here is my dream scenario

$125/yr for the MLB app
+$75/yr for NHL
+$100/yr for NBA
+$200/yr for NFL
+$50/yr for PGA

All in one modular app that is readily available on firesticks or native TV apps in 4k. I would buy the entire package on day 1. My biggest problem with MLB.tv is obviously the blackout. Although, YES and FOX have their own apps which covers probably 85% of in-market games for free (with a provider login).
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
24,652
where I was last at
As a cable cutter Sox fan in metro NYC, MLB.TV works pretty well for me. As for blackouts, I will pirate a stream, I may have to tonight as the game is on FS1, but I've rediscovered the simple joy of listening to Joe Castig on the MLB.TV default blackout alternative of feeding me 'EEI.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
11,921
This is for the cable cutter who is a fan of a team in their home market. So someone who lives in Boston right now and can’t watch the Sox because they don’t subscribe to cable. Now they would buy this product which would allow them to watch the Sox. The challenge from the cable company / RSN POV is that it may encourage others to cancel cable (although if you are fans of multiple Boston teams it gets tricky and keeping cable becomes a better deal).