The MLB and ESPN contract wasn't due to expire until 2028, but that didn't stop ESPN from trying to demand shrinking rights payments to MLB to broadcast their material, and as such, Major League Baseball told them to piss off and canceled the contract, effective after this season ends:
And they didn't mince words about ESPN in general:
Wow MLB did not hold back in its letter to owners announcing the end of its deal with ESPN (after this season) via @TheAthletic https://t.co/WLp1WZF2Kk pic.twitter.com/bvHxuQmaE2— ✏️Jacob Feldman (@JacobFeldman4) February 20, 2025
Quite frankly, all college athletic conferences should take note. If ESPN is willing to do this to MLB, they're willing to do it to the ACC, BigXII, AAC, MAC, etc. They should all be looking for ways to get out of that contract soon and find a stable partner who is willing to work with them.
Comments
Well they have to cut payments where they can to keep feeding money to the SEC.
F*&^ ESPN and the mouse they rode in on
is this the first domino?
I don't know about any pizzas, but I'm in favor of anything that helps put the screws to ESPN a bit. NBA ratings are in the toilet this year, they don't give 2 shits about the NHL package they have, and they're busy alienating the majority of college sports fans and now they've lost all their live sports options for the summer months?
Can't be good for the mouse. And I wouldn't be surprised if MLB ratings take off when they get a partner that promotes them like they should be promoted instead of treated as filler during talk about LeBron or the NFL.
This might be the boost the MLB streaming network needs to really take off. They already have, IMO, the best streaming option of all the major sports and they picked up more broadcast territory when they took over as the broadcast partners for the teams that lost their when Bally Sports collapsed. This could be MLB's push to eradicate the local broadcast territory rights, bring everything under the MLB network, and pickup a cable partner for the nationally televised parts. My guess is that Fox Sports would be the front-runner for anything of the such.
I just wish I could get the MLB Network live on the TV app. I can get it on the mobile app, but not on my TV. I'd have that on a good bit pregame if I could put it on the TV.
That was one of the things mentioned in the memo that the commissioner sent to MLB owners. Per Evan Drellich and Andrew Marchand from The Athletic (paywalled link)
Exactly what you were talking about, VTAlum. I used to enjoy watching Baseball Tonight back when Gammons was on the show. They've really scaled back on that, probably back when MLB ratings were at a low, but they didn't seem to be bringing back much quality non-game content, and MLB didn't take too kindly to that. If you want a partner, you want them to really want YOU, and not just be a side-chick.
Some other interesting nuggets from the article:
Looks like ESPN has been trying to compare apples (ESPN's content) to oranges (Apple's and Roku's content) to lower the rights values, and MLB balked (pun intended) at that.
Here's the whole letter that Manfred sent to the owners:
So ESPN balked at paying the price that Apple and Roku paid for their packages, and then used that price (that they didn't want to pay) to try and reduce the rate they are paying for the main part of the pie?
Man, fuck that shit. I don't blame MLB for telling them to fuck off. And also noteworthy about how ESPN is hemorrhaging subscribers right now. Losing the MLB deal is going to HURT them in the summers, and they're already at 50% of what they were just a couple years back. And to see that ESPN wanted/needed them for the DTC offering they have coming, they're basically going to be left with NBA, WNBA, NHL, SEC, and Monday Night Football. Not great for the future of the network
Feels oddly similar to ESPN's treatment of the ACC. They devalue the product by deliberately not marketing it (at the same time pumping other products) and then try to lowball the league to keep their rights.
Except MLB has leadership with the confidence to tell them "Fuck you" and doesn't just slobber all over the ESPN executive's loafers for implying they'll consider showing games at 3AM on TheOCHO
"I'm in favor of anything that helps put the screws to ESPN a bit"
nah, they will still oversaturate you with the NBA- a league where teams openly try to lose games, stars won't play 2 nights in a row, nobody gives effort until the playoffs, and ratings tanked several years ago. ESPN will cover that like their lives depend on it, and you will get non stop fantasy trade talks, every "summer of lebron", drake dis tracks, etc. Nauseating when its not NFL season. ESPN half assed their baseball coverage anyway. IT's not the precious NBA.
It is important to note that MLB didn't unilaterally terminate the contract. MLB and ESPN both had options to opt out of the agreement, and have said it was mutual. This would be more akin to if ESPN had opted out of the ACC deal. Not the ACC terminating the contract.
I don't think it's akin. The ESPN-ACC contract gave ESPN sole discretion on the option and the ESPN-MLB contract required both parties to agree on the option. And ESPN didn't walk away, MLB did. ESPN was still trying to keep MLB at a low value.
And with this press release, MLB is telling ESPN that they are not the "leader" in US sports anymore. ESPN/ABC has already lost a lot of traction with the NFL the past decade. MLB is now cutting them out completely.
Reporting is that ESPN was not going to pick up the option at the $550m/yr amount, so this was a "mutual opt-out" , but only because MLB wouldn't agree to a lower amount, which is certainly their right. You are correct that it's not a one to one, but it's not MLB taking their ball, and going home, like it's being portrayed in this thread.
I don't really watch ESPN for anything besides live games, but who would you say is the "Worldwide Leader" in sports now? I guess maybe just social media/Youtube in general? I don't think any of the other networks are bigger. ESPN definitely has a smaller share, but I think it's still the biggest share? It's a good question.
crackstreams ;^)
ESPN has never been the world-wide leader in sports if they never featured international/European soccer and cricket. And I don't think I need to agree with ESPN's self-proclaimed label or otherwise anoint someone else as leader. But my point was not about which media entity provides the most broadcasting of sports, but who controls how sports are broadcasted.
My comment was more referring to the fact that MLB is saying to ESPN that that they are not the one leading the charge on national broadcasting of MLB anymore and signaling they are not leader in sports broadcasting they once were. ESPN was leading how MLB was nationally broadcasted from the 80s-2010s as their platform nationalized baseball more than any other platform. This move by MLB is them saying they don't need ESPN to have successful national broadcasting. MLB has set themselves up to dictate how their media is to be nationalized, where it broadcasted, when it is broadcasted, etc. And a lot of that has to do with the advances of streaming media, the decline of cable, and MLB motivation to take back control of their media.
While I agree this was a "mutual decision" in which ESPN did not agree to MLB's higher prices, it's a major paradigm shift for ESPN to not be the premier broadcaster of the second most popular professional sport in the U.S. (which also has major appeal in Latin America and Asia). MLB is definitely turning their back to ESPN (right now) and looking to move in another direction for national broadcasting. If ESPN wants to broadcast baseball, they will need to be more agreeable to MLB terms.
As far as the ACC goes, they have zero control of their media rights. ESPN has sole control. That's the key issue that ACC needs to address (and the point of the OP). Unfortunately, I don't think they have the legal means to take back control. So, they have nothing to learn from this MLB decision (except this further exemplifies the shortsighted leadership of the ACC and what not to do with your media rights).
I really just meant the leader in the US, and was using their own, "Worldwide Leader in Sports", moniker. Though they have, and currently do broadcast international, and European soccer.
I just think ESPN is still the preeminent sports broadcaster for now. They've definitely been weakened by streaming, but do you think MLB's deals with Roku/Apple are better for baseball than Sunday Night Baseball? MLB is at best 4th fiddle at ESPN behind the NFL, NBA, and the SEC, but I don't know that there's somewhere they can go that can get them the same level of exposure at ESPN, even if it's diminished. Does going full streaming work better? MLS is testing it now, but it seems like even with the drop in cable subscribers, it seems like that still makes up the majority of consumers. It does seem like the drop of subscribers has moved ESPN to only invest heavily in those big three properties, and everything else is only desirable at the right price.
I feel like we care too much about the TV business side of it, though. Like I don't really care whether ESPN wants to pay MLB $550m, or it's $200m. I just want to watch the games.
Nobody in the US. Maybe Sky Sports in Europe or TSN or Sportsnet in Canada?
Everything in the US is 90% hot take factories and creating controversy from their own hot takes. As a network they are circling the drain when it isn't football season, even basketball isn't pulling what it used to pull.
The minute ESPN comes back and tries to change the terms of the contract, the contract isn't a contract anymore.
The problem is - where do you go instead? Broadcast networks mean more eyeballs for one game per slot with the rest scattered to even more fractured streamers. At least with ESPN it's more or less a sunk cost and they have multiple linear platforms that are generally available as a result. If we go to CBS or NBC we will get a lot of inventory moved over to Peacock or Paramount streaming. Everything will be the Ocho outside of the linear game.
Sports and Cable TV are so closely coupled that the changes, whatever they are, will likely be worse. Streaming hits way less households and so the money involved is much worse from a program standpoint. There's not really a 1 for 1 comp to ESPN/ABC in terms of access and reach. It sucks. So does ESPN.
I know we all want ESPN to fail and go away, but they never will. Why? They will simply charge more per user to the cable and streming services, and they will pay it. Imagine Directv pulling ESPN off its lineup? They will never do that and ESPN knows this.
ESPN did not try to change the contract, they had an opt out, and tried to get a lower price for what would have essentially been a new contract. MLB decided to go another route.
The wording of "scaling back their coverage and investment" is so true for ACC as well... they have just hyped up a small few over that time
How many games was ESPN broadcasting anyway? Most of the teams have local/separate broadcast partners that put out most of the games. I think ESPN was paying around $100M per team. Top teams have $400M+ in TV revenue so majority is coming from outside Le Mouse.
Sunday Night baseball was a staple. Monday night and Wednesday baseball used to also be staples on ESPN, but those were already downgraded by the media company.
A few years ago, it was 3 nights a week. I think it was down to one night a week last year (or last few years). And now it's zero.
I had mentioned this before, but I wonder if this is where the length of the ACC contract may be of some small advantage. If rights dollars are shrinking, then having what we have locked in for a longer time may help us.
It is literally the only good thing about our contract, but it is a good thing.
MLB is shifting their broadcasting pretty significantly on a few fronts. With the success of the MLB app, they are looking to move things more national but also more controlled by MLB. Regional stations have been on decline for a long time and are hurting pretty much every baseball team not in NYC or LA. And they may be moving all regional games to a MLB-lead platform.
They are trying to expand viewership nationally (more national games like Sunday Night Baseball). I'm sure they would like to have used the ESPN platform, but if ESPN is not pushing the MLB games as well as MLB would like, then MLB needs to find better national broadcasting. We'll see where they go from here. I wouldn't be surprised to see them more into the national streaming platforms.
So we need an MLB and College football network (that excludes the B1G and SEC)
I will also say, having attended MLB games in several cities over the last year or two, their ticketing app across all the teams is very good. And it's nothing to do with ticket master, which alone is a huge perk.
I just don't have the confidence that the ACC could make more money on the open market.
Also, the current ACC contract is peak stability.
Is it though? What's stable about the ACC having zero control of how their media is broadcasted? I do know what you mean. ACC has a check coming in for $X until 2036.
But ESPN can and is currently using sole control of media rights to degrade and destabilize the product. I don't know what responsibilities ESPN is contractually obligated to perform, but I don't think it is a lot. ESPN could have the power and right to move the ACCN to only one cable outlet and keep the ACC off of any national broadcasts. I would not suggest that's stable.
Yep and the second that ESPN gets their way and has the playoff cut out everyone who isn't the SEC or Big Ten, watch how quickly they'll force all the other conferences to take lesser deals because they aren't as prestige anymore.
KILL THE LAWYERS!!
Stable meaning (a) revenue is guaranteed for some period of time and (b) no one is leaving anytime soon. I get that the ACC could be fucked in 10 years, but so could the bottom half of the B10
This is something I just disagree with. I really haven't been upset at ESPN over the ACC's treatment. I'm upset at the ACC for being stupid over and over again. Signing a 20 year media deal. Taking 3 years to get a conference network up and running when everyone else did it in 1. Taking another 5(?) years to get comcast to carry your network. Bad OOC losses everywhere. Expanding with a football-second mindset. The conference has always been 5 years behind every major media trend. That's not ESPNs fault.
Yeah but just 'cuz you can, doesn't mean you should
More Details
Yeah, ESPN wanted to gut the payments from $550m per year to $200m per year.
Again, if you don't think this is coming to someone like the ACC, you aren't paying attention
I would scrap broadcast altogether. Create a MLB global streaming service, own all ad revenue and let networks pay to have co-rights for Playoffs and World Series broadcast rights. Absorb Japan and Korea on sub-channels promoting more crossover players and MLB games in those markets.
Will make significantly more than what ESPN or broadcast channels would pay you.
Once that is up and running, bid with the colleges to carry streaming NCAA ballgames.
This is the answer, get petty, beat espn at their own game.
This is what the NCAA should have done but you know...ncaa does things small and ineffective. Same for the basketball tournaments
Good for MLB... ESPN will have nothing significant in terms of live sports in late June, July and August. Nothing. Now that the Caitlyn Clark novelty is worn off, that league will draw flies again like normal. ESPN made a huge mistake dumping MLB.
I mean at this point, if I were the ACC, Big XII, AAC, MWC, etc, I'd absolutely be exploring options to team up for a streaming-only platform that removes all games across all sports to a single one stop shop and sell it as a subscription to fans. And I mean complete media blackout otherwise, make it so the people who want to watch anything for any school in those conferences have to buy the subscription. Leave ESPN with only the SEC and that gigantic contract to air, and see how quickly their viewers get SEC fatigue.
Sure, you might lose money on the short term, but this is absolutely where sports viewership is going, and why not pool resources to create a home grown system that the conferences themselves control that can be sold direct to the viewers?
I would pay a good chunk of money to stream college football games. Then I could dump Directv.
I would pay more per year on the MLB package if it included in-market games as well. Right now its $150 per year to watch all out of market games for MLB.tv, and being in Raleigh I'm we don't have a team within 5 hours driving right now, but that doesn't stop us from having local blackouts of the Braves, Orioles, and Nationals, none of which are even available on any tier of my YTTV subscription.
With RSNs failing across the board, its only a matter of time before the leagues just absorb those local rights back and sell a full end to end product to the fans, and then sell off exclusive national broadcasts of the ASG, Home Run Derby, and Playoffs to entities like Amazon, Netflix, FOX, ESPN, etc.
It's only $100, if you have previously joined the MLB Players Alumni Association. They have a fan membership for $25/year, which comes with a 50% off code for MLB.tv. The catch is it's only for returning members now, so if you join up this year, right now, then next year you'll be able to get the discount.
https://www.mlb.com/mlbpaa/membership/fans
just sitting here watching ESPN collapsing...
it's amusing to me....
until I realize it's kind of a microcosm of what's going on in the real world....
There are enough games that MLB could make a streaming service and you could buy an app for just your team's games. If this were the only option, it would quickly show you each teams market value. They would have to address password sharing, but I think there are enough streaming services they can copy am existing method.
You're describing the MLB app except they have to blackout regional games due to RSNs. It will be interesting to see if their streaming app takes over the RSNs here soon. I'm thinking it will, but how they set it up will be a minor challenge. Currently, the RSNs do all the programming and broadcasting. If MLB takes it over, maybe they generally hire that RSN crew. And if they take over, do they provide the same coverage for wqch team, or does a Yankee fan pay more but get the more coverage, like the Yes network currently provides.
They are working on it (there are a handful of teams MLB already owns the local rights to), but some teams (Yankees, and Dodgers) make so much more than they would with a league-wide distribution deal a la the NFL, it will be hard to get them to accept that. Hopeful it will happen, though.