Sports Media

[zambonir]

I guess I have never tried to watch MLBN - for a scoreboard or highlights show, I guess? - on the app.

Are we sure T Mobile deal is going to survive? I get mine as a season ticket holder now anyway. And MLS is free for all Apple subscribers now, not as an add-on, so don't need that anymore either.

If you're not already on auto-renew or getting it from one of the above you don't need ESPN Unlimited. Otherwise, it sounds kind of confusing, but still manageable.

MLB.tv offers a free month of ESPN Unlimited upon signup. MLB.tv subscribers can cancel the ESPN Unlimited subscription during their free trial and still retain access to MLB.tv throughout the entire season. Likewise, if you already have access to ESPN Unlimited through your cable, satellite, or virtual TV provider, there’s no need to pay the extra $30 per month. Additionally, if your MLB.tv subscription is set to be auto-renewed from last season, you will not need an ESPN Unlimited subscription.

If you want MLB.tv this season, you'll need to jump through ESPN's hoops

[andyb]

I read that and it just does not make sense.. They are going to have millions of renewals from last year and from T-Mobile and they are going to make people get ESPN Unlimited for a month and drop it? There would be huge negative blowback on both MLB and ESPN if that happens.

Awful Announcing really does not do much reporting. Guessing they got this wrong and it is more likely that this only applies to people who sign up through ESPN.

[zambonir]

It won't apply to renewals, and maybe won't to freebies (though it would be an understandable business strategy). But I don't think there's any way to purchase a new MLB.TV subscription on MLB's website anymore, or at least, not without also getting ESPN Unlimited.

Athletic did the reporting:

Return of the bundle? ESPN’s new baseball play goes local

Sold by MLB itself for two decades, MLB.tv will now be viewable through both ESPN’s and MLB’s websites and apps.

Importantly, new MLB.tv subscribers will also be enrolled in a one-month trial of ESPN Unlimited when they sign up for MLB.tv.

Fans don’t have to keep that ESPN Unlimited subscription to watch MLB.tv — but ESPN Unlimited will automatically renew at $29.99 per month after the trial unless canceled, ESPN said.

Fans who renewed MLB.tv for this year through MLB will not be placed into an automatic ESPN Unlimited trial.

“We want to make sure that we’re getting as much distribution in terms of subscriptions for MLB.tv,” Lasker said when asked what success looks like for MLB.tv at ESPN. “We’re also trying to generate as much engagement and interest and subscriptions and activations for our ESPN Unlimited plan.

[andyb]

It is slightly different. You don't need ESPN Unlimited. You just get a free month if you sign up. The Awful Announcing article really did not clarify it like that.

I am just going to wait for YTTV to have ESPN Unlimited so I guess I'll have a free month of it layered on top of my Disney bundle that only has ESPN Select. It will be a bit of a pain to cancel after a month but we are used to that now in the streaming world.

[Docs]

The DVR on YTTV is just better than the competition once you get used to how it organizes things.

I never got used to it and programs expired after 9 months. I still have the 2008 World Series on my TiVo!

[andyb]

I never got used to it and programs expired after 9 months. I still have the 2008 World Series on my TiVo!

It takes a bit to get used to and I am fine with the 9 months because I do not really care about archiving anything. Most weekly series will also have repeats at some point so you really get more than a year to watch them.

[zambonir]

Yeah the streaming DVRs aren't really DVRs. They just keep it all stored in the cloud, even with commercials, but at least you can FF through them versus watching on Hulu if you don't have ad-free.

I suppose I could just watch any old Phillies playoff game from the internet era because of having MLB.TV. Some of them might not even require that.

[andyb]

One additional nugget here from the MLB website. It looks like there is a $199 package for the 15 teams where they control local rights that is out of town ($149) plus local ($99).

So if I can add that to the T-Mobile out of town I might get the Nationals and their 13 Phillies games I can't currently watch for $50 additional rather than $99.

https://www.mlb.com/news/how-to-watch-mlb-games?adobe_mc=TS%3D1770754174%7CMCMID%3D90159263314651846227175939919252720864%7CMCORGID%3DA65F776A5245B01B0A490D44@AdobeOrg&affiliateId=mlbapp-ios_webview_news-index&rsid=mlbios.at.bat.new.implementation

[zambonir]

Baltimore nonprofit filling some of the WaPo void

The Banner announces coverage of Washington sports

[andyb]

The Banner is an interesting creation that started in Baltimore covering city and state government with mainly laid off Baltimore Sun staffers. They added one of the big suburban DC counties last year and look to be adding Prince Georges County this year. Unfortunately no DC and Virginia government coverage which they would really need to go into the Washington market completely.

Probably not the model for me to subscribe to but hopefully they continue to grow their local coverage.

[zambonir]

$1 for six months, $60 for first year. Gets even pricier after that but you know how those things go.

[andyb]

It gets up to $5 a week after that which is pretty expensive even for a full newspaper. I understand their cost structure has fewer supports than a major newspaper but I think they really need to get the price down to $10 a month if they want long term subscribers.

There were efforts to spin off the Post Metro and Sports departments before the layoffs were announced and I would not be shocked if those efforts continued. They just need a big philanthropic donation to get it off the ground.

[zambonir]

Yeah I'm just saying usually the whole "threaten to cancel" gets you a continuation of the promo rate. But not always. The Inquirer is also a nonprofit and costs around $20 a month but I get a better deal every time my three-month discount is up (a huge pain compared to the NYT or, previously, the Post, where you could pretty much do that annually, often automatically).

I didn't entirely get the Post spinoff thing, I read that Bezos refused to let some people buy it. But I would think it would just be easier to hire the staff than purchase anything (and they're not just gonna hand over subscriber data).

Maybe CBS News will buy the Post

[andyb]

$20 a month is way too much for the Inquirer. Isn't that part of Apple News these days?

It is the problem with all these individual substacks that cost $5-$10 a month for the full version. It just is rarely worth it for one reporter's work. The benefit of a real newspaper is bundling (just like cable TV!) where you pay one price for a collection of stories.

[zambonir]

I never much cared for Apple News, I still prefer the dedicated websites. But yeah. It's a good paper for both local news and culture but if sports is your primary interest and you already have Athletic, not as essential unless you really love Marcus Hayes lol.

The Substack thing is out of control. I subscribe to more than 50 and pay for almost none (partly because - as with the Post long before this particular purge - I don't like the company either. I pay for a few on Ghost and Beehiiv).

[andyb]

I like substack. Like you I only pay for a couple. I care less about the content moderation complaints. Yes they should try to do it but it really is a place with about 75% left leaning sites and very few problematic ones compared to most social media (especially X). They probably need to improve their tools and tailor plans to fit all sizes of publications, but I much prefer their app that let's you get everything in the app versus emails.

[zambonir]

This is interesting and probably makes sense/is plausible. Manfred is saying if enough owners are behind him he can pluck as many games into a national package as he wants. I think that would get heated if it meant taking away a lot more games from local rightsholder entirely (the current limit for national exclusive is 17, but Phillies and Yankees are expected to have 18 this year). But if he's just trying to use that to force all the inventory into MLB.TV without any blackouts (and with the league and clubs still being able to sell the local streaming packages) that seems more doable, and more easily negotiated (I.e. teams or league wouldn't have to pay big buyouts to end local deals entirely).

If you ask teams like the Phillies, Yankees and Cubs to give up their existing contracts for a truly national deal it seems like that would just recreate the revenue inequity, as they'd have to get a bigger share.

“Remember, we can take as many games as we want from any club in the national package with a majority vote of the clubs,” Manfred said last week. “I don’t necessarily need 30 (teams’ rights) wall-to-wall to get where I want.”

A copy of MLB’s constitution the league submitted in a court case in 2023 says that a majority owner vote is required for any league action related to video media rights. It also says a three-quarters vote is required for anything affecting revenue sharing “from any source.”

Rob Manfred’s biggest upcoming fight might be with his owners over MLB TV rights

[andyb]

The Phillies got that new game after the All Star break this year which was probably number 18.

There is a solution to all this. MLB should negotiate with all teams for the local rights. It could be a $5-$10 billion thing. Divide the money on viewership and the big markets will still get more money, but at least incentivize all teams to have good ratings which means less tanking.

[zambonir]

It's definitely the solution but you still have a lot of rights holders with long expensive contracts. Dodgers deal alone was worth $8 billion. They own the network, just as the Phillies have a piece of Comcast, and the Yankees YES, but still a lot of partners/co-owners.

Also, if people want to complain about the Dodgers having an unfair advantage....

Dodgers’ TV Deal Includes Key Advantage Over Other MLB Teams

[andyb]

They'll have to threaten to put all 162 Dodger games on national TV. I think the other 29 owners might actually agree to that.

I know there will be lawsuits, but there are pressures that can be applied. As Trump would say, we can do this the easy way or the hard way.