Financial Windfall for MLB

[Sea Ray]

Today's announcement of ESPN's new deal with MLB has started talk of how much new money is on the horizon for MLB teams.

Now, figure that there will be at least similar and perhaps greater proportional annual bumps for the deals currently held by Fox and TBS. Which are bigger money overall given that they include the playoffs. And that’s assuming that baseball and their would-be network partners don’t get creative and add in a new broadcast product of some kind. Figure then, what, $25 million more a year on top of the ESPN bump? $40 million? With numbers going they way they’re going right now, it’s entirely possible. The upshot of all of this means that, without doing a single thing, each major league team is looking at an increased cash payment of, at minimum, $40 million. Probably much more. Just for the national TV rights increase.

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/20...-all-30-teams/

[backbencher]

It's almost as if a front office that locked player contracts into today's prices, rather than tomorrow's, was well ahead of the game.

What a year for the front office.

[UKFlounder]

And this is why the owners have kept Selig as commissioner for so long

[Strikes Out Looking]

And this is why the owners have kept Selig as commissioner for so long

A blind squirrel will find a nut once in a while.

[bucksfan2]

A blind squirrel will find a nut once in a while.

IMO Selig has been fortunate with the boom of technology that he couldn't screw up.

[REDREAD]

IMO Selig has been fortunate with the boom of technology that he couldn't screw up.

I don't really like Bud, but there's plenty of executives that could've screwed this up.

Another commisioner could've tried yet again to "Break the players union". At least Bud realized it's a lot more profitable for both sides not to have a strike.

The latest draft slot setup was a huge step towards helping parity. A lot harder for a early first round talent to slip to a wealthy team at the bottom of the first round.

Heck, we are seeing a resurgence of many small/medium market teams.
Pittsburg, Cincy, and the Nats are all competitive this year. (Even though Washington is really a large market, they were struggling, and the system helped make them competitive).

[JaxRed]

And this is where a good commissioner would use this money to even the playing field between teams.

[Chip R]

And this is where a good commissioner would use this money to even the playing field between teams.

Well, I think he's doing that since all that money is going to be divided evenly among the teams. The Yankees don't get any more from this deal than the Reds.

[Brutus]

Well, I think he's doing that since all that money is going to be divided evenly among the teams. The Yankees don't get any more from this deal than the Reds.

Yep. I've been saying this for a few years. The continued emergence of revenue from MLBAM will create an equal playing field as teams are equal partners in the investment. The national contracts will eventually be kept by Major League Baseball primarily, so that money will flow rather evenly as well.

The local revenues will continue to differ, but as MLB has a greater chunk of revenue distribution, baseball will be very healthy.

I'd still like some sort of salary threshold, but the need for it is diminishing by the year.

[gonelong]

Yep. I've been saying this for a few years. The continued emergence of revenue from MLBAM will create an equal playing field as teams are equal partners in the investment. The national contracts will eventually be kept by Major League Baseball primarily, so that money will flow rather evenly as well.

The local revenues will continue to differ, but as MLB has a greater chunk of revenue distribution, baseball will be very healthy.

I'd still like some sort of salary threshold, but the need for it is diminishing by the year.

I remember thinking this was the path to true revenue sharing in 2000? or so when it was announced. Unfortunately, I think that was lost in the archives, but the discussion did resurect a bit later.

In 2000 I was perplexed that people couldn't see this coming and it was roundly ignored then.

GL

[Chip R]

I remember thinking this was the path to true revenue sharing in 2000? or so when it was announced. Unfortunately, I think that was lost in the archives, but the discussion did resurect a bit later.

In 2000 I was perplexed that people couldn't see this coming and it was roundly ignored then.

GL

I guess what I'm not getting is why the TV rights - both local and national - keep skyrocketing when it seems more people are watching games via the Internet. Although I suppose you do need someone to broadcast the games in order for people to watch it online but I would think that teams might bypass the TV and put those games online. Then that would mean all revenue gleaned from that is shared equally with all the teams. Perhaps that's why they aren't doing it.

Another question I have, would anyone watch an internet game with no announcers? You still have all the production values and graphics but no announcers. That might be something more attractive to someone on the go who is interested in looking at the game but isn't really into the announcers.

[Tom Servo]

Well, I think he's doing that since all that money is going to be divided evenly among the teams. The Yankees don't get any more from this deal than the Reds.

[JaxRed]

Well, I think he's doing that since all that money is going to be divided evenly among the teams. The Yankees don't get any more from this deal than the Reds.

Which of course PRESERVES the inequities.

[Brutus]

Which of course PRESERVES the inequities.

That would be true if the proportion of local revenue were static relative to national revenue, but that's not the case. More and more revenue is coming from national media deals and digital revenue through MLBAM, so it's actually helping to balance the disparity rather than maintain it.

[VR]

And this is where a good commissioner would use this money to even the playing field between teams.

Or improve drug testing.