FanGraphs Baseball

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. The Braves really need to figure out a way to fix this, or they’re going to turn into the Pirates.

    Comment by Braves Fan — November 27, 2012 @ 1:12 pm

  2. The Braves are going to be left in the dust with their deal. I wonder if they will be able to renegotiate before 2031 when the on-field product and thus the ratings start to suffer because of it.

    Comment by Nik — November 27, 2012 @ 1:16 pm

  3. As a Braves’ fan… ugh.

    Comment by Chad — November 27, 2012 @ 1:18 pm

  4. Toronto – “Mid Market” ?

    Last I checked this was one of the larger markets, in addition they have thier entire country watching them. The TV deal is also a little suspect as Rogers own’s the Team and the network so frankly the number doesn’t really matter….

    Comment by Infield Fly — November 27, 2012 @ 1:18 pm

  5. As the resident Phillies fan, you should try to be less gleeful given their current state of affairs.

    Comment by Steve 2 — November 27, 2012 @ 1:19 pm

  6. regarding Toronto, I think you have them mis classified. Their TV numbers are the highest in baseball. Considering the market is all of Canada through the Rogers Sportsnet they have extremely high TV numbers relative to NYY or LAD

    Comment by Mike — November 27, 2012 @ 1:20 pm

  7. So maybe MLB was right to scuttle the $3 billion TV deal McCourt tried to make to hold onto the team.

    When asked about the paltry amount the Cardinals are getting from their TV deal, someone with the organization expressed concern that teams are shooting themselves in the foot committing to deals that last two decades into the future. Short of the kind of massive hyperinflation a world superpower should be immune to I don’t see how these big deals wind up hurting teams, so I suspect it was just ass-covering after getting bent over at the bargaining table.

    Comment by Sparkles Peterson — November 27, 2012 @ 1:20 pm

  8. This money isn’t shared at all?

    [grumbles]

    Comment by Cardsfan — November 27, 2012 @ 1:21 pm

  9. It is, just not the network equity revenue.

    Comment by Nik — November 27, 2012 @ 1:28 pm

  10. If the Dodgers are the only team on the field, does anybody watch?

    Comment by Wait Til Next Year — November 27, 2012 @ 1:30 pm

  11. How can the Cardinals (with double the ratings) not expect to be even close to Seattle, Baltimore, DC, Houston (with double the populations)? Same # of eyes watching commercials, right?

    Also, San Diego, Denver, Minneapolis, St. Louis, and Kansas City are all pretty close in populations, for their Metros, how can they not expect similiar revenues?

    Comment by Bert — November 27, 2012 @ 1:32 pm

  12. One small not terribly important thing to note, is that Reinsdorf’s 40% stake in CSN is a result of him owning both the Bulls and White Sox. The White Sox’s stake is more like 20%

    Comment by Joewho112 — November 27, 2012 @ 1:36 pm

  13. In how Pittsburgh traded away their stars and leeched off of revenue sharing for a decade?

    For all the cash flaunting, that doesn’t necessarily mean that teams are going to buy more wins. It, along with the new collective bargaining agreement, means we’re more likely to see extensions for franchise players and overpaying for free agents, on top of a declining mean quality of free agents in any given class. Elite free agents will become very rare.

    Atlanta is exceptionally good at talent evaluation and player development, so while the Braves might lack star power, so long as the organization continues what it’s been doing for twenty years, it’ll be able to field a consistently competitive team.

    Comment by Petruchio — November 27, 2012 @ 1:46 pm

  14. I don’t think the Cardinals are quite in line to be receiving anyone else’s revenue…

    Comment by BVHeck — November 27, 2012 @ 1:47 pm

  15. John Fay of the Cincinnati Enquirer reported that the Reds TV Deal was worth an estimated $10M per year as recently as March of this season. Not sure where you got the $30M number, but here is the article I referenced: http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20120324/SPT04/303240088/Can-Reds-keep-Votto-Phillips-

    Comment by Doug Gray — November 27, 2012 @ 1:52 pm

  16. My source: http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/print-edition/2012/04/20/cincinnati-reds-may-get-more-tv-green.html?page=all

    Comment by Wendy Thurm — November 27, 2012 @ 2:01 pm

  17. It’s going to beg the question, how do small market teams ever sign fairly priced free agents? Teams like the Brewers, Pirates, Royals etc have traditionally had to sign mid to low market, overpriced Free agents already, and while I personally think pretty much ALL free agents are overpriced per their production, television deals like this one distort this fact more than almost anything else.

    Deals like this are not good for true competitive balance for baseball. The more bloated team salaries there are, the higher the cost to keep a player is going to be, far less how impossible it will be for teams to sign free agents.

    Before anyone jumps down my throat about “competitive balance” I should probably define what I believe it is in my eyes by telling you what it is not. True competition should not be defined by a two or three year window where a bunch of good players enter the majors at the same time all signed to team friendly rookie contracts, while the team sells the farm to trade for some pitching or another bat in the middle of the lineup. This kind of up and down (and for some teams constant down)is bad for the game in the long run, and pretty much all small to mid market teams fall under this category (probably about half the league).

    Eventually the small market teams get their comeuppance when they operate in pretty much the only way they can compete when their big stars sign elsewhere to bloated contracts and their farm system is in shambles. It takes a long time (or luck, or drafting skill which is a crapshoot anyways) to get out of the hole on this.

    Comment by Chickensoup — November 27, 2012 @ 2:02 pm

  18. I would assume the valuation placed on a given viewership is based more on spending potential than on sheer numbers. The same number of people in Missouri might watch Cardinals games as Mariners fans in the Northwest, but the median income of those viewers is less (significantly in this particular comparison). The census bureau confirms here: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/statemedian/

    Comment by Aaron — November 27, 2012 @ 2:04 pm

  19. Not until the third inning. All that traffic.

    Comment by Jaack — November 27, 2012 @ 2:08 pm

  20. Heck ya! California dreaming baby! Get used to the West Coast dominating sports for the next half century. Dodgers/Angels/Lakers/Clippers/USC/UCLA/LA Kings/LA Galaxy/LA Sparks…holla!

    Comment by Jeff — November 27, 2012 @ 2:09 pm

  21. Just cause the Dodgers are making more TV money now doesnt mean thats the sole reason why your Pittsburg Pirates cant sign free agents. The reason the Royals and Brewers cant sign free agents is cause no one wants to live in Milwaukee or Missouri! Get used to it. Its always going to be like that unless the Atlantic ocean runs up against your borders.

    Comment by Jeff — November 27, 2012 @ 2:11 pm

  22. I wonder why there is such a disparity in the numbers that each guy got a hold of.

    Comment by Doug Gray — November 27, 2012 @ 2:17 pm

  23. You’re right, it has nothing to do with extra years and extra millions tacked onto salaries :)

    Wonder how the Packers, Chiefs and Steelers are able to do it….

    Comment by Chickensoup — November 27, 2012 @ 2:18 pm

  24. For the last 20 years? Up until about 2004, they had a high payroll. Since then, they haven’t been as successful. It’s going to suck to see Heyward walk at some point (in all likelihood). Also, no, you can’t buy a championship, but it definately makes it easier. You can cover up your mistakes easier.

    Comment by Antonio Bananas — November 27, 2012 @ 2:22 pm

  25. “entire country watching them” is kind of manipulative isn’t it? Canada doesn’t have an enormous population and the population they do have isn’t known for being huge baseball fans.

    Comment by Antonio Bananas — November 27, 2012 @ 2:23 pm

  26. You can’t just look at the metros. Look at TV coverage and competition. San Diego and STL might be close, but San Diego has a smaller reach (Cards TV coverage is something like 7 states), plus the Padres have the more popular Dodgers and Angels close by, STL has nobody close that’s been successful in the last 10 years. Not until you get to Chicago to their northeast, but that’s it. Nobody west, nobody south, nobody north, nobody directly east. Huuuuuge TV market for a historic fanchise that’s always good. The Cards could draw mega money once they renew their TV deal.

    Comment by Antonio Bananas — November 27, 2012 @ 2:25 pm

  27. Lol…the LA Sparks…

    Comment by Acacia — November 27, 2012 @ 2:27 pm

  28. Jeff, why would players even live where they play? Missouri isn’t THAT bad. In fact, a lot of players are hunters and really enjoy Missouri. A large portion of white players are southern boys who love their huntin’.

    I agree that some players wouldn’t want to. Like Pujols.

    Comment by Antonio Bananas — November 27, 2012 @ 2:27 pm

  29. I don’t know If I trust these numbers. I just read recently on MLB.com that the Brewers number is going up to $30 million starting in 2013 Thru 2019 Not the $12 Million being reported here.

    Comment by Justin — November 27, 2012 @ 2:29 pm

  30. Wendy, what’s your source on the Brewers’ TV deal? This NY Times article says Milwaukee should see their revenue move to about $30 M/year starting in 2013.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/sports/baseball/mark-attanasio-goes-all-in-on-the-brewers.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

    “The Brewers receive less than $10 million a year in the deal, and although that figure should triple starting in 2013, for now it is the lowest local media payout in the majors.”

    Comment by Dan — November 27, 2012 @ 2:30 pm

  31. Who the hell are the Galaxy and Sparks?

    Comment by IHateJoeBuck — November 27, 2012 @ 2:37 pm

  32. TV ratings are calculated differently between Canada and the US, but the numbers the jays were getting were VERY high compared to other teams. Like, outpacing the Yankees high.

    They are not a small to mid size media market at all. Torontos one of the biggest cities in NA, and that doesn’t include having the rest of the country for territorial rights as well.

    Comment by Allan G — November 27, 2012 @ 2:38 pm

  33. It’s truly Amazin’ what a crap deal the Mets have. Network was built on phony Madoff money, and the Mets majority owners had to go deep into debt to even get the network on. Now [according to the NY Times] they plan to go even deeper. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/06/sports/baseball/mets-and-sny-seek-banks-help-with-debt.html

    Comment by 5w30 — November 27, 2012 @ 2:43 pm

  34. My source re Brewers: http://www.cleveland.com/tribe/index.ssf/2012/01/the_big_picture_is_tv_rights_m.html

    I couldn’t find anything stating the Brewers receive $30m in annual revenue.

    Comment by Wendy Thurm — November 27, 2012 @ 2:55 pm

  35. It’s a wonder how the Braves, operating on a horrible TV contract, manage to put up a significantly more impressive payroll than the Padres, despite the shiny $1.2 billion deal. For all the talk of the new deal, the Padres still had the lowest payroll in the league last season, have failed to resign their best player, and aren’t rumored to be interested in anyone you would associate with the word “good” unless you prefaced it with “used to be”.

    Moreso than television revenue, the most important thing for an MLB franchise is owner willingness to spend money rather than optimize profit. The Braves, at least, have that going for them.

    Comment by Marver — November 27, 2012 @ 2:57 pm

  36. Thanks Wendy. But keep in mind, the Brewers renegotiated a new deal that kicks in after 2012, so they could be making $12 M/year now as that article implies and move to about $30 M/year in 2013.

    I’ve also heard the $30 M/year number from other sources, but told different ways (e.g. will add $20 M/year of revenue).

    Comment by Dan — November 27, 2012 @ 2:57 pm

  37. I made a change to reflect information suggesting the Brewers deal is closer to $30m per year.

    Comment by Wendy Thurm — November 27, 2012 @ 3:08 pm

  38. That Astros expiration should say 2032, right?

    Comment by Jack Weiland — November 27, 2012 @ 3:13 pm

  39. And Ned Colletti gets to decide how to spend those billions!!! What coul possibly go wrong?!?!

    Comment by Nick — November 27, 2012 @ 3:22 pm

  40. well done Wendy.

    Comment by G — November 27, 2012 @ 3:43 pm

  41. What happened to adjust the value of the TV ratings so much higher, the new market vs old market?

    Comment by Kinanik — November 27, 2012 @ 3:50 pm

  42. ho ho

    Comment by Felonius_Monk — November 27, 2012 @ 4:06 pm

  43. Can someone explain the economics behind TV deals? Why would a channel want to spend so much money on a single team? I understand that a larger audience should guarantee more viewers, but where is the money actually coming from? Is it cable subscription fees? Are those that different market-by-market? Is it advertising money? I’ve always been mystified by that concept–no one I know actually buys anything based on TV commercials. In fact, since I watch baseball every day and have to see the same commercials over and over again, I think I’m less likely to pay attention to companies that play their crappy commercials over and over again. My money into baseball is tickets and merchandise, which seems more stable considering how I think TV and entertainment is going to be changing over the next decade with the increase of internet-based content delivery (see MLB.tv for one)

    Comment by Daniel — November 27, 2012 @ 4:06 pm

  44. Fox is or has closed on a deal that gives them 80% of the YES network in 3 years as well.

    Comment by channelclemente — November 27, 2012 @ 4:15 pm

  45. Can you say “TV sports bubble”? I knew you could!

    Comment by Mr. Rogers — November 27, 2012 @ 4:17 pm

  46. Jays averaged 540,000 a game last year, and they haven’t even begun to approach the popularity they used to have, they’re getting shafted.

    Comment by ABsteve — November 27, 2012 @ 4:21 pm

  47. No.

    =(

    Comment by Silent Bob — November 27, 2012 @ 5:06 pm

  48. Yeah, I’m going to wait to complain too much until the payroll disparity becomes so large that they can only compete by hitting the jackpot with almost all young players happening to develop into stars at the same time (like the Rays). Right now the payroll is about in the middle. I don’t really care why.

    Comment by TKDC — November 27, 2012 @ 5:10 pm

  49. As I understand things, it’s less about the ratings and commercial rates than it is about the subscription fees. It doesn’t matter how many people are watching the team, as long as it is enough to force the cable providers to make all their subscribers pay the monthly fee.

    St. Louis isn’t a huge market and, from what I remember, has below average below average cable/satellite subscribers as a percentage of the population.

    Comment by Evan — November 27, 2012 @ 5:29 pm

  50. If the top revenue stream is $240-$280 million per year, the Padres $60 million per year is nothing. It fits right in with an extremely low payroll team. It’s just that they happened to cut their deal recently while other bigger market teams such as the Braves have not yet cut their deal. The Padres FO probably knows that their $60 million a year today is not going to permenantly give them any leg up in the payroll department.

    Comment by randplaty — November 27, 2012 @ 5:41 pm

  51. The fact that certain teams are locked into deals through 2017 or 2019 is not the end of the world. 4-6 years is nothing, and teams like the Cardinals and the Braves are going to get huge deals soon enough. I don’t think this list is the new inequality. Traditional TV market sizes are going to matter a lot more in the long run.

    Comment by randplaty — November 27, 2012 @ 5:45 pm

  52. That’s really interesting. Do you have a source where I can read more about that? That’d make a lot of sense regarding San Diego, which has traditionally been a low ratings TV market.

    Comment by randplaty — November 27, 2012 @ 5:51 pm

  53. From my understanding it’s a couple of the things you mentioned. They get get x amount of dollars per cable subscriber per month and also money from advertisers. ESPN for instance charges about $5.00 per subscriber and RSN’s around $2.50.

    http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-04-05/for-sports-networks-you-gotta-pay-to-play

    Comment by night_manimal — November 27, 2012 @ 7:01 pm

  54. Wendy – quick question on revenue sharing.

    Does 34% of the licensing money go into the revenue sharing pool? (for all teams)

    Comment by Tom — November 27, 2012 @ 7:24 pm

  55. this is very likely right. This is the same thing that is driving the Big 10 expansion into Maryland and Rutgers. While Maryland is very likely to have the smallest following of devoted fans in the B10, adding them along with the already strong alumni ties of the other B10 schools will likely allow the B10 network to be able to force subscription fees on both the Baltimore and Washington DC markets…

    Ditto for Rutgers and the NYC market although given the overwhelming size of the market and low % of college football fans, it is less of a sure bet. Again, the B10 is banking on the already existing alumni of the other schools already creating a need and the Rutger addition is enough to take it over the top…

    Comment by cody k — November 27, 2012 @ 7:42 pm

  56. Braves’ deal ends in 2031, not 2019.

    Comment by Phrozen — November 27, 2012 @ 7:42 pm

  57. this isn’t the complete answer but a lot has to do with the invention and common use of the DVR. Now that many people use that to watch their television, they fastforward through commercials, making the ad time less valuable.

    Sports are the one entertainment on television that people almost always watch live consistently, which obviously greatly increases the value of ad revenue for live sports

    Comment by cody k — November 27, 2012 @ 7:46 pm

  58. Even if the Pirates had a better deal, that wouldn’t mean that Bottom Dollar Bob Nutting would actually invest that money back into his team.

    Comment by Mrs Black-N-Gold — November 27, 2012 @ 8:38 pm

  59. Good read. Those prices seem astronomical, but I guess that’s where the real money is in the sport. How much money does MLB make off of MLB.tv (and/or ExtraInnings)? It’s unique in that it doesn’t require any production company, really, because it’s just rebroadcasting the RSN’s feeds. Do those RSN get a cut of the MLB.tv feed?

    Comment by Daniel — November 27, 2012 @ 9:28 pm

  60. hell, just make it like European soccer. One varsity league and one JV league, with regulations dropping bad teams down and good teams up etc.

    Comment by Mike C. — November 27, 2012 @ 10:52 pm

  61. Off topic. Is that you, Sutkin?

    Comment by Joel — November 27, 2012 @ 11:31 pm

  62. Good luck getting that $250 million dollars in 2037, I doubt cable TV will even exist by then. Nor should it when on demand, al a carte distribution via the Internet is already practical. MLB and the cable companies may get away with the racket for a decade, maybe two decades, longer but the end is coming. If it doesn’t it won’t be long until piracy makes its inroads into sports too. It’s already happening on the small scale and once the audience knows where to look it’ll be as popular as torrenting movies…

    Comment by Pumpkin — November 28, 2012 @ 12:02 am

  63. Why did the Astros get such a better deal than the Rangers? That seems absurd. As for this insane new landscape, it will just make it that much more expensive to buy cable whether you watch or not. It’s like when people say insane athlete salaries don’t bother them because, “hey, if the owners want to spend their money that way, good on them” when the reality is now that to pay for that largesse they have ticket prices much higher, hot dogs for six bucks and a Coors Light for eight. Once priced out of going to games I started to watch more on TV, but I guess now that will get more expensive for all of us as well.

    But does anyone have any clue why Fox Sports and the others are so gung ho to spend way more than in the past? Is baseball suddenly reversing decades long trends and bring in viewers?

    Comment by Will H. — November 28, 2012 @ 2:35 am

  64. Toronto being lumped together with mid and small market teams, and cities, is so ridiculous. Toronto alone is the fourth largest city in North America, with over 6 million population in the CMA. Toronto, in today’s economy, can and does CRUSH almost every single American City, outside NY, Chicago and LA, in any meaningful measure.

    Considering the state of the US economy, and the absolute power of Canadian commerce, y’all best to recognize.

    Y’all. LOL.

    Comment by Andy Mc — November 28, 2012 @ 6:37 am

  65. Toronto in a group with Detroit, Cleveland and Minnesota? Huh? Have you ever been to Minnesota? I saw a horse and carriage pass my hotel the last time i was there. Detroit?

    The Toronto market is a sleeping Giant for baseball, and its a travesty that Rogers has convinced people it is a small market. The TV rights alone, if put to auction between Rogers/Bell/Shaw/Other, would return at least $100m per year.

    Comment by Jeff — November 28, 2012 @ 9:16 am

  66. But Rogers can depress the perceived value of the Blue Jays media rights (and the team), by outright owning the team, the building and the television network, and operating them as separate business units. And as a public company, they can hide behind “fiscal responsibility” and shape the conversation anyway they wish.

    Now they will be hero’s, because they spent money in the Marlins trade. But the truth is, they’ve been banking money for a decade, and could have been competitive at any time.

    Comment by Jeff — November 28, 2012 @ 9:21 am

  67. 34 percent of each teams local revenue goes into the MLB sharing pool, this includes revenue from local media rights sales. So each team will receive over $2.5 million from the Dodgers Fox deal every year. However, income from an equity interest in a RSN is not shared as it is a separate entity not subject to MLB control. Additionally each teams share of the national and international MLB rights is about to double, adding another $25MM in new income to every team. This has already inflated free agent costs and it’s going to get worse, probably by a bunch. Most teams could structure a back loaded deal and sign Hamilton or Grienke this off-season should they wish to.

    Comment by maqman — November 28, 2012 @ 10:30 am

  68. Just wondering where you got the numbers for the Rogers and the Blue Jays. A lot of us have been looking for that number for a while and it doesn’t seem to be out there. Rogers is a private company and doesn’t have to release any financial numbers at all. For Baseball revenue sharing and CBA reasons, I believe the league assigns a value on Toronto baseball rights rather than the actual number the team receives, as being fully owning both the team and network, they are just moving numbers on a page in the long run.

    Comment by Owens — November 28, 2012 @ 10:36 am

  69. Wendy – How do you anticipate the O’s/Nats MASN dispute working out? Do you think it will be resolved this offseason?

    Comment by Kevin — November 28, 2012 @ 10:57 am

  70. I think you can extrapolate the value of the Blue Jays RSN by comparing it to what the Bell / Rogers consortium is paying itself for Toronto Maple Leafs regional broadcasting rights in Ontario.

    Before this consortium bought MLSE ( Leafs/Raptors/ the local MLS soccer franchise owners) , much like the Dodgers, MLSE threatened to start it’s own RSN.

    MLSE then demanded a price of 1.5 million per game for the regional rights.
    The two main Canadian sports broadcasters then agreed to purchase MLSE
    jointly and share the broadcast properties, as neither party could envision losing out.

    It’s widely believed they will pay the Leafs ( again they are essentially now paying themselves since they both own the team $ 1 million per game for Ontario Leaf rights ). The real price value though, without the owner discount, would be in the 1.25 million range at the low end.

    In 2011/2012 an average of 788,000 viewers watched these Leaf broadcasts. In 2012 an average of 552,000 viewers watched the Blue Jays Canada wide on it’s 5 different RSN feeds ( the viewership was much higher until the Jays tanked in the second half).

    Using the Leafs valuation numbers you can get an idea how valuable each viewer is to broadcasters and their advertisers. The Jays in 2012 at 552,000 viewers per game would be worth $141,000,000 at these prices.

    These numbers seem to match up quite well with what other RSN contracts are being priced at with similar market sizes.

    Comment by Media Observer — November 28, 2012 @ 11:44 am

  71. Liberty Media bought the Braves back in 07 so they could take advantage of a $770 million dollar tax break. I don’t think they were that concerned about a below market value TV deal.

    http://www.bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1141&Itemid=42

    Comment by Tax Ninja — November 28, 2012 @ 2:16 pm

  72. IIRC, the Greater Toronto Area is the 4th or 5th biggest media market in north america. Lots of corporate offices, lots of money, and the other teams in the market (Leafs, Raptors) are terrible. When the Jays won back to back world series, they had the highest payroll in baseball and sold 4 million seats for something like 5 straight seasons. The secondary market of Canada is about 35 million people – roughly the same as California, which is divided among 5 teams.

    Comment by rj — November 28, 2012 @ 4:29 pm

  73. I wonder if these kinds of contracts will lead to things like each inning sponsored by a different corporation. I mean, already the 15th out is sponsored by Geico! Imagine the possibilities!!!

    Comment by ralph nader — November 28, 2012 @ 8:39 pm

  74. Who cares?

    Comment by Terms of Service — November 28, 2012 @ 11:27 pm

  75. lol, USC. Enjoy Lane Kiffin.

    Comment by Patrick — November 30, 2012 @ 7:07 pm

  76. As an A’s fan…. ugh.

    Comment by George — December 1, 2012 @ 2:40 am

  77. The A’s are pwnd in the Bay Area. Nobody wants them, the best way for them to survive is to go to Utah, San Antonio or Vancouver. It’s much better fort the A’s to move to the MT Zone since there are NO AL TEAMS IN THAT TIME ZONE and there MUST BE ONE. The A’s will have a new growing fanbase in SLC Utah and finally get the Root Sports Utah with the Jazz. Face it, nobody in the Bay Area wants to see the A’s Anymore, since you will start to have a fanbase in the MT Zone besides Utah, you’ll have Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and New Mexico. Besides, I would rather have the A’s succeed in Utah or in San Antonio. THERE MUST BE AN AL TEAM IN THE MT ZONE SINCE THERE AREN’t Ant AL teams there, there needs to be one to cut down on travel times and jet lag.

    Comment by Pat — December 2, 2012 @ 11:59 am

  78. Yes. You get Utah, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and New Mexico, and a 400-seat stadium raucous with alcohol-free hysteria.

    Comment by Choo — December 4, 2012 @ 12:08 pm

  79. Somehow I think they should probably close that “cash rich splitoff” loophole. I have no idea why you would want to give massive tax breaks on the sale of stock, from a governmental point of view. Is there some big advantage to a more volatile market that I’m unaware of?

    Comment by B N — January 13, 2013 @ 2:20 am

  80. Rogers is a private company? I guess those shares I bought must have some Madoff on them

    Comment by coach — February 22, 2013 @ 12:04 pm

  81. Landscape Edging In Branson MoAre you thinking of building a backyard vegetable garden in the landscape borders and design

    http://www.landscapeborderz.com/residential-landscape-edging.

    Comment by Landscape Edging In Branson Mo — May 8, 2013 @ 1:11 am

  82. I agree that the per subscriber fees are a big part of it, but I’m still surprised that the Cardinals don’t do have a better contract.

    St. Louis metro is 2.8 million, which is mid-sized for an MLB market (19th largest U.S. MSA). The thing is thought, that the Cardinals have historically had a large regional following in all directions, as someone else said – north into central Illinois, Missouri outside of Kansas City, southern Indiana, parts of Tennessee, and Missouri, even into Oklahoma, east Texas, and Louisiana to some extent. The question I’d therefore have is if the Cardinals have enough demand to get the regional sports network with their games picked up in markets like Memphis (1.3 million metro area), Louisville (also 1.3 million), or Oklahoma City / Tulsa (1.3 million / 1.0 million metro areas). If you start adding in any of those cities, plus many smaller cities within 100 or 200 miles of St. Louis, that 2.8 million looks much bigger pretty quickly.

    I’d use Boston as an example where this sort of regional aggregation has worked. Boston metro itself is only 4.6 million. Sure, that’s bigger than St. Louis, but it’s only the 10th largest metro in the U.S. Because they also have a huge following across New England outside of Boston, they generate huge TV revenue.

    Comment by Dave — July 3, 2013 @ 6:15 pm

  83. The Padres TV contract started at $30 million per season including their equity and ramps up slowly from there. They dont pass $50 million per season until the 2020 season. They are still at the bottom of baseball in revenue as befits the 28th largest DMA.

    Comment by websoulsurfer — December 18, 2013 @ 3:09 am

  84. it would be very interesting to update this article for currently known contracts.. Bluejays should have market value TV contract over $125million but they own and produce their own content……

    Comment by Mikeleelop — February 12, 2015 @ 1:12 pm

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>


Close this window.

0.296 Powered by WordPress