Future (financially) of MLB?

Gophers_4life

Banned
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
15,846
Reaction score
3,986
Points
113
Ran across an article in NYT today, which was arguing for a much larger thing than I want to bring up in this thread. It was a political thing, and I strongly want to keep all politics out of this thread. I just want to focus on the financial arguments the author brings up about the MLB:

Like the Delta blues or Yellowstone National Park, baseball is as indelibly American as it is painfully uncommercial. Left to fend for itself, the game will eventually disappear.

Attendance at games has declined steadily since 2008 and viewership figures are almost hilariously bleak. An ordinary national prime-time M.L.B. broadcast, such as ESPN’s “Sunday Night Baseball,” attracts some 1.5 million pairs of eyes each week, which is to say, roughly the number that are likely to be watching a heavily censored version of “Goodfellas” on a basic cable movie channel in the same time slot.

Even the World Series attracts smaller audiences than the average “Thursday Night Football” broadcast, the dregs of the National Football League’s weekly schedule. In 1975, the World Series had an average of 36 million viewers per game; in 2021, it barely attracted 12 million per game.

Casual observers may assume that despite this lack of popularity, baseball is still somehow insanely valuable. This is an illusion. Major League Baseball generated around $11 billion in revenue in 2019, but this figure does not accurately reflect the demand for its product. The astronomical salaries that continue to be enjoyed by the sport’s stars (if that is the mot juste) are a result not of the game’s nonexistent popularity but of the economics of cable television providers, who bundle regional sports networks alongside dozens of other channels so that anyone with cable TV is buying baseball whether he likes it or not.

Mike Trout’s $426 million contract is effectively being paid by millions of grandparents who just want to tune in to Anderson Cooper or “Antiques Roadshow.” As that audience dies off and younger generations of “cord cutters” take their place, baseball’s revenue will plummet.

Culturally, too, the game is increasingly irrelevant. The average age of a person watching a baseball game on television is 57, and one shudders to think what the comparable figure is for radio broadcasts. Typical American 10-year-olds are as likely to recognize Jorge Soler, who was named the most valuable player of last year’s World Series, as they are their local congressional representative. College athletes drafted by M.L.B. and N.F.L. teams choose the latter without hesitation.

In some parts of the country, participation in Little League has decreased by nearly 50 percent in the past decade and a half. When my wife and I signed up our 5- and 6-year-old daughters for T-ball a few weeks ago, we did so partly out of a grim sense of obligation. We might have been Irish parents enrolling our children in step dancing classes: This is your heritage and you are going to learn to appreciate it!
 

So ... what say you? Is this author onto something, or is this largely not true?
 

I mean, the only sport that isn't "propped up" by large cable contracts is the NFL. To a small degree, the NBA and NHL have their OTA channel packages, but those are miniscule compared to the national and regional cable packages. The NBA is helped by it's popularity in China, so maybe that's an outlier. If cord cutting continues and regional cable providers aren't able to offer as much money to the leagues for rights, it'll hurt everybody but the NFL. But then, will the lost cable revenue be filled in by direct streaming options?

But baseball definitely has an age issue. This is not helped by the fact that many Twins fans can't even see the games. If you have young people that can't tune into the games, they're not very likely to become fans as paying adults. I have mentioned this many times, but I am in the firm belief that it financially behooves the Twins (or any club) long term to have an OTA package that shows 1-2 games a week on an OTA channel (or via a free stream on their website). I'm sure the per game revenue from those would be lower, but there are plenty of low-income and cord cutting individuals that are more tied to the club by being able to watch games and will end up going to games, buying merch, etc. But do all sports have an age issue? Is the young generation as likely to be as devoted to sitting around and watching 2.5-3 hour sporting events on TV? I'm not sure that's going to be the case. It will take a while to realize, but baseball may just be the canary in the coal mine for all TV sports.

Maybe baseball is just a dinosaur that can't be saved. Go to a Twins game, and look around - many people aged 25-50 sitting on their phones the majority of the time. Then go to a Vikings game - people are much more into the action. I'm not a soccer fan at all, but I had a really good time at the Loons game I went to pre-pandemic. It was also affordable. I was a huge baseball fan when I was a kid, and still listen to a majority of the games on the radio. But the cost of going to games and the "unfairness" in the MLB between no salary cap and the large rift between the haves and the have-nots means I'm just not that interested in the rest of the MLB outside of the Twins.
 

I'm not going to get into all the ways that MLB needs to be fixed, but let's just say it's far from well. Because of its cultural significance, I do think Congress would be justified in at holding the commissioner's and owners' feet to the fire. They could at least hold hearings. It IS a national treasure of sorts, and some amount of publc stewardship is in order in my opinion.

From my own perspective, the cost of attending 1/162 of a season is way beyond the entertainment value of the product or the importance of the event. My entertainment dollar is better spent at a music venue, which is likely to give me way more of a treasured memory. Today's ticket prices and beer cost is a far cry from my young adult days, when you could get in for $3-$5 and get a brew for a few bucks. It's just not worth it anymore.
 

The truth is in the middle. Yes, the national ratings suck, but baseball is a local/regional sport. I rarely watch a game that isn't the Twins. I'm guessing most are the same. The real $ is in the local broadcast rights and drawing fans. What will happen with the Bally Sports of the world is the key to the next few years. Will they foolishly shut themselves out from 40% of their fan base by going to streaming only or reverse course and be back on local TV/cable?

It also does have a huge age/pace of play problem. They need to address or it will shrink. I don't think it's near death, it's still healthier than the NHL etc. But this talk of expanding to two cities is a joke. If anything it should contract TB and Oakland.
 


The truth is in the middle. Yes, the national ratings suck, but baseball is a local/regional sport. I rarely watch a game that isn't the Twins. I'm guessing most are the same. The real $ is in the local broadcast rights and drawing fans. What will happen with the Bally Sports of the world is the key to the next few years. Will they foolishly shut themselves out from 40% of their fan base by going to streaming only or reverse course and be back on local TV/cable?

It also does have a huge age/pace of play problem. They need to address or it will shrink. I don't think it's near death, it's still healthier than the NHL etc. But this talk of expanding to two cities is a joke. If anything it should contract TB and Oakland.
Yeah expanding wouldn't be good when there's already multiple franchises that aren't even trying to win.
 

I've alluded to it before, but I'd be more interested if there were less games. I just can't stay invested for 160+ matches. They all start to feel meaningless until playoffs.
 

I've alluded to it before, but I'd be more interested if there were less games. I just can't stay invested for 160+ matches. They all start to feel meaningless until playoffs.
Shortening the season (beyond possibly going to back to 154 or so) is never going to happen. Frankly, the NBA and NHL are worse in that regard. The NBA is an 82 game exhibition. Only the play-offs matter. The top 2-3 teams are usually locks before the season starts.
 

Shortening the season (beyond possibly going to back to 154 or so) is never going to happen. Frankly, the NBA and NHL are worse in that regard. The NBA is an 82 game exhibition. Only the play-offs matter. The top 2-3 teams are usually locks before the season starts.
I agree. NHL and NBA are equally bad. Is there a reason why they play so many games?
 




I think the article in the OP over-states some of the issues.

I found some charts on MLB attendance. 1st, have to realize that 2020 and 2021 were impacted by covid.

but going back further, there has been a little dip in recent years, but not catastrophic. if you take a longer view, attendance went down after the 1994 strike and cancellation of the World Series. after that, attendance came back up and remained fairly steady until a dip in the period from 2016-2019.
But a drop of 1 or 2% in overall attendance is not a crisis.

on the TV ratings, as noted above, a lot of the RSN's are not available to many people due to Sinclair pulling the RSN's off cable packages. That is certainly going to impact viewership.

the finances of MLB are another story. Baseball clubs do get revenue from national contracts, but also relay on gate receipts and local TV rights for revenue. the local TV rights are often the biggest differences between the highest-revenue teams and lower-revenue teams.

Hey, games are too long and don't have as much action as they used to. And I think MLB finally gets that, which is why they are trying to get rule changes adopted, such as a pitch clock, to speed up the game.
 


Thanks for those that shared great thoughts!


The most interesting bit to me (nerd alert) is the idea of the regional networks essentially determining if they want to try a DTC model. Certainly, services like Netflix and arguably some others have worked out. I'm not aware, however, of any regular cable channels that have made, or even attempted yet, a full conversion from being carried by channel bundles to solely DTC. HBO is kind of mostly converted, though still available on channel bundles, but that was by no means a regular cable channel.

DTC, on paper, seems like a great idea. Some companies have tried it, bypassing retail stores altogether. But for various reasons, it largely hasn't worked out like they thought/hoped it would.

So I wonder too, if a regional sports network trying to go DTC would also similarly not work out, as opposed to being carried on channel bundles.


To be sure, Bally's North is still only available through channel bundles. You can get it on traditional systems (cable, satellite) and I think it is also on DirecTV's streaming service. But not the nationally popular streaming services (Youtube TV for example).
 



Thanks for those that shared great thoughts!


The most interesting bit to me (nerd alert) is the idea of the regional networks essentially determining if they want to try a DTC model. Certainly, services like Netflix and arguably some others have worked out. I'm not aware, however, of any regular cable channels that have made, or even attempted yet, a full conversion from being carried by channel bundles to solely DTC. HBO is kind of mostly converted, though still available on channel bundles, but that was by no means a regular cable channel.

DTC, on paper, seems like a great idea. Some companies have tried it, bypassing retail stores altogether. But for various reasons, it largely hasn't worked out like they thought/hoped it would.

So I wonder too, if a regional sports network trying to go DTC would also similarly not work out, as opposed to being carried on channel bundles.


To be sure, Bally's North is still only available through channel bundles. You can get it on traditional systems (cable, satellite) and I think it is also on DirecTV's streaming service. But not the nationally popular streaming services (Youtube TV for example).
The problem is you are selling two products. Your game on TV and your game in person. You may make more $$ selling your game on TV DTC even if you end up with fewer viewers. But you will also lose a non-small % of the people who might have attended the game in person if you are out of sight out of mind. There is absolutely value in being available to casual fans who will never sign up/pay a separate fee to watch your games.
 

The problem is you are selling two products. Your game on TV and your game in person. You may make more $$ selling your game on TV DTC even if you end up with fewer viewers. But you will also lose a non-small % of the people who might have attended the game in person if you are out of sight out of mind. There is absolutely value in being available to casual fans who will never sign up/pay a separate fee to watch your games.
OK now I think we are talking about two different things.

1) either MLB or the teams themselves going DTC to whomever wants to watch live (or on-demand later) games
2) MLB/teams still selling the rights to some TV network, but that network going DTC as opposed to being carried in channel bundles.

Example of 2 being, turn on your Roku and load the Bally's North app, vs load the YouTubeTV app.
 

OK now I think we are talking about two different things.

1) either MLB or the teams themselves going DTC to whomever wants to watch live (or on-demand later) games
2) MLB/teams still selling the rights to some TV network, but that network going DTC as opposed to being carried in channel bundles.

Example of 2 being, turn on your Roku and load the Bally's North app, vs load the YouTubeTV app.
Either one of those cuts off access to a chunk of the fan base. And if Bally's is going to go through an app, there's no reason for the Twins/MLB to involve them at all. They can and likely will just offer their own app. But I think going that route, exclusively at least, is penny wise and dollar foolish. I would at least go back to putting Sunday games on over the air TV if they're going that route.
 

regardless of how the game is delivered, MLB - meaning the owners and the players' union - have to understand the need to make changes to make the game more viewer-friendly.

I love baseball, and I can't sit through a 9-inning game that takes 4 hours - especially when every at-bat goes to a 3-2 count.

I am all in favor of the pitch count, restrictions on defensive shifts, electronic strike zone, and anything else that will get the game moving faster and provide more action. the larger bases might encourage more base-stealing.

Make baseball fun to watch, and the audience will follow, either in the park on or TV.
 

Baseball should:
  1. Have two seasons with the split being the All-Star Break. At the end of the year the winners of each of the two seasons have a playoff to see who actually wins the division pennant, with the second-half winner being the initial home field for the series. This way when your team is 15 back in the middle of the season, you still have that second-half chance to start over.
  2. Get rid of the wild-card deal. That totally ruined the pennant race. Go to an even number of divisions so only the pennant winner moves on.
  3. Get a salary cap in place to balance out the teams.
  4. Get automated ball/strike call systems in place to remove umps making such a difference in the outcome of games.
 

If they can't get lengths of games under control, I wouldn't be against going to 7-inning games. It would wreak havoc on the stats and records, making it impossible to compare eras, but the 7-inning games they played for doubleheaders during COVID were so snappy, and each inning was so important and dramatic!

Another idea: start the games earlier. Is it really reasonable to wait for someone to get off work, go home, come to the stadium, park in the area, grab a bite or a drink, and then saunter down to the park before you start the damn game? If we can have day games and have people take a damn day off, we can expect people to get off an hour or two early to get to games.
 

If they can't get lengths of games under control, I wouldn't be against going to 7-inning games. It would wreak havoc on the stats and records, making it impossible to compare eras, but the 7-inning games they played for doubleheaders during COVID were so snappy, and each inning was so important and dramatic!

Another idea: start the games earlier. Is it really reasonable to wait for someone to get off work, go home, come to the stadium, park in the area, grab a bite or a drink, and then saunter down to the park before you start the damn game? If we can have day games and have people take a damn day off, we can expect people to get off an hour or two early to get to games.
Twins have moved all midweek night games to 6:40 PM this year.
 

I know, I know, some will call this whining or whatever other label you want to go with but just a simple notion to consider; to completely dismiss the insistence on moving last year's All-Star Game out of Atlanta, GA for political reasons (but okay to play the WS there) would be at least a little bit of a mistake. You can argue how much of an impact it made on ratings and attendance but to dismiss it completely would be a little naive.
 


Either one of those cuts off access to a chunk of the fan base. And if Bally's is going to go through an app, there's no reason for the Twins/MLB to involve them at all. They can and likely will just offer their own app. But I think going that route, exclusively at least, is penny wise and dollar foolish. I would at least go back to putting Sunday games on over the air TV if they're going that route.
I think the factor you're missing here is how much a channel/company (Bally's) is willing to offer for those rights, and then not having to have a whole business unit dedicated to the logistics and operations of the DTC app/service.

In other words, if Bally's can offer them more money than they'd get on their own, when factoring in the costs of running it, then it would make sense to let them handle it.


Bally's also has the additional angle of trying to make money off it in more ways than just viewership, with the gambling parts. That is all to be seen how well it works out.



While probably not a good comparison, I recall people had a lot of doubts about the digital bar bingo/pull tabs (or whatever it is) as a way to help pay for USBS. But that certainly has worked out.
 


I think many people just don't have the attention span for baseball anymore. Going to any pro sports event is becoming increasingly unaffordable for your average family nowadays. MLB certainly is not growing its audience.
 

I think the factor you're missing here is how much a channel/company (Bally's) is willing to offer for those rights, and then not having to have a whole business unit dedicated to the logistics and operations of the DTC app/service.

In other words, if Bally's can offer them more money than they'd get on their own, when factoring in the costs of running it, then it would make sense to let them handle it.


Bally's also has the additional angle of trying to make money off it in more ways than just viewership, with the gambling parts. That is all to be seen how well it works out.



While probably not a good comparison, I recall people had a lot of doubts about the digital bar bingo/pull tabs (or whatever it is) as a way to help pay for USBS. But that certainly has worked out.
Sinclaire's sports division is near bankruptcy. I'm not sure they can offer what you think. There's no reason to think MLB can't make just as much doing the streaming itself. And they can certainly sell in game gambling promo rights to whoever as that seems to not be taboo anymore.
 

Sinclaire's sports division is near bankruptcy. I'm not sure they can offer what you think. There's no reason to think MLB can't make just as much doing the streaming itself.
I'm talking about Bally's. Isn't that the brand? I assume they're the ones putting up the $$$ for the content, or will be with the whole goal to try to make extra money off gambling being the angle of it all.

Granted, MLB already does have a channel. At least it's branded the MLB channel. I don't know if they own and operate it as a business unit within their overall business or not.
 

I'm talking about Bally's. Isn't that the brand? I assume they're the ones putting up the $$$ for the content, or will be with the whole goal to try to make extra money off gambling being the angle of it all.

Granted, MLB already does have a channel. At least it's branded the MLB channel. I don't know if they own and operate it as a business unit within their overall business or not.
Sinclaire own the Bally's sport (old Fox Sports) networks. Bally's just pays naming rights for them to call it that.

MLB Network is really a separate issue. But MLB.TV was really the pioneer in streaming sports and MLB owned/operated that for years. They did sell it a few years ago I believe.
 


As always, follow the money. A consistent theme in this thread is the length of games. The length and frequency of commercial breaks over the last 25 years or so has probably added 20-30 minutes to each game. Just adding one additional commercial minute to each half inning is 18 minutes. Add another additional minute to each pitching change and that's another 8-10 minutes/game. A 2:20 game approaches 3:00 just on commercials to pump the value of the franchises and pay for Trout's $450M contract.

Don't get me started on batters taking 15 seconds to adjust their gloves after every pitch.
 




Top Bottom