Within the designated market they're not. They mention it regarding the idea of offering those other teams games as part of the subscription. They don't have Twins streaming rights outside of their market. The Twins are not one of those 5 teams.Streaming are different rights than TV.
Otherwise, why would they need to mention that they only have 5 MLB teams' rights?
OK, this makes sense.Within the designated market they're not. They mention it regarding the idea of offering those other teams games as part of the subscription. They don't have Twins streaming rights outside of their market. The Twins are not one of those 5 teams.
Correct. You’ll only get what’s available in your market.
I think howeda just said that they (Sinclair) don't have the rights to stream Twins games outside of the Twins market.
So they could not offer you Twins in PHX.
But perhaps could for Twolves and Wild (and Loons?).
No. Although I personally don't care for it.You're saying that mainly because of the gambling aspect, correct?
A lot of people are probably open to the idea of DTC live sports, so long as the price is reasonable.
I guess I still don't follow you, then.No. Although I personally don't care for it.
I want the streaming to fail. I want Sinclair to lose their ass on the deal.
I want someone to acquire the RSNs at a fraction of Sinclair's price so it can be affordable for the TV providers.
Correct unfortunatelyWait, so you can only get the Bally's in the market in which you live, or can you pick the Bally's you want access to? Now that I live in Phoenix, this is a godsend for me as I only care about MN sports and right now we are paying each league pass individually to get MN sports. But this would solve the issue, assuming I can get the Bally's MN market.
Well that last bit isn't going to happen. Channel bundle prices always tend to increase over time.
That's how they make the most money.
It would not solve that issue as I don't believe the Twins are one of the 5 teams Bally's has full streaming rights for. You would still have to purchase extra innings/MLB TV etc.
Usually that just means then that your bundle doesn't get to have any of those channels. They pull the channel altogether and tell the subscribers to make angry phone calls to the bundle provider demanding that they (the provider) put the channel back on.Ours has gone down the last 2-3 years. They've learned to say "No" when the content providers demand that they take bundled channels. Those where a popular channel or two are bundled with a number of channels nobody watches. Or want outrageous rates period.
Of course the number of available channels has dropped too.
Bolded: Yes. The owners of content decreed, at some point, by whatever legal means they are able to do such a thing, that "streaming" .... well actually see, that's a whole different rights that you have to purchase separately from normal TV rights.So, I did some more reading, and I think my earlier post was wrong.
To be clear, my post was speculation based on how I read the article. Here is the part of the article on streaming rights.
One of the concerns about the launch of “Bally Sports+” is the relatively limited number of teams’ streaming rights, especially in the volume-heavy world of Major League baseball, in comparison to the league-specific options. In total, Sinclair currently owns the broadcast rights to 38 MLB, NBA, and NHL franchises already available on the company’s stations. They currently have streaming rights for all NBA and NHL teams, as well as five MLB teams.
On their earnings call, Sinclair execs mentioned that the company was having “constructive dialogue” with other teams and leagues to bolster their rights package. However, due to the plan to have a soft launch in Q2 2022 and a wide launch in the fall, there is not necessarily an immediate time crunch to add more teams.
clearly, there is a distinction between "broadcast rights" and "streaming rights." those are two different entities.
but the article made a point that Sinclair has streaming rights for all NBA and NHL teams, but only 5 MLB teams.
Sinclair currently has 19 RSN's. those RSN's cover 17 MLB teams. (for the LA Angels, it is listed as "occasional" games.) But Sinclair only has streaming rights for 5 MLB teams. Ergo, as I now read things, Sinclair - at this time - does not hold streaming rights for some of the teams they cover under their separate broadcast rights agreements. meaning that a Bally's streaming service would not be able to offer their local MLB team's games IF they do not have a separate agreement for streaming rights.