The Nationals and Orioles have settled their dispute regarding MASN rights fees between 2012-16, as first reported by Chelsea Janes and Ben Strauss of the Washington Post. The agreement comes two months after a New York appellate court ruled in favor of the Nationals and MLB as part of a longstanding legal battle with the O’s.
According to the Washington Post, the network is paying out a little less than $100MM to each franchise. (Andy Kostka and Dylan Segelbaum of the Baltimore Banner specify the payment around $99.2MM.) As Janes and Strauss note, the deal requires the network to pay equal rights fees to each organization. The payment still represents a win for Washington since the O’s have a much greater ownership stake in MASN.
The Nationals and Orioles jointly own the network, which carries local broadcasting rights for both clubs. The Baltimore organization has a majority share (presently around 76%, dropping to 67% by 2032). That came as part of the agreement between the Orioles and MLB to facilitate the relocation of the Expos from Montreal to Washington — into the Orioles’ territorial range — nearly two decades ago.
As part of that deal, the sides agreed to share telecasting money owed by MASN to the clubs for broadcasting rights. An arbitration panel was created to resolve possible disputes between the franchises in calculating those fees. After the sides failed to come to an agreement for the period covering 2012-16, the issue went to arbitration. The panel — a committee made up of representatives from three other MLB teams — ruled closer to the Nationals’ desired number than the Orioles had found appropriate (albeit nearer to the O’s proposed figure than Washington’s). Baltimore and MASN appealed, questioning the league’s impartiality.
A court found in the Nationals’ and league’s favor on that issue back in 2019. The court ruled the network owed the Nationals roughly $105MM in unpaid rights fees. The Orioles appealed that decision, but the appellate court agreed there were no grounds for contesting the arbitration panel’s findings.
However, the appellate court found the lower court had overstepped its authority in awarding the $105MM in past damages. That put the onus back on the franchises to calculate damages. They have apparently found the approximate $99.2MM figure mutually agreeable.
To be clear, this does not permanently resolve the dispute between the organizations. They’re still divided on fees for the 2017-21 period. Janes and Strauss report that MLB is preparing to put that issue before its revenue sharing committee. The sides negotiate rights fees every half-decade, so they’ll also have to figure out the 2022-26 numbers in due time.
Finding a long-term solution could be especially welcome for the Washington franchise. The Lerner family announced in April 2022 they were looking into selling the team. Negotiations with a group led by Ted Leonsis were put on pause over the winter, in large part on account of the TV rights uncertainty.
Lawyers have to dream of clients/cases like these. Years and years of billable hours.
LOL! This is exactly what I came in here to say. I once worked for a company that paid a nice chunk of change to their lawyers, to eventually wind up with a settlement that was exactly what it should’ve been from Day 1.
It’s like fighting a 3-year-long war in Korea just to have the territory divided almost how it was to begin with after World War II.
“The answer to all of your questions is money.”
La Cheesarie!!
Something about setting the fees over a decade late is a small victory. The fact that 2017’s rates are going on 7 seasons past due, and, 2022s rates are in their second season past due, it all seems more than a touch ridiculous.
Nice, Lerner got a pay day. Good for him. But teams need access to their funding as the season goes, not a decade later.
Don’t be fooled – the Nats have raked in cash, and then given it all to Strasburg the next moment m(!). The O’s have had the money in escrow anyways. It has not stopped the Nats from spending as they saw fit.
These two organizations hate each other.
O’s have good reasons. Never wanted a team so close infringeing upon their market in the 1st place. League and politicians are/were responsible for it. Nonsense all around.
Who says it’s “their” market? Obviously not MLB. It’s called capitalism. Otherwise, move to Cuba. A pox on both their houses and on the commissioner’s office, as well.
MLB does determine their market. Article VIII, sections 8 (operating territories) and 9 (home television territories), of the MLB Constitution. You can find it with Google.
Perhaps you should ask the Oakland A’s why they were not allowed to move to San Jose? Hint: It is part of the Giants “territory”
So what part of capitalism is it when billionaires hold local government hostage for public funds for stadiums for their businesses?
It’s the greed part that will soon end our republic
Late stage capitalism lol
If a new expansion team were created in San Jose, the new owner would have to pay an expansion fee to the rest of the MLB owners. That money is intended to cover any loss of market/revenue that results from the newly created team.
When the A’s wanted to move to San Jose they refused to pay any relocation fee to cover the breach of market/revenues. I assume the move would have been approved if the A’s agreed to a fee.
Ask the politicians that enable them. That isn’t capitalism, that is bad government. They could and should just refuse. But they do not.
I was referring to entire DC/Northern Virginia market belonging only to the Orioles. MLB doesn’t agree with that, or they never would have allowed the move from Montreal.
The Orioles “agreed” to the Expos moving to DC IN EXCHANGE for the television rights for both teams with the Orioles remaining majjority owner of the TV network.
Who would want a baseball league operated like pure capitalism? Thats not going to be fun, even for the most ardent libertarian.
They don’t hold local governments hostage. The local governments generally want the publically funded new stadiums almost as much as the owners do.
I hate it when people say professional sports is capitalism. It cannot exist in a capitalistic environment. I’m pretty much a libertarian myself; however sports teams need other teams to play to generate revenue. Pro sports isn’t a wal-mart vs target situation. If target goes under, wal-mart still exists and thrives. If the Yankees run everybody out of business (or dominate so much there’s no true competition) they have no one to play and therefore no revenue.
Yeah, and how does necessary competition not make it part of a capitalist economy? If anything, it makes it even more capitalist with the principles of free enterprise and competition driving the markets and their prices.
One of the first principles of capitalism is lack of barriers to competition. MLB most definitely places barriers as to which teams can play in whatever city they want.
A complete lack of barriers to competition is not a capitalist principle in general. While you also don’t want too many barriers, not having any at all only happens when capitalism isn’t properly regulated and often leads to undesirable unfair business practices and sometimes even Rockerfeller-style trusts and monopolies.
Meanwhile, regulated capitalism is still a legitimate form of capitalism, and when it’s done right and combined with a decent (but not overdone) amount of socialism, it’s probably the best economic system currently known to mankind.
Your example of Standard Oil is a perfect example of a barrier to the market. Standard Oil undersold the local gas stations and after they closed they upped their prices.
I think you should go back and take Econ 101 over again.
Regulated markets? You mean like MLB protecting territories?
They’ve already shared the territory with two different Washington Senators teams before the Nationals came. Heck, when they first moved to Baltimore from St. Louis, they were the ones infringing on the territory of the first version of the Senators! They should’ve accepted that it could happen again.
The “”first” Senators team now plays in Minnesota and moved there in 1960. The “second” Senators moved to Texas in 1972. There is a loooong time between 1972 and 2005.
Yeah, so? They still had to deal with two previous teams in Washington, and they were the ones who encroached on the territory of the first one. The length of time until the Expos moved there is irrelevant.
The Orioles moved to Baltimore in 1954. There were NO baseball games on television at that time as there is now. And I truly doubt that people in Baltimore were listening to Senators games on the radio. Who knows if there were such things as “territories” in 1954. They exist today because of TV contract $$$
Fair point, but once the TV contracts did come around, the Orioles still should’ve expected another team to come to Washington D.C. someday.
Why would they “expect” a team to come to Washington? Which brings us back to protected territories.
Just one more push toward the Orioles leaving Baltimore after this season…
Baltimore to Nashville?
Orioles stand to lose millions by moving.
The Nationals gain millions for moving.
Money makes the world go ’round.
Nashville only wants an expansion team, the Rays, Nationals, and Brewers, and Pirates are all higher on the priority to move list.
LOL
1. None of those teams (including the O’s) is moving anytime soon.
2. There has already been far too much expansion.
Nashville is on the record stating they only want an expansion team.
Tampa either needs a new stadium or to relocate.
These are both very well known.
That said I would generally agree none of it is happening, just stating the order of priorities.
There will be expansion within the next two years
Pirates aren’t moving anytime soon. Fan base has every right to be in a frenzy about the team. The stadium lease doesn’t expire until 2032. So they are a long ways off if they are to move. Tampa Bay can relocate and when they do, I think the divisions are going to be realigned once more. Last time it was 2000 or around there and Astros went from NL Central to AL West. So, I see a potential Tampa Bay to Montreal or on the west coast to Portland. The move to Portland would require the re alignment of divisions. It would be great if Pittsburgh went to the NL East and Washington to AL East. Tampa/Portland to NL West and Colorado to the NL Central
They wouldn’t switch 3 teams divisions. Just two. The pirates would move the AL East and dwell in that cellar instead.
Nope, the Bucs do NOT need to be in the NL East. They cannot compete with the Braves, Mets, and Philles
Pirates, Brewers, and most certainly the Nationals are not going anywhere. I also doubt that the O’s will either. The Rays are a different story. They will get hustled out of town just like the A’s are unless they get a new stadium going very soon. The other MLB owners want the mega bucks from the expansion fees they will get from two to four new teams
The interesting thing is that the league followed the exact same script in Baltimore it did in oakland
Forced to let an expansion team in
screw over the original market team until you bankrupt them
if the rest is the same we will see.
The brewers are getting the same garbage from manfred the A’s got too…
The owner wants to move the team so magically a beautiful and up to date stadium is “not up to standards”
The difference with the Rays is that they SHOULD skip town.
Meanwhile, expansion is overdue. However, Manfred is right (for once) in that it can’t happen until both the A’s and Rays get new stadiums somewhere.
Tired refrain. Nutty John notwithstanding, they’re not leaving any time soon.
Bob the Knob Nuttcase has it good in Pittsburgh. He won’t move the team or sell it