Back in February, MLB commissioner Rob Manfred said that he wanted to be able to market a blackout-free streaming bundle including roughly half the league. That plan was largely tied to the collapse of Diamond Sports Group, though that company is now emerging from bankruptcy and will continue to operate for the time being. That seems to have kicked Manfred’s plans down the road a little bit, with Evan Drellich of The Athletic doing a deep dive this week on the current state of things.
Manfred still has his sights set on getting rid of local blackouts as part of TV/streaming packages, though it might now have to wait a few years. While some clubs that lost their broadcast deals are now letting MLB handle things, others have re-upped with Diamond. The Braves, Cardinals, Marlins, Angels, Tigers, and Rays are back with Diamond while the Royals might also join them, depending on the outcome of ongoing negotiations. But Drellich notes that none of those deals go beyond 2028.
That is significant because that is also the year that MLB’s national broadcast deals with Fox, ESPN* and Turner expire. (*As a side note, Drellich notes that MLB and ESPN have a mutual opt-out after this season but talks about that are ongoing.) The league’s hope is to have as much on the table as possible when negotiating new national deals. “Most important from my perspective is that all the deals for the Diamond clubs end no later than 2028,” Manfred says in the piece. “My interest in local rights in large part is to have them available when we do national renewals.”
The bidding could include more than those three companies that MLB currently has national deals with, as Drellich notes that executives from Apple, Amazon, CBS, Disney/ESPN, DirecTV, Fox, Netflix, NBC/Peacock, Roku, YouTube and Warner Bros.-Discovery were present at the World Series. MLB already has a deal with Roku for Sunday games, a slot previously held by Peacock. Apple has Friday Night Baseball while the Diamond clubs will be available on Amazon Prime next year. YouTube had a previous deal with MLB that ran from 2019 to 2022.
The regional sports network (RSN) model has been a huge source of revenue for all teams in the past but cord cutting has chipped away at that model. The Padres, Diamondbacks and Rockies all operated without an RSN partner in 2024, with the league handling their broadcasts both for TV/cable/satellite and direct-to-consumer streaming. The Twins, Guardians, Brewers and Reds will go down that path in 2025.
Simplistically, this is bad for teams but good for fans. The clubs are losing that passive revenue, as many people previously signed up for cable/satellite bundles that included sports RSNs even if they weren’t much interested in baseball. The streaming model cuts out the middleman but requires more active uptake from fans and leads to lower revenues, at least in the short term. But for fans, this allows them to finally get around the blackouts that have been an annoying part of the RSN paradigm for decades.
Though the revenue streams aren’t as strong, the league seems to recognize that this is the way of the future and is trying to lean into it. Though as detailed by Drellich, actually following through will be complicated.
“I’d like to have all the rights available,” Manfred said. “I’d like to talk to the people who are buyers. I’d like to cut them up into packages and sell them, as many of them as possible, nationally, and then have a plan to deal with what’s left over.”
As mentioned, the league already has seven clubs on its ledger, though Drellich adds that it’s technically eight. The Mariners took control of ROOT Sports Northwest a year ago but Drellich relays that the league is involved to some degree as well. If the six or seven clubs with Diamond eventually link up with the league a few years down the line, that would be roughly half the league. The Rangers are sort of a wild card at present, as they don’t plan to continue their relationship with Diamond but haven’t yet outlined a plan for 2025, reportedly exploring the creation of their own RSN. Drellich says close to two thirds of the league could have their rights available by 2028, presumably due to other non-Diamond RSN deals expiring. Some clubs still have relationships with NBC affiliates or other broadcasters.
The issue in MLB getting the other clubs on board is that they are in very different financial positions. Broadly speaking, the larger-market clubs are in better shape, both because of stronger viewership bases and because the club and its broadcaster are often the same company. If all the clubs were cobbled together as part of some bundle which spread the profits around, that would benefit the smaller clubs while harming the larger ones.
That would naturally be unappealing to the larger clubs, though Drellich notes that a compromise could perhaps be reached by changing the overall revenue sharing. Currently, each clubs shares 48% of their local revenues (local media, ticket sales, concessions, merchandise and sponsorships). The Drellich piece suggests that greater sharing of broadcast money could be accompanied by less sharing of the other streams.
“I do think there are a combination of things that for even the very biggest teams,” Manfred says, “we can demonstrate that for the good of the game over the long haul, it’s better for everybody and better for them.”
Another complication is that the MLB Players Association would have to be involved. They don’t need to be consulted when it comes to broadcast decisions but all revenue-sharing plans need to be collectively bargained. The current collective bargaining agreement runs until December of 2026, so these matters will likely need to be hammered out in the next CBA, ahead of the aforementioned key pivot point in 2028.
“If the model changes, we will be involved in negotiating how those changes might affect the system and will ensure that the interests and priorities of the players are protected,” says Tony Clark, the head of the MLBPA. The relationship between the league and the union hasn’t been great lately, with the most recent CBA talks resulting in a lockout of more than three months that almost resulted in the 2022 season being canceled or shortened. A deal did get done and the season was spared, but some key issues went unaddressed and will likely come up again, such as an international draft. Then there’s the ever-present CBA issues like salaries, the competitive balance tax and so on.
Presumably, Manfred won’t want another work stoppage just ahead of his big pitch to potential broadcasters. Anything that hurts fan interest in the game would naturally make those rights less appealing, but the league’s motivation to get a deal done will obviously be contingent on how effectively they can negotiate all CBA issues with the players. The two sides agreed in July of this year to have CBT money redirected to those clubs who lost broadcast revenue, so perhaps some of this could be accomplished outside of full CBA talks.
There are many balls in the air here and a few years for them to bounce around, but Manfred will need to find a path forward that satisfies the owners as well as the players. If he succeeds, it could be good for growing the game by improving fan access to the product. An entrenchment of the current paradigm, on the other hand, could perhaps increase fan dissatisfaction with the inequalities that impact competitive balance.
How it all plays out will lead to ripple effects that impact the on-field product. The Padres and Twins have already scaled back their payrolls in response to the shifting landscape. This seemed to have an impact on last winter’s market, with several free agents settling for deals that fell well below initial projections. Clubs like the Cardinals and Rangers are also planning to dial things back next year.
This one belongs to the Reds
No local TV deals, period. National, no blackouts steaming service for everyone and the proceeds split evenly.
'Tang It
this will absolutely not happen. teams that own their own network will not agree to it.
Canuckleball
Exactly. The proceeds can’t be split evenly. An organization like the Yankees will never give up their YES network and it’s associated revenues. Likewise, in Toronto, Rogers Communications owns the Blue Jays and uses them as primary content. Why would they give that up.
This one belongs to the Reds
To save their sport because it has been dying a slow death for a couple of decades.
LordD99
It has?
This one belongs to the Reds
Take off your large market rose colored glasses and look around sometime.
LordD99
I have.
VegasMoved
Baseball’s impending death is like America’s impending recession. I’m sure it’s going to come any day now.
good vibes only
One Mlb.tv to rule them all please!
scottn59c
Blackouts are why I decided to stop watching baseball. I opt instead to listen in real time on the radio. Much cheaper, I’ll say.
Why would I ever pay for baseball when I can’t watch my home team?
RunDMC
Same here…I listen to most games via MLB.tv, oddly, since moving back to the southeast from NYC 2 years ago, back into my team’s territory (ATL), and haven’t had the MLB.tv viewing package ever since. Still flabbergasted (rarely felt, even more rarely said) that I am this close to a team geographically, but much harder to view them without an overpriced local cable streaming subscription that would only be necessary for that.
Logjammer D"Baggagecling
There’s ways around the blackouts. Trust me. It’s extremely frustrating living in Las Vegas and all west coast teams are blackout. A few years ago, the Dodgers were playing the cubs on espn and it was blackout for me. That is ridiculous. A National broadcast should never be blacked out.
The biggest problem with the ways around the blackouts is I have to find my laptop make sure it’s charged plug in the hdmi and find a streaming site.
Mlbtv at $130 (they’re probably gonna raise the price again this coming season) is not cheap. That’s like half of my monthy spending. After bills
jeffmaz
$130 for an entire season is cheap. If you want it cheaper, the MLBPA will offer a deal in March where you donate to them and you end up getting MLB.tv for under $100.
Hot Corner IJ
When will Charlotte get a team?
Blue Baron
Irrelevant to this discussion.
Sad.Sox 3
Streaming (aka pay per view) is how we will get all sports on TV eventually.
MLB needs to stop allowing the splitting of games amongst multiple streaming services. How dumb do we look? i’ll pay for one service but not four!!
Canuckleball
“Simplistically, this is bad for teams but good for fans.”
Maybe. It may mean no more blackouts. Sure. But what happens when the league inevitably sells rights to lots of distributors to make more money like what they’ve already been doing?
Monday nights the games are on Apple+, Tuesdays are on YouTube, Wednesdays are on Disney+, Thursdays are on Peacock, Fridays are on Roku, and the weekends are Amazon Prime.
Sure no blackouts, but fans may have to spend $50 or $100 a week to watch their team.
BlueSkies_LA
Bingo, we have a winner. Simplistically is right. Even under the currently dominant RSN systems, the broadcast rights owners are finding it profitable to sell the rights to some games to the streaming services. This is the era we are entering, the one where we have to pay for every streaming service if we hope to watch all of our home team’s games. And we thought cable and blackouts were a bad deal?
Sad.Sox 3
“I dont know why were losing fans”
seamaholic 2
They’re not.
Boston2AZ
Exactly like the NFL. You don’t have Netflix? Tough. Watch the NBA on Christmas Day. The other “hidden” annoyance with all the streamers is that you can’t check out anything else while the game is in a break. Who is going to get all the way out of Prime and onto regular/cable TV to check on the news or a different sporting event, for example, and then have to log back in to start watching the game again?
HalosHeavenJJ
Yep. The captive audience for ads makes that ad space more expensive, meaning more profitable.
IronBallsMcGinty
Then there’s the new CHSN, the home for the White Sox, Bulls and Blackhawks. Only $30 a month or $350 a year.
An absolute joke.
RobM
JR needs to make his money, while not spending on the White Sox. This gets to the heart of the problem. Crappy owners will remain crappy owners, overjoyed to take in the revenue from the teams trying to win. Have no idea how they’ll handle that.
RobM
And the streaming and TV networks bidding on those rights will demand the Yankees and the Dodgers and a couple other teams be featured in order to ink the deals, so those big market teams have to shoulder the load while giving up the revenue to teams like the A’s, Rays, etc. who add nothing? They want to devalue the big market teams so they make less money, lowering their selling price while not making them whole? Hey Mark, hey Hal, will you give up hundreds of millions, even a billion or more in the coming decade plus without receiving equal compensation while being asked to carry the load for John Fisher, Stu Sternberg and others ? Yeah, I don’t see this working as outlined.
This one belongs to the Reds
Pretty dumb compared to the other sports, and for quite some time now.
PhilliesBob1980
I love that picture of Manfred. Hilarious! I hope they finally end the stupid blackouts.
MatthewStairs
This is such a rushed mess of a plan.
MLB wasnt proactive about any of this and is now trying to act like they have a plan as teams are losing media revenue left and right.
This entire plan seems haphazard and reactive.
EM41
I’d like to believe that MLB will come up with a plan that makes it easy for fans to watch games, but instead I expect that MLB will come up with a plan that maximizes revenue for owners and players no matter how much fans have to pay. Blackouts will be replaced with greenouts. Fans can watch any games, but only if they are wealthy enough to afford exorbitant prices.
BlueSkies_LA
I am too am appalled to find capitalism going on in baseball.
Logjammer D"Baggagecling
They need to rid of all blackouts. Not just local ones. Either cut ties with apple tv or have it packaged with mlbtv. Make it $150 per year. And make it optional as well
chiparm
$150 a year? That was the cost back in 2000 when MLB..Tv had all the broadcasts. Would be a higher price point (maybe $199) which is still a good deal. If you take your RSN out of the your cable package, you will be shocked how much you are paying for it.
Logjammer D"Baggagecling
$150 a year is only $12.50 a month. This year I paid $130. So going up 20 bucks isn’t that bad but only if they have a package that includes apple tv. Which they won’t. For 130$ I got all minor league games too.
BlueSkies_LA
And a pony. It has to come with a pony.
YaGottaBelieveAgain
An opportunity for AMZN, AAPL and NFLX to broadcast MORE baseball.
Will they take it? We Shall See.
Jump 84
Love Baseball.
Butter Biscuits
Can the owners vote on this as a majority and then have it split evenly?
tigerdoc616
It is a laudable goal to get rid of blackouts. Other goals should be access to the games and teams we want regardless of where we live, the ability to see those teams via cable or streaming for those who cut the cord at a reasonable price. Yes, free games on local TV are a thing of the past but this should not cost fans an arm and a leg.
I don’t think these things are hard to achieve with a more national approach. The hard part is getting the teams to agree because you will have to show the majority of teams this will benefit them in the future. Rich teams already subsidize the rest of the league and they are not going to want do more of that. Mid and small market teams already have trouble competing with the big boys due to revenue disparity. These new RSN deals required a revenue reduction for almost all of them. They will want to regain some of that lost revenue with a national deal. As always, it comes down to money.
dano62
Couple this knotted mess with the stankiness in Oakl er Sacramento & now TB, and uncertainty of how long these franchises can mimic being a major league team with minor league ownership in MILB parks, & you’ve got Manfred’s regime in a nutshell…
chiparm
A very convoluted idea. All teams stream locally under two packages, one for just their team, one for all of baseball, no blackouts.
Teams are paid by 1. their single team subscription, plus 2. their percentage of viewershiip of the all teams no blackout deal. (Which would help competitive interesting teams in smaller markets because people would tune in to see an interesting team). So if the Indians put together a great team, with a great broadcast that everyone wants to see, they would get more money than a big market bad team with a bad TV broadcast.
Additionally, as more people cut cords, teams owning their own networks distritbuted through cable only are experiencing lower revenues.
As a NYer, I would love to see SNY on a streaming package so I could ditch cable, but …. they did not join Gotham Sports with the YES and MSG. Cohen did not buy SNY when he bought the Mets, the Wilpons still own it.
aragon
As an Angels fan all this is moot. They are so bad and terribly run and I have no interest in watching them.
socalbball
So you’re an ex-Angel fan.
aragon
No. I just refuse to invest my money to the dumb owner.
azcrook
Manfred…..don’t F….up the local packages of some teams due to your greed….
hockeyjohn
Yes, the big market teams don’t want to lose their incredible advantage that they have.
PNW Optimist
I’d love to see a team by team analysis of the annual cost in 2024 for watching their games. Specifically, the lowest cost legal option for fans in the team’s market. If anyone has seen such a list, please post a link. Thanks!
HalosHeavenJJ
Great idea. Would take a ton of research.
Off the top of my head I’d have needed to subscribe to a cable package with my RSN, ESPN, and FS1, plus Apple TV, plus Peacock to catch every Angels game.
Citizen1
MLB should model after nfl rules and have blackouts lifted after certain amounts of ticket sales. They also need to reschedule mlb playoffs around the weekends starting Thursday especially with the World Series.
VegasMoved
Starting Thursday? So play games Thursday through Sunday? So they’ll be going head-to-head with football 3 out of 4 days (with the 4th day being Friday, when TV viewership in general is down). Why would MLB do this?
Informed Sportsball Discussion
The NFL has suspended their black out policy on a year-to-year basis since 2015, according to Wikipedia. At least in terms of “no one in this market gets to watch it on TV if enough people don’t show up”.
“People get to watch it in this market without paying to get whichever network/service televises it” has never been a thing.
HalosHeavenJJ
There are sports where tte owners banded together because they realized they needed each other. The NFL is the ultimate example along with the NHL and NBA.
There are sports where every big shot looked out for themselves. Boxing, horse racing, etc.
Pretty easy to see which works better and which path MLB is following.
RobM
The one that has them as the second highest revenue generating sports league in the world?
Sadler
Is there a CliffsNotes version of this article?
aragon
CBS Sports reports that half-baked robo-ump is coming to the Spring training for 2026. It is achallenge based system. Why can’t MLB progress on behalf of fans? We need a commish that can adjust with current techs.
Bucket Number Six
North American Baseball League coming 2028:
Yankees
Red Sox
Phillies
Mets
Blue Jays
Cubs
Dodgers
Giants
jeffmaz
Sadly, whatever they call Diamond Sports now, isn’t going away like everyone thought – everyone who knows nothing about chapter 11 bankruptcy. Teams like the Padres are getting killed from lack of TV revenue. They will need to create a new SD RSN with some kind of 10 or 20 year deal that will keep baseball broadcasts messed up forever.
Atlanta Jack
Buch
Key, that’s the best thing I’ve read here in a long time. All the other teams will be just great without you.
Samuel
As a fan I don’t really care one way or the other.
I love watching baseball, and usually gravitate to 6-8 teams a year that I follow closely. Not necessarily contenders. Watching young teams play good baseball is attractive, knowing that in a year or two they’ll be major contenders.
The approach works because I subscribe to MLB.TV. Living between 2 small market teams that I don’t particularly have interest in works fine – every day there are attractive games available in all 3 time-
zones, even as choice games are blacked out to Apple, Peacock….
whatever.
–
This issue goes back to when the major pro sports expanded after the Dodgers and Giants moved west in 1958. Americans were moving out of the industrial northeast. Pro sports want to have teams in those lucrative markets to capitalize on the migration. But when Lamar Hunt founded the AFL, he said there’d be one TV package and all teams would share revenues equally (this was after consulting with Branch Rickey that tried to start a new baseball league – he warned Hunt that with more games being shown on TV in the future, the smaller markets wouldn’t have enough revenue to compete so his league would get Yankees/Red Sox and Cardinals/Dodgers-type dominance). When the NFL and AFL merged into the new NFL – all major TV revenues were shared equally. While some NBA Commissioners sort of copied that TV strategy, when David Stearns came in in 1984 he totally went all in on national broadcasts and cable to make revenue sharing more equitable.
MLB never did that, and still doesn’t. When MLB got free agency in the mid-70’s cities in smaller markets were screwed more than ever – both fans and owners. It’s nice that teams get local cable revenue, but it’s sort of dumb that with 2 teams playing, the team from the larger market gets far more revenue. Nothing in this convoluted article (writer is only reporting the facts) is going to resolve that.
The concept of morons living in large market areas referring to small market owners as “cheap” is pathetic. The playing field in MLB isn’t level. It’s been that way throught MLB history. The other major pro sports team leagues have addressed this, and they’re all far more popular then MLB. Just the way it is.