11/17/24
August 28, 2012
ESPN Keeps Baseball with $5.6 Billion Deal: ESPN and Major League Baseball have reportedly reached an eight-year, $5.6 billion TV rights deal, more than double the current contract. "That’s $13 million more in each team's pocket per year starting in 2014, though the ESPN deal alone," writes Craig Calcaterra of Hardball Talk.
This is good news for Reds fans everywhere.
posted by insomnyuk at 07:50 PM on August 28, 2012
Don't think this is advantageous for any team in particular. If you give everyone more money then they all have more money to spend. In fact, the small (cheap) market clubs probably have more of a disadvantage, since their owners will just pocket the money and have even less relative to the big boys who are willing to spend it.
posted by DudeDykstra at 11:19 PM on August 28, 2012
Why would the owners of poor teams be more likely to pocket the TV money?
posted by rcade at 09:19 AM on August 29, 2012
Because they're not in it to win it?
/Derby County fan.
posted by owlhouse at 10:43 AM on August 29, 2012
Why would the owners of poor teams be more likely to pocket the TV money?
I don't know enough to say for certain, but if there are teams that are operating at a loss currently, getting more TV money wouldn't necessarily increase their payroll budget, while for larger market teams it just increases their budget. Whether there are any teams operating at a loss is probably debatable.
Even if there are no teams operating at a loss, since every team gets the same amount of money, there shouldn't be a difference in smaller market teams now being able to afford anyone because the richer teams are getting the exact same increase. If anything, it'll just drive up salaries across the board. "Rising tide lifts all ships" and all that.
posted by LionIndex at 12:08 PM on August 29, 2012
Why would the owners of poor teams be more likely to pocket the TV money?
See Pirates, Pittsburgh, or in modern terms, Marlins, Miami. Some owners are in it to make a profit and don't care what the product looks like most of the time.
posted by dfleming at 12:09 PM on August 29, 2012
(an average of $700M per year), approximately doubling the nearly $306M
We're playing fast and loose with "approximate doubling" here, then? Just nitpicking, but 700 is a pretty far cry beyond 612, isn't it?
In other news, if the price I have to pay for ESPN to singlehandedly pay that chunk of Joey Votto's salary is to have the Yankees and/or the Red Sox on almost every Sunday night, then I will gladly pay it. Otherwise, I will have to watch him play for the Yankees and/or Red Sox almost every Sunday night.