Comment by ascagnel_

Comment by ascagnel_ 16 hours ago

2 replies

Baseball's biggest issue is that their biggest teams are also co-owners of their cable channels (and were trailblazers in this, with the Yankees and the YES Network). They don't care if you go to the game, they want you to get a cable subscription that has your local RSN, ESPN, TBS, your local FOX affiliate, and FS1 so that you can watch your team play. And that's not including games that may wind up on streaming platforms.

The post you replied to included this:

> I read that part of baseball's decline from the premiere American sport was due to its outdated revenue model (strict reliance on ticket sales). The NFL in 80s really embraced TV and reached more fans and here we are. MLB has been recently way ahead of the curve on streaming (MLB.tv, AWS StatCast etc).

I'm _hoping_ (although numbers don't seem to be showing it as a huge success as of yet) is that the Apple-MLS deal works well enough that other leagues are at least open to the idea of a no-blackout, all-inclusive package.

brewdad 12 hours ago

I hate the AppleTV thing for baseball. I pay for the MLB.TV package yet those games aren't included unless I also buy an AppleTV subscription.

College football is going the same way with ESPN and FOX properties on cable/streaming but also needing Peacock, Paramount+ and I think AppleTV next season.

For MLS the deal has been pretty good I think. Mainly because everything is all in one place.

  • ascagnel_ 2 hours ago

    The MLB package is very up-front about not being all-inclusive: it advertises "out-of-market" games -- games you can't otherwise access. Games on streaming services like Apple and Peacock count the same as broadcasts on ESPN, FS1, or TBS: national broadcasts available behind a paywall.