2026 next national NHL TV deal, may include a lot of streaming options

[LadyStanley]

Last topic (about 30 seconds)

Click to read more...

 

[Djp]

very very careful here

streaming in essence can become the new cable.

riht now you have independent providers. then you will have consolidators say we will brodcast say peacock, hulu, paramount, etc on one platform and charge you a flat fee to get them all. thats what cable model is now.

the issue will be around local revenue.

 

[joelef]

very very careful here

streaming in essence can become the new cable.

riht now you have independent providers. then you will have consolidators say we will brodcast say peacock, hulu, paramount, etc on one platform and charge you a flat fee to get them all. thats what cable model is now.

the issue will be around local revenue.

No it hasn’t no one is forcing you getevery streaming service unlike cable which force you to get channels you didn’t want . Too many freeloaders who were sucked to thing they could get everything for nothing.

 

[dj4aces]

No it hasn’t no one is forcing you getevery streaming service unlike cable which force you to get channels you didn’t want . Too many freeloaders who were sucked to thing they could get everything for nothing.

I think they're trying to read the tea leaves, as it were. No one is forcing anyone at present to get multiple platforms, but there's no telling what the future holds in this department, especially if teams can choose their own streaming service.

Diamond Sports Group getting a much-needed boost of Amazon cash will undoubtedly help them in their quest to fulfill their existing contracts with MLB, NHL, and NBA teams, but who's to say teams will re-up with them? What keeps teams coming back to Bally? Really, nothing. Honestly, I see Amazon taking on a minority stake in Bally as more of an audition to the various sports leagues. If they begin streaming games on Prime, and it works well, that could be the future.

 

[patnyrnyg]

No it hasn’t no one is forcing you getevery streaming service unlike cable which force you to get channels you didn’t want . Too many freeloaders who were sucked to thing they could get everything for nothing.

It will eventually (and not too far off) become worse than cable. Consumers will wind up spending more in total for all streaming services they feel they "need" (yes, put it in quotes for a reason) so everyone is getting what they want in a house. Me? I "need" MSG (Rangers), SNY (Mets), TNT, ESPN, NHL and NFL network. Other than sports, 90% of what I watch is on Discovery or History Channel. Most of that, I could do away with, if needed. I have 2 daughters, 10 and 6. They watch Disney+ and my older one has gotten very into cooking competition show and singing competition shows. My wife, has a few different things she wants. Cheapest option for us is still cable, even with channels we dont watch, and the Disney+ bundle. I also have an antenna for OTA for NFL games, and yes will switch to the antenna input whenever I watch an OTA channel. Much better picture.

Secondly, as more people drop tv subscription packages, companies like Spectrum, Verizon, etc will just jack up the cost for internet only. When I moved 10 years ago, it was cheaper to get the Spectum (or whatever it was back then) triple play that included a home phone line than not to. I disconnected the phone and put in a closet. Didnt even know the number. Same will happen with tv+internet vs internet only

 

[waitin425]

I had earlier in the year about the Habs offering their own streaming service.

I pay Roger's for all of the TSN channels and all of the SN channels, yet still get blacked out of a number of Habs games (I find other ways to watch). I refuse to pay 30-40 per month for centre ice, and instead pay for Netflix, Crave, Prime, and Apple TV.

I am telling you right now. If the Habs offered a streaming service, with exclusive content, in the neighbourhood of $20 per month. I would get it.

Give me access to all Habs games, Laval games, practices, interviews, their own panel that is focused on Habs news, the odd TR game, etc. Hell, they could even reach out to the markets like BU for Hutson, or over to Europe for Rein, and make deals to stream those games as well. It would be unreal for a fan of a team.

 

[jkrdevil]

Yes, splitting games across multiple streamers basically forced fans to have to buy each streamer. It sucks as a consumer.

 

[Fixed to Ruin]

I had earlier in the year about the Habs offering their own streaming service.

I pay Roger's for all of the TSN channels and all of the SN channels, yet still get blacked out of a number of Habs games (I find other ways to watch). I refuse to pay 30-40 per month for centre ice, and instead pay for Netflix, Crave, Prime, and Apple TV.

I am telling you right now. If the Habs offered a streaming service, with exclusive content, in the neighbourhood of $20 per month. I would get it.

Give me access to all Habs games, Laval games, practices, interviews, their own panel that is focused on Habs news, the odd TR game, etc. Hell, they could even reach out to the markets like BU for Hutson, or over to Europe for Rein, and make deals to stream those games as well. It would be unreal for a fan of a team.

Oilers started their streaming service already and there's alot of speculation that when the sportsnet agreement ends that the regional games will be moved there.

 

[waitin425]

Oilers started their streaming service already and there's alot of speculation that when the sportsnet agreement ends that the regional games will be moved there.

What kind of content to the offer?

 

[Fixed to Ruin]

What kind of content to the offer?

Currently it was all the preseason games. Pre and post game interviews and an original series called the drop.

https://www.oilersplus.com/home

 

[dj4aces]

Give me access to all Habs games, Laval games, practices, interviews, their own panel that is focused on Habs news, the odd TR game, etc. Hell, they could even reach out to the markets like BU for Hutson, or over to Europe for Rein, and make deals to stream those games as well. It would be unreal for a fan of a team.

That'd be some massive value added. Love the idea of being able to watch prospects in the minors. That alone would make a streaming service from a team well worth a potential $20/mo subscription fee.

 

[SJSharksfan39]

I wonder what all this streaming is going to do to just overall bandwidth. It's kind of like if all the electric cars need to be charged at the same time it would put pressure on the electrical grid, now that everyone seems to be moving to streaming, what is that going to do to various networks and will it force they companies to have unlimited data? Heck, they probably might dig their heels in some more on paying more of unlimited data because you would be forced to.

Or maybe I'm just thinking conspiracy theories and everything will be fine, but when you force customers to pay for multiple streamers for just one product, that's not what was meant by a la cart.

 

[dj4aces]

I wonder what all this streaming is going to do to just overall bandwidth. It's kind of like if all the electric cars need to be charged at the same time it would put pressure on the electrical grid, now that everyone seems to be moving to streaming, what is that going to do to various networks and will it force they companies to have unlimited data? Heck, they probably might dig their heels in some more on paying more of unlimited data because you would be forced to.

Or maybe I'm just thinking conspiracy theories and everything will be fine, but when you force customers to pay for multiple streamers for just one product, that's not what was meant by a la cart.

Streaming video services use compression to help mitigate that, such as Netflix making use of the H.264 video codec. If video compression weren't a thing, those of us using services like ESPN+ and Netflix would exceed both home and mobile internet data caps in no time flat.

 

[KevFu]

I think they're trying to read the tea leaves, as it were. No one is forcing anyone at present to get multiple platforms, but there's no telling what the future holds in this department, especially if teams can choose their own streaming service.

Diamond Sports Group getting a much-needed boost of Amazon cash will undoubtedly help them in their quest to fulfill their existing contracts with MLB, NHL, and NBA teams, but who's to say teams will re-up with them? What keeps teams coming back to Bally? Really, nothing. Honestly, I see Amazon taking on a minority stake in Bally as more of an audition to the various sports leagues. If they begin streaming games on Prime, and it works well, that could be the future.

It really needs to be noted that the Amazon/Bally's "deal" is a proposal before a bankruptcy court for the reorganization of the company

A) Amazon is investing $115m, and Bally's owes the teams BILLIONS of dollars.

B) MLB was talking about bundling the LOCAL MARKET rights from Bally's teams (that are to be reverted back to teams if the judge picks that option) with a streaming partner like Amazon.

Amazon's entry into Bally's is a way to circumvent that negotiation and just jump in front. Which also doesn't allow MLB to do Direct-To-Consumer, it keeps the local contracts as is; which means they can't address blackout issues no one saw coming in the late 90s when they last drew the map (before they knew which leagues TB/ARZ were going in and before interleague play).

As fans what we should be rooting for is local rights reverting back to teams, MLB being ready for it and bundling local into existing out-of-market packages and just saying "you can watch any game, anywhere, for these 17+ teams, the other 13 out-of-market only" and slowly adding in the others as their TV deals come up.

Ideally, the NHL and NBA say "hey, can we join you with that?" (like the NHL did before when MLB Advanced Media made NHLtv), and they offer DTC packages for TEAM, or SPORT, or CITY, or ALL.

 

[Reaser]

As fans what we should be rooting for is local rights reverting back to teams, MLB being ready for it and bundling local into existing out-of-market packages and just saying "you can watch any game, anywhere, for these 17+ teams, the other 13 out-of-market only" and slowly adding in the others as their TV deals come up.

Ideally, the NHL and NBA say "hey, can we join you with that?" (like the NHL did before when MLB Advanced Media made NHLtv), and they offer DTC packages for TEAM, or SPORT, or CITY, or ALL.

That's bad business from the leagues and individual teams POV, and pipe-dream'ish in any short-term. In other words, good luck getting the Leafs & Habs to give up what they're paid for regional rights, or the revenue the Lakers, Dodgers, Yankees, etc. & etc. get from local broadcasts, plus all the teams that own their own RSN's.

Multiple revenue generators down to one league-wide can only be sold to individual teams as for the greater good if both no one is watching your product locally and more importantly if no one is willing to pay to broadcast your product locally (i.e. MLS could do that because at one point there was teams averaging less than 1k viewership locally and outside of a handful of teams no one was paying MLS teams anything of substance for local rights.)

-Local/Regional rights revenue
-Out-of-Market package(s)

So NBA/NHL teams are supposed to give up the former, consolidate into the latter -which already exists- and make OOM include local and either have to charge prices only hardcore fans will pay or lose millions/billions in revenue on the team-by-team and league basis. Seems ... unlikely.

In theory and particularly in ease-of-access, it seems good for fans, until in practice it becomes bare-bones production, limited shoulder programming, whoever comes cheapest pbp all while being charged more so that recouping of lost revenue can occur.

Even MLS on Apple, after just the first season they're already dropping quality announcers left and right, dropping multiple language coverage for various teams, and so on. One year and already cutting costs.

 

[patnyrnyg]

I had earlier in the year about the Habs offering their own streaming service.

I pay Roger's for all of the TSN channels and all of the SN channels, yet still get blacked out of a number of Habs games (I find other ways to watch). I refuse to pay 30-40 per month for centre ice, and instead pay for Netflix, Crave, Prime, and Apple TV.

I am telling you right now. If the Habs offered a streaming service, with exclusive content, in the neighbourhood of $20 per month. I would get it.

Give me access to all Habs games, Laval games, practices, interviews, their own panel that is focused on Habs news, the odd TR game, etc. Hell, they could even reach out to the markets like BU for Hutson, or over to Europe for Rein, and make deals to stream those games as well. It would be unreal for a fan of a team.

MSG has started a streaming only service. It is $30/month, free if you already subscribe through a tv provider. You get whatever is being shown live on any of the MSG networks in your area, including the games.. For me, that includes Rangers, Islanders, Devils, Knicks. There are deadzones in parts of upstate NY and NJ where you are too far away to be able to watch the Rangers on MSG, but too close to get them on ESPN+ or Center Ice. Not sure if the MSG Go app helps with that as I am not in a deadzone. A Habs app that shows all games and all Laval games? Doubt you get that for $20/month.

 

[patnyrnyg]

I wonder what all this streaming is going to do to just overall bandwidth. It's kind of like if all the electric cars need to be charged at the same time it would put pressure on the electrical grid, now that everyone seems to be moving to streaming, what is that going to do to various networks and will it force they companies to have unlimited data? Heck, they probably might dig their heels in some more on paying more of unlimited data because you would be forced to.

Or maybe I'm just thinking conspiracy theories and everything will be fine, but when you force customers to pay for multiple streamers for just one product, that's not what was meant by a la cart.

The leagues (and other channels) are not going to offer anything that causes them to lose money. I think many have this dream that they should be able to get the 9-10 channels they watch for the same $1-5 per channel the providers pay per subscriber (no idea on those numbers, just remember those rates a while back. Don't know what Spectrum pays for TNT, History Channel, etc). It is just not going to happen. The networks would not be in business much longer if they went to that type of set-up.

 

[Chileiceman]

MSG has started a streaming only service. It is $30/month, free if you already subscribe through a tv provider. You get whatever is being shown live on any of the MSG networks in your area, including the games.. For me, that includes Rangers, Islanders, Devils, Knicks. There are deadzones in parts of upstate NY and NJ where you are too far away to be able to watch the Rangers on MSG, but too close to get them on ESPN+ or Center Ice. Not sure if the MSG Go app helps with that as I am not in a deadzone. A Habs app that shows all games and all Laval games? Doubt you get that for $20/month.

Here in Canada you can stream all of the Sportsnet channels for $15 per month (if you want the out of market NHL package and WWE PPV's added it's $20) and all TSN channels plus something called TSN+ (kind of like ESPN+) for $20. Both these options give way more than whatever MSG has an offer.

So if the Habs had their own streaming service where they only show the Habs, I don't see how they could charge more than $20 per month.

 

[LeonDraisaitl]

The same positional strength that Ottawa had when they acquired Chychrun is the reason they are moving him. Makes sense

 

[Golden_Jet]

I had earlier in the year about the Habs offering their own streaming service.

I pay Roger's for all of the TSN channels and all of the SN channels, yet still get blacked out of a number of Habs games (I find other ways to watch). I refuse to pay 30-40 per month for centre ice, and instead pay for Netflix, Crave, Prime, and Apple TV.

I am telling you right now. If the Habs offered a streaming service, with exclusive content, in the neighbourhood of $20 per month. I would get it.

Give me access to all Habs games, Laval games, practices, interviews, their own panel that is focused on Habs news, the odd TR game, etc. Hell, they could even reach out to the markets like BU for Hutson, or over to Europe for Rein, and make deals to stream those games as well. It would be unreal for a fan of a team.

Then you must live out of market, or something, otherwise if in market and subscribe to all 5 TSN channels and all 6 Sportsnet channels, you would get every game.

 

[KevFu]

That's bad business from the leagues and individual teams POV, and pipe-dream'ish in any short-term. In other words, good luck getting the Leafs & Habs to give up what they're paid for regional rights, or the revenue the Lakers, Dodgers, Yankees, etc. & etc. get from local broadcasts, plus all the teams that own their own RSN's.

Multiple revenue generators down to one league-wide can only be sold to individual teams as for the greater good if both no one is watching your product locally and more importantly if no one is willing to pay to broadcast your product locally (i.e. MLS could do that because at one point there was teams averaging less than 1k viewership locally and outside of a handful of teams no one was paying MLS teams anything of substance for local rights.)

-Local/Regional rights revenue
-Out-of-Market package(s)

So NBA/NHL teams are supposed to give up the former, consolidate into the latter -which already exists- and make OOM include local and either have to charge prices only hardcore fans will pay or lose millions/billions in revenue on the team-by-team and league basis. Seems ... unlikely.

In theory and particularly in ease-of-access, it seems good for fans, until in practice it becomes bare-bones production, limited shoulder programming, whoever comes cheapest pbp all while being charged more so that recouping of lost revenue can occur.

Even MLS on Apple, after just the first season they're already dropping quality announcers left and right, dropping multiple language coverage for various teams, and so on. One year and already cutting costs.

Oh, I fully admit it's a pipe dream. There's no way the big market clubs are going to give it up.

But I also think we're combining multiple things, oversimplifying, and overlooking some things in all that.

#1 and most importantly: The money that bought local TV rights from the teams for large amounts is simply drying up. Cable networks made their money off of the carriage fees of all the cable customers, 12 months a year, whether they watch the channel or not. That was the real lucrative part of the team-owned RSNs.

But cord-cutting and the simple society shift of young people expecting everything on demand (on their phone) is why Bally's is in a situation where rights fees promised are greater than revenue, and forced into bankruptcy; and that money isn't somehow coming back.

What MLB has done with with the Padres and DBacks is INCREASE availability to try and off-set that.

Just because you're in the designated "local territory" of a team doesn't mean you actually get the RSN of that team. In San Diego, 1.13 million homes got Bally's. Now 3.26 million homes could watch the Padres on cable OR STREAMING. Because MLB sold the distribution of Padres games to ALL the cable providers for one price, instead of the monthly fee for a channel no one has a reason to watch from October to April.

The thing I think everyone is combining is "Local TV" and "Streaming." Which ARE the same thing for some teams and not for others. It all depended on individual executives and lawyers in negotiations. The entire reason streaming is divided into local and out of market is because MLB simply saw a chance to sell something that wasn't being sold (out-of-market games) and seized it to launch Extra Innings and then when streaming was possible, MLBtv.

But they don't necessarily HAVE to be combined, they could be separated. The leagues are incentivized to do that because it creates new potential customers in all the places without carriage deals for RSNs who CAN'T buy the product even if they want to (and also happens to eliminate blackouts, which can add even more customers).


The short answer is: Creating a scenario where each person who wants to be a viewer/customer can watch by subscribing to ONE THING is everyone's goal. The team/leagues just want everyone to subscribe to something to watch (RSN, streaming, whichever. Just buy it and watch so we can get max money); and the streaming companies want everyone to subscribe to their service and will use sports for that.

The RSNs want everyone in market subscribing to them, but they don't own the streaming rights to all the teams they own cable rights for. Some markets, you can stream Bally's for free with a cable subscription; some markets streaming is an add-on purchase, and some markets you can buy streaming of Bally's if you don't get cable, but not all.


And that part is why I feel the Amazon strategy won't work, and the MLS/Apple comparison doesn't work: Because that's TWO subscriptions, not one.

Amazon has a bunch of things that are available on Prime Video and an additional subscription cost. And it sounds like that's what they want to do with sports.

And that's exactly the issue MLS faces: It's not that no one wants to buy MLS Season Pass, they just made it "a bridge too far" for anyone who didn't already have AppleTV. If you didn't have Apple TV, it's now $280 instead of $100: $180 for Apple TV, $100 for the MLS Season pass.


You're totally right that the individual teams are going to do whatever gets them the most money, and the larger fan bases will be able to get the most money either way; But ALL LEAGUES are facing this issue of maximizing potential customers and trying to go DTC because fewer and fewer people are willing to pay for things they DON'T watch and only want to pay for things they DO watch.

And that's the opportunity they can seize... the OTHER GAMES within one league pass are more likely to be in the category of "I don't want to pay for things I don't watch." And the competition for subscribers between the leagues in a DTC scenario would be vast, since not everyone can afford all the their teams, they'd prioritize.

Up-selling from the Team price ($100 on average for Out of Market)) to the League price is a tough sell, because the extra $30 is for NOT MY TEAM. But you COULD up-sell from the team price to MORE than the league price if the extra games were MY TEAM in a different league.

Making city plans available would be a way to get money from people who don't watch: Those who would say "Oh, it's $300 for NHL, NBA and MLB? Well, I don't watch one of those teams much, but I'd rather pay for them than the other teams of the league which I'll NEVER watch."

 

[Reaser]

Oh, I fully admit it's a pipe dream. There's no way the big market clubs are going to give it up.

But I also think we're combining multiple things, oversimplifying, and overlooking some things in all that.

#1 and most importantly: The money that bought local TV rights from the teams for large amounts is simply drying up. Cable networks made their money off of the carriage fees of all the cable customers, 12 months a year, whether they watch the channel or not. That was the real lucrative part of the team-owned RSNs.

But cord-cutting and the simple society shift of young people expecting everything on demand (on their phone) is why Bally's is in a situation where rights fees promised are greater than revenue, and forced into bankruptcy; and that money isn't somehow coming back.

What MLB has done with with the Padres and DBacks is INCREASE availability to try and off-set that.

Just because you're in the designated "local territory" of a team doesn't mean you actually get the RSN of that team. In San Diego, 1.13 million homes got Bally's. Now 3.26 million homes could watch the Padres on cable OR STREAMING. Because MLB sold the distribution of Padres games to ALL the cable providers for one price, instead of the monthly fee for a channel no one has a reason to watch from October to April.

The thing I think everyone is combining is "Local TV" and "Streaming." Which ARE the same thing for some teams and not for others. It all depended on individual executives and lawyers in negotiations. The entire reason streaming is divided into local and out of market is because MLB simply saw a chance to sell something that wasn't being sold (out-of-market games) and seized it to launch Extra Innings and then when streaming was possible, MLBtv.

But they don't necessarily HAVE to be combined, they could be separated. The leagues are incentivized to do that because it creates new potential customers in all the places without carriage deals for RSNs who CAN'T buy the product even if they want to (and also happens to eliminate blackouts, which can add even more customers).


The short answer is: Creating a scenario where each person who wants to be a viewer/customer can watch by subscribing to ONE THING is everyone's goal. The team/leagues just want everyone to subscribe to something to watch (RSN, streaming, whichever. Just buy it and watch so we can get max money); and the streaming companies want everyone to subscribe to their service and will use sports for that.

The RSNs want everyone in market subscribing to them, but they don't own the streaming rights to all the teams they own cable rights for. Some markets, you can stream Bally's for free with a cable subscription; some markets streaming is an add-on purchase, and some markets you can buy streaming of Bally's if you don't get cable, but not all.


And that part is why I feel the Amazon strategy won't work, and the MLS/Apple comparison doesn't work: Because that's TWO subscriptions, not one.

Amazon has a bunch of things that are available on Prime Video and an additional subscription cost. And it sounds like that's what they want to do with sports.

And that's exactly the issue MLS faces: It's not that no one wants to buy MLS Season Pass, they just made it "a bridge too far" for anyone who didn't already have AppleTV. If you didn't have Apple TV, it's now $280 instead of $100: $180 for Apple TV, $100 for the MLS Season pass.


You're totally right that the individual teams are going to do whatever gets them the most money, and the larger fan bases will be able to get the most money either way; But ALL LEAGUES are facing this issue of maximizing potential customers and trying to go DTC because fewer and fewer people are willing to pay for things they DON'T watch and only want to pay for things they DO watch.

And that's the opportunity they can seize... the OTHER GAMES within one league pass are more likely to be in the category of "I don't want to pay for things I don't watch." And the competition for subscribers between the leagues in a DTC scenario would be vast, since not everyone can afford all the their teams, they'd prioritize.

Up-selling from the Team price ($100 on average for Out of Market)) to the League price is a tough sell, because the extra $30 is for NOT MY TEAM. But you COULD up-sell from the team price to MORE than the league price if the extra games were MY TEAM in a different league.

Making city plans available would be a way to get money from people who don't watch: Those who would say "Oh, it's $300 for NHL, NBA and MLB? Well, I don't watch one of those teams much, but I'd rather pay for them than the other teams of the league which I'll NEVER watch."

Correct, it's a pipe dream. That probably would suffice, but I'll play-along on a few things.

1. Tons of people, and yourself when you speak in generalities, conflate "Ballys" with ALL RSNs. They aren't all RSNs. Yes, might have the most RSNs, but less than half the league and closer to 1/3rd than ALL in the NHL. Which they also have (and had) the most of the least-viewed RSNs, and the most of the cheapest rights deals. They aren't the Yankees, Dodgers, Lakers, Bruins, Rangers and obviously -another point of contention / these are two-country leagues- not Canadian (Leafs, Habs, Blue Jays, etc.)

2. People like to say their (DSG/Bally's) problems are because of cord-cutting. So lazy and uninformed. They made a bad business deal! High-yield debt (over 8bn debt on purchase.) It's always been much less a sign of "RSN model failing" than that Sinclair/DSG made a horrible business deal. Overleveraged. Some noticed and questioned it at the start. It was out-of-nowhere and didn't make a ton of sense business wise, which has now proven true.

Had Disney/ESPN been allowed to keep the RSNs as part of the deal, or even possibly had FOX Sports kept them out of the deal, it's close(r) to a 0% chance they would be in the "Bally's" situation. Bad. Business. Excuses (cord-cutting) are a cop-out for bad business, cord-cutting is talked about as if it's somewhere between 90-100% of the reason 'this' happened while its role is really on the other end. More minimal than "the" reason. Twas known at the time it was a high-risk business decision that didn't make a whole lot of sense.

3. Related to the above of the so-called failing "RSN model" is that we always get cherry-picked examples that leave out others. e.g. The Suns went OTA, the Padres did this, VGK did that (working well for reach/viewership for VGK fwiw) and so on. What about the Penguins, the Caps? Oh, just purcahsed/rebranded/started their own RSNs. So much for that ALL RSNs are failing and everyone is leaving RSN model. Including in name-only 4 NHL teams changed local broadcaster this season, 2 with their own-owned RSN, 2 went OTA. Most responses, such as yours, would just talk about VGK and the Yotes! And ignore that it's 50/50 there.

4. YOU were cominbing local TV (linear) & streaming, ha. Otherwise would have noted the difference.

5. My MLS/Apple comparison worked well, because I didn't say "no one wants to buy MLS Season Pass," I said they could do that (put all games in one place) and sell the idea to all teams in the league because relatively no one watched local broadcasts and more/most importantly relatively no one was paying for local broadcasts. That's why they could give up/eliminate local broadcasts, because outside of a handful of teams no one was being paid for their local TV rights. Much different from MLB/NBA/NHL. Like I said, good luck getting Yankees, Dodgers, Lakers, Bruins, etc. & etc. to give up/eliminate local broadcasts so the entirity of their respective leagues can sell all games in one-package -- i.e. the MLS/Apple model.

6. re: the money teams were being paid for local rights is drying up. Are the Leafs making less? The Habs took less in their last deal? Did the Isles deal get renegotiated for 90% less payment? Did SportsNet LA close up shop? Or is that speculative and really it's just circling back to Bally's =/= RSNs (as in 100% of RSNs) and that Sinclair/DSG executed a debt-laden bad-to-horrible business deal that's in turn led to just as bad takes on "RSNs" because again, it gets conflated that Bally's = ALL RSN's and the entirity of not only the RSN business but even worse is the conflating that it's the entirty of local/regional broadcast rights. It isn't.

7. Lastly, I'll repeat, the post I originally replied to "is bad business from the leagues and individual teams POV, and pipe-dream'ish in any short-term."

 

[KevFu]

You're totally right about the over-simplification of saying "cord-cutting." But imagine the lengths of my posts if I didn't over simplify.