And, as with all sports, this is very interesting to me, because if you try to follow the money.......
Consumers buy the packages. If the consumers were only buying the NHL package, the amount spent would be less than it is (otherwise you could imply cut out the middle man right away). That means that the price for consumer is MORE than the NHL rights are actually worth. This can be true for a few reasons. One, the TV providers have the consumer over a barrel because of infrastructure and lack of competition. Or, two...some other piece of the TV package is actually being UNDER VALUED in the package, and would be worth MORE if it were sold separately.
TV providers buy from the RSN. Here again, the RSN has the TV provider a little over-the-barrel. The TV provider may well pay MORE than the rights are actually worth, because either....One, there are enough sports fans in the area that will rebel if the hockey rights aren't included, or Two, the TV provider needs content to get eyeballs watching. So, again, as we go up the ladder, both of the first 2 steps allow the product to be overvalued.
This leads naturally to the conclusion that....
The RSN is actually paying MORE for the rights to distribute the product than the product is actually worth.
And, to me, this arrangement is one that cannot last. Eventually, the market will have to even this out somehow.
Also, it is very true.....since OTA has diminished, eyeballs watching for ad purposes has become less and less important.
However, interestingly, NFL still gets most of its TV from OTA broadcasting ( I think). So, they are dependent on people watching, and the networks selling ads because people are watching. Since the direct consumer is NOT paying here, except in its response to advertising, this makes that business model even more intriguing to analyze.