Sep 1, 2011, 5:16 PM EDT
Padres chief executive officer Jeff Moorad has said repeatedly that the team’s next television deal would lead to a significant increase in revenue and payroll, and it looks like that deal will be with FOX Sports.
Jay Posner of the San Diego Union Tribune reports that “the Padres and Fox Sports Regional Networks are very close to an agreement in principle for a new network called Fox Sports San Diego to carry Padres games beginning with the 2012 season.”
MLB must sign off on the deal, but that’s expected to be a formality.
Padres games have been on Channel 4 San Diego for the past 15 years, but with the contract ending this season the assumption has always been that the team would find a new broadcast partner. According to Posner the Padres currently generate about $16 million per season in television revenue. Moorad has said that next season’s payroll will rise to at least $50 million and the Padres intend to be in the $70 million range eventually, although by the time that happens $70 million will likely be among MLB’s lowest payrolls.
- Mark Teixeira says he’s having “serious pain” when he tries to run 8
- Settling the Score: Friday’s results 22
- Vin Scully will return in 2016 for his 67th season of broadcasting 43
- The Athletics have a travel-heavy 2016 schedule and unsuccessfully tried to have it altered 10
- Mariners fire general manager Jack Zduriencik 72
- Pedro Martinez wonders if bad chemistry is the reason the Tigers and Mariners are out of contention 53
- Vote of non-confidence: Reds owner says manager Bryan Price won’t be fired before the season is over 23
- And That Happened: Thursday’s scores and highlights 87
- Sarah Palin sticks up for Curt Schilling, tells ESPN to “stick to sports” (263)
- Dan Patrick: When does ESPN cut ties with Curt Schilling? (200)
- Curt Schilling taken off of Little League World Series duty for making a really bad tweet (169)
- Curt Schilling taken off of ESPN’s Sunday Night Baseball telecast this week (134)
- Phillies announcer calls Mets fans “obnoxious” (123)