Skip to content

All 30 teams’ local TV deals

Nov 27, 2012, 2:00 PM EDT

old TV

Over at Fangraphs, Wendy Thurm catalogs all 30 teams’ local TV deals, separating them by category from the super bazillionaires like the Dodgers down to the “have-nots” who are locked into craptastic local TV deals for years or even decades. And as she notes, it’s going to define the financial and competitive landscape for a long, long time:

Thirty teams. Thirty different local TV agreements. From the Dodgers at the very high end to the Brewers, A’s and Braves on the very low end. For some teams, the dynamics are fluid and will change in their favor soon. Others are looking at years of climbing up a steep hill in an effort to compete. The new local broadcast reality. The new revenue inequity.

Bookmark it. And don’t presume to say anything intelligent about team finances unless you are aware of how these numbers stack up.

  1. icanspeel - Nov 27, 2012 at 2:08 PM

    The Padres deal is new, so explains why it is at the top, but currently their payroll is around 60 mill (same as TV deal) so people will wonder where all the ticket money and other revenue goes….

  2. Chris Fiorentino - Nov 27, 2012 at 2:16 PM

    So the Rays deal expires in 2016 and it pays them $20 million a year. They spend around $65 million in payroll. So I guess they are banking on making at the very least double what they were making in 2017 and beyond to pay that contract to Longoria. Still seems like a major risk for a guy who is injury-prone for a small-market team that doesn’t have as much of a revenue stream as the bigger market teams…unless they get a new stadium to replace theirs, which is from what I hear, the worst in all of baseball.

    I have a feeling that Comcast is going to own a piece of the Phillies after 2014 and their contract will probably look similar to the Houston Astros one with Comcast. They will probably go from $35 to $100 million a year, which is why the Howard contract was not as big of a deal since the $25 million part doesn’t kick in until 2014. If we are going to use the TV revenue as an excuse for Evan, we have to use it for Ryan too, right?

    • Kevin S. - Nov 27, 2012 at 5:51 PM

      No, because Longoria is worth the money while Howard is laughably overpaid.

      • Chris Fiorentino - Nov 28, 2012 at 7:23 AM

        Really? In 5 years you know that a guy who missed 88 games last year and just had more hamstring surgery is going to be worth the money? LOL this is the type of nonsense that I talk about when I call hypocrisy on some commenters. You don’t like Howard, that’s fine, that’s your prerogative. Just don’t run the nonsense that you know Longoria is going to be worth the money because none of us know it. And unlike Howard’s extension that started 1.5 years after it was signed, Longoria’s starts after 4 years. And unlike Howard, Longoria is injury-prone when he signed the contract.

  3. uwsptke - Nov 27, 2012 at 2:44 PM

    Not sure that the Brewers TV revenue in the blog post is correct. They recently re-negotiated an expiring deal that should put them in the $30/per year (which is about what the Dodgers deal will pay them for the first 3 weeks of April). This article from September ’11 points this out:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/sports/baseball/mark-attanasio-goes-all-in-on-the-brewers.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

    “The Brewers receive less than $10 million a year in the deal, and although that figure should triple starting in 2013, for now it is the lowest local media payout in the majors. With that handicap, Attanasio knew the Brewers would have to rely on ticket sales more than most teams — a challenge, considering they draw from the smallest market in the majors.”

  4. Aaron - Nov 27, 2012 at 2:48 PM

    This is most definitely an invaluable resource, but don’t take the numbers as gospel. Thurm shows the Reds as earning $30 million a year from their TV deal, while Cincinnati Enquirer beat writer John Fay has it closer to $10 million. That’s a fairly big disparity.

  5. Ben - Nov 27, 2012 at 2:48 PM

    So the bottom 11 teams collectively earn ~217 million a year, or less than the Dodgers would. How on earth will those 11 teams afford any free agents, even if they signed straight market deals?

  6. Francisco (FC) - Nov 27, 2012 at 2:49 PM

    I presume a huge chunk of that new Dodgers money is going to actually paying for the franchise right? I mean they did pay $2 Billion for it, and as far as I can tell it was done mostly on credit. Actually help me out Dodgers fans, just how much did the ownership group fork over in cash and how much credit to pay for the Dodgers franchise?

    • Ben - Nov 27, 2012 at 2:54 PM

      Assuming this deal is real, they may have gotten a bargain for the Dodgers. You pile that 240 million into paying off the team, you’re free and clear in 8 years and you just operate the team off normal revenue. Or 120 million a year for 16 years, and put 120 million more into on-the-field product. Crazy.

    • losangelesfan - Nov 27, 2012 at 4:22 PM

      Guggenheim paid cash. It’s all paid for.

      http://www.businessinsider.com/magic-johnson-dodgers-sale-cash-2012-3

      • Francisco (FC) - Nov 27, 2012 at 4:35 PM

        Thanks for the info! I suppose the next question is, how much of that cash will go into the team and how much will it go to ownership. Since I presume the ownership group will want to see the profits after forking over $2 Bn.

      • Ben - Nov 27, 2012 at 4:48 PM

        Oh wow. Hey guys, I figured out how to make 10% ROI in perpetuity, no need for a Madoff. Cripes. Baseball teams really are just a license to print money, aren’t they?

  7. Michael - Nov 27, 2012 at 3:04 PM

    The TV landscape has definitely changed…a bit.

    The gravy is still in owning both the club and the TV outlet, as first discovered back when the owner of TBS (Ted Turner) underpaid the owner of the Braves (Ted Turner) for rights so that the revenues would be made on the TV end, keeping the ballclub from looking too rich.

    I would suggest that this means you won’t see the Indians or Blue Jays “negotiating” huge TV deals anytime soon, keeping those books in the red and revenue-sharing money flowing their way while their owners profit on the TV side.

    It also means the Yankees’, Mets’ and Orioles’ deals are deceptively rich, as is Reinsdorf’s (he also owns the Bulls, who are also a revenue driver for Comcast SportsNet).

    The “rich” top-level deals for the Dodgers and Angels demonstrate what major market rights are actually worth when a club’s owner doesn’t also have more than a token stake in the media outlet. Then again, it’s easy for a local cable sports network to open their pocketbook these days — they simply pass the cost of that contract directly on to cable subscribers.

    So congratulations, LA sports fans! Your cable bill is about to go up again!

  8. tcostant - Nov 27, 2012 at 4:36 PM

    The Nationals are set for a big raise. They have a re-set in the deal with MASN. Once Bud makes a point to ge tthis done, it should triple.

    • natstowngreg - Nov 27, 2012 at 6:10 PM

      Adam Kilgore of The Washington Post reports that the MASN contract impasse continues: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/nationals-journal/wp/2012/11/27/as-the-dodgers-hit-paydirt-the-nationals-masn-talks-remain-in-limbo/

      Funny thing is, MLB got representatives of the Rays and Pirates (along with the Mets) to help mediate the dispute. Rays and Pirates brass involved with a dispute over increasing some other team’s rights fees? What’s wrong with this picture?

    • schmedley69 - Nov 27, 2012 at 8:31 PM

      Nats don’t deserve a raise. Before last season, their ratings were minuscule. So incredibly low that MLB thought about investigating. The ratings improved last season, but they were still far below the big boys.

  9. dowhatifeellike - Nov 27, 2012 at 4:52 PM

    Baltimore is only getting $29m from MASN because Angelos puts the rest in his pocket.

  10. gibbyfan - Nov 27, 2012 at 5:03 PM

    Nice piece of work that really puts things in perspective. I have to wonder how the cardinals manage to stay competitive. In looking over these numbers it almost seems as though some teams should just pack it in —overcoming this kind of disparity doesnt seem possible, especially if you also factor in that someteams have publicly financed facilities — –

  11. dirtyharry1971 - Nov 28, 2012 at 7:12 AM

    Does Rogers cable give its customers like a rebate of some kind for including a bluejays channel? they sure as hell should

  12. uwsptke - Nov 28, 2012 at 8:56 AM

    Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that Bud made a decision that all MLB.com subscriptions must be shared equally among the teams (similar to the TV deals done currently in the NFL). This could lay the groundwork down the road when all TV as we know it will likely be communicated through the internet rather than cable. It’s really the only shot that the smaller markets have at competing long-term, because the disparity is astronomical, even with a luxury tax.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Who are the favorites for Rookie of the Year?
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. J. Soler (3293)
  2. R. Castillo (2795)
  3. Y. Molina (2614)
  4. A. Dunn (2489)
  5. A. Rizzo (2478)
  1. M. Cabrera (2459)
  2. B. Posey (2305)
  3. J. Ellsbury (2231)
  4. D. Pedroia (2137)
  5. M. Wacha (2045)