Apple TV+ Reportedly Outbidding NBC for More MLB Games

[IJ Reilly]

Unmentioned here is the key fact that the teams sell their local broadcast rights, usually to a cable provider. You need to subscribe to a cable package to watch your home team's games in-market. Now, more of these games are being resold to national broadcasters and streamers. This means you have to ante up again, or you will miss the games you already paid to be able to watch. This past weekend, for example, the Dodgers were on Apple, ESPN, and Fox. None were broadcast on the Dodgers network, SportsNetLA. It's a mess, and it only gets worse every year.

 

[Graphate]

Always a bunch of lawyers and MBAs in a room creating friction where none is necessary. Meanwhile, I want MLB to end its blackout rules.

Well… exclusive worldwide streaming rights are worth a different amount than regional streaming. Traditional broadcasters made the practice of dividing up the world normal a century ago… so while that doesn’t need to happen anymore… during these transitional decades between broadcast ads and targeted ads, there will be quite a lot of weird situations for the consumers. And regionally, in some sports, the team gets regional broadcast rights. That said, there is likely more than one reason for France being blacked out.

 

[Ghengis LeMond]

Same. Though they need to get better announcers. They are much better than the first season, but their broadcast/stream quality and presentation is top notch... Also like that unlike most other sports broadcasters they aren't infested with ads (particularly online gambling ones) and just show inbetween innings with ballpark sounds and do a half-inning of in play just ballpark sounds... though Apple is a money making enterprise I don't expect that to last as they'll want to monetize their rights...

Agreed, though the broadcast team is light years ahead of the cluster f##& it was when they started broadcasting MLB. On gambling though…… during the Yanks/dodgers game the other night, I was watching all the analytics for %hit, %out,Walk probability, etc. etc. - that stuff has gotta be a gambling addicts dream/nightmare with all the in game micro result betting available online.

 

[EBone12355]

Save this stuff for ESPN. I don't want to pay higher streaming prices for sports.

 

[BuddyRich]

Usually you can select a local radio broadcast that is in sync with the video.

I did not know ATV+ Friday Night Baseball did this, though I know this has been a feature of MLB.tv for a while. This might be a game changer... Their visual presentation is top notch, and looks made for VR or at least AR....

 

[ZiBart]

I dont think MLB cracks the top 20 in viewers per regular season game or playoffs internatinally. From a business perspective, i dont get this.

 

[AgeOfSpiracles]

I dont think MLB cracks the top 20 in viewers per regular season game or playoffs internatinally. From a business perspective, i dont get this.

Any particular regular season game draws a LOT fewer eyeballs than NFL, but there are a LOT more of them. Every franchise has legions of fans watching 4 or 5 games per week. Playoff games routinely get millions of viewers, and WS games tens of millions. MLB in general is the financial behemoth, second only to the NFL in terms of revenue. It has a large global appeal, with big fanbases in S. America and Asia.

So, from a business perspective, I can see how that would be attractive to someone looking to gain subscribers for their streaming platform.

 

[jjudson]

This is BS. As an MLB subscriber (as well as NFL), I'm getting furious at this new trend of spreading games across streaming platforms that you need to separately subscribe to. The fans are getting screwed with these deals. I don't mind the idea of Apple or Fox buying rights to broadcast, but they shouldn't blackout those games to MLB package subscribers. We already pay for the season, let us watch the damn games!

My wish would be for all of these leagues to have their own streaming networks with two packages: One purchasing the entire season of single team games, or a second option of buying the entire league -- WITH NO BLACKOUT RESTRICTIONS! I don't mind paying more for such a setup, but the more services that grab blocks of games, the worse it's getting...

 

[ZiBart]

Any particular regular season game draws a LOT fewer eyeballs than NFL, but there are a LOT more of them. Every franchise has legions of fans watching 4 or 5 games per week. Playoff games routinely get millions of viewers, and WS games tens of millions. MLB in general is the financial behemoth, second only to the NFL in terms of revenue. It has a large global appeal, with big fanbases in S. America and Asia.

So, from a business perspective, I can see how that would be attractive to someone looking to gain subscribers for their streaming platform.

MLB revenue is third, behind NBA as well. But revenue doesnt really dictate international popularity or viewership especially when revenue is mostly local+national in the dominant currency.

From an international perspective, the NBA is best out of all the major US leagues for attracting eyes. It has tremendous appeal on almost every populous continent. I dont think its even close internationally vs NFL, MLB, NHL, PGA and MLS. UFC would be a good second option but I dont think there are enough events, and its based on a ppv model. Plus i dont think combat sports are in line with Apple.

Any case, Apple does a great job with their live broadcasts but it should be an add on for a fee to avoid raising prices across the board when more than half of their current subscribers dont care for it (my assumption).

 

[popltree2]

Consider yourself in the minority. The Studio is great. And to add to that, shows like Your Friends & Neighbors, Ted Lasso, Severance, and Shrinking show why Apple TV+ is a great place for quality, high production shows. They've been compared to the HBO of old. And for good reason.

Now am I a baseball fan? Not really. But every streamer is looking to get more into sports these days, so this makes sense. And it brings in advertising dollars.

I've heard good things about Murderbot too. I still need to check that out.

 

[AL2TEACH]

Apple don't broadcast the games in France.

Would getting a VPN work?

 

[AgeOfSpiracles]

MLB revenue is third, behind NBA as well. But revenue doesnt really dictate international popularity or viewership especially when revenue is mostly local+national in the dominant currency.

From an international perspective, the NBA is best out of all the major US leagues for attracting eyes. It has tremendous appeal on almost every populous continent. I dont think its even close internationally vs NFL, MLB, NHL, PGA and MLS. UFC would be a good second option but I dont think there are enough events, and its based on a ppv model. Plus i dont think combat sports are in line with Apple.

Any case, Apple does a great job with their live broadcasts but it should be an add on for a fee to avoid raising prices across the board when more than half of their current subscribers dont care for it (my assumption).

I did think that MLB was slightly ahead of NBA in revenue, but I had it backwards. Regardless they are very close in revenue. NBA would also be an obvious get if they could swing it.

I disagree about it being an add-on. IMO that's just more of the nickel-and-diming that has led us to the current streaming hellscape. I know the typical MR patron is weirdly resentful about sports existing, but a broad audience for these services is good for everyone. This might sound a little reductive, but I don't think Stranger Things should be a Netflix add-on even though it's very expensive and I don't like it.

 

[ZiBart]

I did think that MLB was slightly ahead of NBA in revenue, but I had it backwards. Regardless they are very close in revenue. NBA would also be an obvious get if they could swing it.

Irrelevant to my main point anyways about broader international appeal and viewers. Soccer and cricket are the most watched sports worldwide, yet they arent in the top three of revenue.

I disagree about it being an add-on. IMO that's just more of the nickel-and-diming that has led us to the current streaming hellscape. I know the typical MR patron is weirdly resentful about sports existing, but a broad audience for these services is good for everyone. This might sound a little reductive, but I don't think Stranger Things should be a Netflix add-on even though it's very expensive and I don't like it.

A stretch. Nit picking shows and movies you personally like and dislike on a platform that delivers thousands of shows and movies is a bit different then a smaller library trying to engulf the cost of a major spend on content thats not typical for the platform. The expense impact of Stranger Things on Netflix and its existing paying user base vs the massive spend on MLB broadcast rights shoved into a way smaller library/spend and way smaller user base is not even remotely in the same ballpark (pun intended) 😀. If you want to only watch the movies and shows you like, you have many a la carte/pay to play options as well.

 

[AgeOfSpiracles]

Irrelevant to my main point anyways about broader international appeal and viewers. Soccer and cricket are the most watched sports worldwide, yet they arent in the top three of revenue.

A stretch. Nit picking shows and movies you personally like and dislike on a platform that delivers thousands of shows and movies is a bit different then a smaller library trying to engulf the cost of a major spend on content thats not typical for the platform. The expense impact of Stranger Things on Netflix and its existing paying user base vs the massive spend on MLB broadcast rights shoved into a way smaller library/spend and way smaller user base is not even remotely in the same ballpark (pun intended) 😀. If you want to only watch the movies and shows you like, you have many a la carte/pay to play options as well.

Maybe not the same ballpark, but the same sport. Stranger Things was an absurd example to prove the point. At the end of the day, $85M isn't "massive" in this context; Season 4 of Stranger Things cost 3x that, and $30M of it is just an ad buy which they likely would have done to some extent anyway. The only reason you or others might consider one a 'nit pick' and the other perfectly sensible comes down to personal bias. As evidenced by this thread and others, where people can not even allow an article to be published on this website on the subject of Friday Night Baseball without harumphing and signaling their evolved intellect by declaring sportsball so stupid.

It's possible that Apple has made some unforced error (pun intended 😉) by pursuing MLB or MLS or whatever sport they court (😵) in the future. But I think it's more likely that they believe, and have evidence, that this spend is justified by subscriber counts, marketshare increase, or just straight ROI.

 

[nathansz]

haven't really watched baseball in years other than out of the corner of my eye at the pub.

does apple do a good job with the broadcasts?

 

[AgeOfSpiracles]

With many sports moving or having their sports air on Prime or Apple TV, what I don't like is having to leave an app and then go to, let's say, ESPN to see an NBA game. When all games were on YoutubeTV for example, all you had to do is go back or scroll the guide menu. You stayed on the app for everything. This came more to light when WWE Raw moved to Netflix and I wanted to see an NBA game at the same time, on ESPN/TNT. Sometimes I even forgot to go back to what I was watching.

This is the cord cutting future that we all wanted so desperately a decade ago. Now the buyer's remorse sets in. Myself included.

 

[nathansz]

Just give all rights to one provider.

This is what the NHL has done in Canada (not entirely all the rights but very nearly so)

The result has been low quality broadcasts, not necessarily the broadcasters, who are hit and miss; but camera placement and quality, sound wise, etc the difference between the few amazon broadcasts this year and the stale rogers one's was quite striking

 

[AgeOfSpiracles]

haven't really watched baseball in years other than out of the corner of my eye at the pub.

does apple do a good job with the broadcasts?

They aren't perfect, but they are better than most... especially the regional sports channels that most people are stuck with for in-market games, which are pretty much universally garbage. I'm always glad when a game I'm already going to watch happens to be on ATV+.

 

[ZiBart]

Maybe not the same ballpark, but the same sport. Stranger Things was an absurd example to prove the point. At the end of the day, $85M isn't "massive" in this context; Season 4 of Stranger Things cost 3x that, and $30M of it is just an ad buy which they likely would have done to some extent anyway. The only reason you or others might consider one a 'nit pick' and the other perfectly sensible comes down to personal bias. As evidenced by this thread and others, where people can not even allow an article to be published on this website on the subject of Friday Night Baseball without harumphing and signaling their evolved intellect by declaring sportsball so stupid.

It's possible that Apple has made some unforced error (pun intended 😉) by pursuing MLB or MLS or whatever sport they court (😵) in the future. But I think it's more likely that they believe, and have evidence, that this spend is justified by subscriber counts, marketshare increase, or just straight ROI.

Nah. No bias. I actually like baseball (more so watching live at ballpark and playing vs televised). That's why I'm sticking to just international ratings, and the ROI of gained subscribers vs losing ones due to higher cost and no interest in whatever live sport. I'm guessing MLS was one of several factors in the last increase in AppleTV+ price. And they offer an add on for the season's pass. Which they are discounting heavily now (very unlike Apple unless it's not getting them back what they thought they would). That was a huge gamble at 250mil per year for 10 years but it's international rights for all the games. MLB is 85 mil for just one game per week as is, and I'm not sure if it's international. If this new rumor is a substantial package of games, this will cost 10x or more per game than MLS. As baseball team fandom is very localized, it complicates packages for streamers that cater more broadly viewers.

Netflix has over 300 million global subscribers and many paying for the higher tiered memberships. Apple has 45 million, cheaper plan and many pay less like me with the Apple One family plan. So spreading that cost across a substantially smaller user base that pay less per month will be impactful. Unless they can gain millions more which back to my opinion - I don't think they can because of the lack of international appeal. It really depends what the final bid is and for how many games and with what regional rights. As is, a single game per week won't steer many new fans towards AppleTV+ subscription. Of course Apple can make mistakes like this a thousand times before they run out of money or time, but it doesn't mean it's the logical thing to do.

 

[AgeOfSpiracles]

Nah. No bias. I actually like baseball (more so watching live at ballpark and playing vs televised). That's why I'm sticking to just international ratings, and the ROI of gained subscribers vs losing ones due to higher cost and no interest in whatever live sport. I'm guessing MLS was one of several factors in the last increase in AppleTV+ price. And they offer an add on for the season's pass. Which they are discounting heavily now (very unlike Apple unless it's not getting them back what they thought they would). That was a huge gamble at 250mil per year for 10 years but it's international rights for all the games. MLB is 85 mil for just one game per week as is, and I'm not sure if it's international. If this new rumor is a substantial package of games, this will cost 10x or more per game than MLS. As baseball team fandom is very localized, it complicates packages for streamers that cater more broadly viewers.

Netflix has over 300 million global subscribers and many paying for the higher tiered memberships. Apple has 45 million, cheaper plan and many pay less like me with the Apple One family plan. So spreading that cost across a substantially smaller user base that pay less per month will be impactful. Unless they can gain millions more which back to my opinion - I don't think they can because of the lack of international appeal. It really depends what the final bid is and for how many games and with what regional rights. As is, a single game per week won't steer many new fans towards AppleTV+ subscription. Of course Apple can make mistakes like this a thousand times before they run out of money or time, but it doesn't mean it's the logical thing to do.

It's two games a week as of now, actually. Not sure if it was always or if that started last year.

I do think there's a bias at play, even if you don't hate baseball, in that you don't want to feel like you're paying for something you won't use. Whereas I'm more than happy to get something I want included in something I already subscribe to. And there's nothing inherently wrong with that, but I'm saying that drawing the line at sports is pretty arbitrary. A similar argument could be made about separating all the Star Wars content from the rest of Disney+; it's a very costly category of entertainment that not everyone needs or wants. If all I need is Doc McStuffins and Bluey on repeat, then surely I'm overpaying due to the inclusion of all these stupid shows about laser swords.

Anyway, I think we will have to wait until 2027 to find out if this was a success or failure. If they add Sunday games like the article suggests, or just more games to Friday, or whatever then we will know more certainty how it is going.

 

[ZiBart]

It's two games a week as of now, actually. Not sure if it was always or if that started last year.

I do think there's a bias at play, even if you don't hate baseball, in that you don't want to feel like you're paying for something you won't use. Whereas I'm more than happy to get something I want included in something I already subscribe to. And there's nothing inherently wrong with that, but I'm saying that drawing the line at sports is pretty arbitrary. A similar argument could be made about separating all the Star Wars content from the rest of Disney+; it's a very costly category of entertainment that not everyone needs or wants. If all I need is Doc McStuffins and Bluey on repeat, then surely I'm overpaying due to the inclusion of all these stupid shows about laser swords.

Anyway, I think we will have to wait until 2027 to find out if this was a success or failure. If they add Sunday games like the article suggests, or just more games to Friday, or whatever then we will know more certainty how it is going.

If i want access to a library of on demand content, ill pay for that. If i want access to live entertainment, ill pay for that seperatley. And i have many options for that. I just dont want the two mixed at the cost of my on demand cost going up. You see it different. Consumers have choices..for now. Separating the two gives me the ability to cancel the live stuff in the off season while keeping the on demand.

 

[KPOM]

haven't really watched baseball in years other than out of the corner of my eye at the pub.

does apple do a good job with the broadcasts?

Yes. Great visuals plus you get a choice of their anchors or the local radio broadcast of your choice perfectly synced.

 

[AgeOfSpiracles]

Yes. Great visuals plus you get a choice of their anchors or the local radio broadcast of your choice perfectly synced.

Dear lord, are you for real? There's a SAP with the local radio!?? I had no idea, that's really great.