Stormy Skies Ahead?: Amazon, Audacy, and the Future of Twins Broadcasting

[Peter Labuza]

The Twins might have finally found their broadcasting partner for 2024, but fans should be asking whether reuniting with Bally—and joining up with Amazon—will improve the situation that cable created, or worsen it. 

Image courtesy of © Jerome Miron-USA TODAY Sports

It was the bankruptcy court proceeding heard round the world. The worries of Diamond Sports Group, once subsidiary of Sinclair Broadcasting and owner of the many Regional Sports Networks better known as Bally Sports Network, may have finally come to a close. A giant cash influx from Sinclair ($495 million to settle litigation) plus an additional investment from Amazon ($115 million to take a 15% stake) will tie a bow and—once approved by a federal judge—end its proceedings in Texas. The move came as a surprise to MLB, stymieing their now indefinitely postponed negotiations for a single-year deal, while keeping the door open for the Twins to return with an added streaming venue.

As John Bonnes suggested, such a result could give the Twins what they want with a non-cable option, as well as an influx of cash to add to payroll. But should the Twins want the deal? There’s a few reasons to consider how this new dynamic throws a wrench into both the Twins' and MLB's plans to adjust to a streaming future.

First, a return to Bally would now most likely require a multi-year deal, rather than a solo year as originally expected. Though legal experts are still mulling over the details, precedents, and implications, it seems that the deals worked out by the NHL and NBA for a single season are voided in favor of their previous arrangements. While both leagues will likely re-enter talks with Diamond, it certainly limits their plans for the 2024-25 season.

The same goes for Rob Manfred, who had been making moves to consolidate MLB’s cable rights back to the league and increase leverage for a future negotiation with a streamer or possibly their own service. Before this week’s announcement, MLB had already rejected an Amazon plan due to its multi-year structure, in favor of a single-year deal with Diamond. That would have given Manfred over half the league's contracts to work with and around which to build out their own network starting in 2025. Instead, existing long-term contracts that Bally holds are not going away, with the only way forward being to either secure each franchise's rights one by one or pay a large fee.

Where are the Twins, then? Back to the negotiating room they go, alongside the Cleveland Guardians and Texas Rangers. According to the attorney for Diamond, the company will let all three teams walk or engage them on a long-term discussion. It seems any single year deals might be out to pasture.

But Amazon fixes everything, right? The biggest immediate impact in all this is that, by circumventing a deal with MLB, Amazon has acquired the digital rights for five teams who had already sold those rights to Bally, with plans to add them (as well as the NBA and NHL) to Prime in the future. Amazon believes it can take Bally from a $49-million-a-year streaming business to a $700-million one.

The Twins—working on a Feb. 1 deadline—could follow in that road. After all, every cable cutter in Minnesota could access the team for the cost of a Prime subscription.

But does Amazon really fix the problems that cable presented? Prime Video costs $8.99 a month right now (though Amazon often hides this pricing, in the hope that you’ll pay for its full Prime services at $14.99 a month). Consumers just had to add $3 each month to avoid advertising. Diamond and Amazon said any sports package pricing will be announced at a later date. And there’s no stopping those prices from going up. The reason Amazon has been a target of so much scrutiny is that its monopolistic practices have eliminated competition by shorting prices, before raising them, and there’s every reason to think its investments in Bally will follow the same script. Amazon might continue to offer more stuff, but as many have suggested, that might just end up in the same spot as the cable bundle, with the same costs associated with it. Cable initially brought freedom of choice, but ended up as a prison. If viewership of the Twins becomes locked in with Amazon, think about the leverage the company will have, and how many viewers that could push away in the process.  

The other question is quality. Bally proved to make a reasonably solid broadcast through its short tenure in Minnesota (in part thanks to the incredible crew at IATSE Local 745, who remained largely the same in the transition from Fox Sports). But what about Amazon? Vikings fans might remember some issues from this season.

This brings us to other developments. After months of teetering, radio and digital audio giant Audacy announced a restructured bankruptcy with its creditors. Audacy not only owns both Twins radio partners WCCO, but held the digital audio rights for all 30 teams through the MLB At Bat app. That app, in particular, was one of the most poorly run digital nightmares imaginable for fans across the league.

Formerly known as Entercom and rebranded as Audacy in 2021, the Philadelphia-based giant became the second-largest ownership group for radio stations in 2017. In the years since, it has focused on growing its podcast and gambling networks. Most of these decisions have come at the cost of worsening content, despite the strong revenue at WCCO and the surprising resilience of radio while the podcast market has essentially become a bubble (Gleeman & The Geek excepted).

At least for the moment, Twins fans should not expect any changes in WCCO radio broadcasts for the games. An Audacy spokesperson noted that their various businesses should not have any operational impact from the restructuring. For their part, MLB could not be reached for comment.

But Audacy is a cautionary tale: When a digital corporation puts baseball down as a priority, it doesn't automatically lead to the enjoyable customer experience we might be tempted to expect. Perhaps it's also a sign of what Amazon will do. Amazon has not proved itself a welcome partner in the digital streaming space. And while maybe it’s not always best to consolidate, perhaps MLB itself best knows how to give fans what they want. The league, after all, built MLB.TV, one of the best streaming services out there--one that has demonstrated very few issues to fans (and a technology so good that Disney eventually bought it from the league).

The Twins are running out of options and running out of time. Diamond and Amazon have maximum leverage against a team desperate for cash. But signing a deal with Diamond today might end up as a deal with the devil tomorrow. The Twins have waited since the transition from Fox Sports to Bally to escape their clutches. Now they seem poised to end up back with their ex. Let’s hope not to regret it. 

View full article

[Cris E]

Good piece. The thing this latest news calls out is the instability of everything and how little time MLB has to assemble a far-reaching plan to replace the RSN revenue model.  There's a chance that Amazon funding a good enough outlet for RSN streaming will blow up any chance MLB has of making their offering good enough to displace it. If a bunch of teams start opting for 50% of what they got before and MLB hasn't got a wide enough list of games to sell who will pay for their offering at, say, $25 if Prime can get it for you at $20?   So much uncertainty, so little time, and not enough teams in trouble to slow the whole mess down. All but three teams have 2024 deals, right?  Gonna be an interesting couple weeks...

[mac098]

As a long time Twins fan, I haven't been able to watch the Twins on a regular basis since 2020 due to BSN and YT TV not seeing eye-to-eye. And to compound things, because I'm located in MN, I can't even use MLB.TV or the BSN+ app due to blackout regulations. 

 

So ultimately at this point it is MLB killing their own sport because they can't figure something out. The Twins aren't big enough to get more national games so ESPN is typically out the door, and Apple TV+ is Friday exclusive. Baseball in terms of watch ability is easily the worst handled of all the 4 major NA sports. 

 

Now if Amazon and MLB could partner up, that would be, IMO, a huge win for baseball fans everywhere, especially with more people cutting cable and going to streaming services.

[howeda7]

I don't understand why a one year deal with Bally's is now unlikely? It still seems like the best short-terms solution. It's not like Bally's will refuse.

[Peter Labuza]

18 minutes ago, Bigfork Twins Guy said:

Can't they just latch on with MLB like the Padres did last year?  That would allow them to not get locked into a possible unwanted Bally contract.

Yes. That or a deal with WFTC I think would be more optimal. Less money, but better advantaged in 2025.

[Peter Labuza]

5 minutes ago, howeda7 said:

I don't understand why a one year deal with Bally's is now unlikely? It still seems like the best short-terms solution. It's not like Bally's will refuse.

Well, first is the comments from the Diamond attorney. Second is the fact when Amazon engaged MLB in negotiations earlier this year, they wanted multiple years. It is certainly possible Bally/Diamond/Amazon will offer a one year deal. But my sense is they would rather capture the rights and put them in a stronger position to force Manfred to give Amazon all other streaming rights to teams in the future.

[nicksaviking]

I'm not in favor of Amazon's super capitalism and monopolistic agenda, but I don't see how they would "push viewers away". MLB has lost sooooo many viewers with the disastrous streaming situation of the past several years. Amazon Prime is already in more households than Bally, MLBtv and any other broadcaster, and certainly, it's almost certainly going to be much cheaper. a stand alone Bally subscription was unaffordable for most families used to watching Twins games. This will more likely than not bring more viewers in than past iterations.

[Steve Lein]

If the Twins work something out with Bally's, this will be great for availability, and a drastic change in that for Twins fans. I will still be curious the cost to get that access. I surely hope it will be lower than the $20/month for something like the Bally Sports+ streaming app, but by how much? Even then, I still don't see how they would get a rights number that is comparable to the $55 MIL deal they had, and was one of the worst such deals out there.

This article was great for some clarifications, and the genuine concerns about the future.

There are better details in the below article than I've found elsewhere on what Bally's deal with Amazon means, and it's not necessarily that your Prime subscription alone will get them for you. You will still have to purchase a Bally's "channel" (just like you do HBO/Starz/Peacock/Etc...). Prime Video/TV just becomes a platform where it will be available for you to do so: https://www.forbes.com/sites/zacharyfolk/2024/01/17/bally-sports-coming-to-amazon-prime-video-in-proposed-deal-what-to-know/?sh=2047db277d30

Edited January 19, 2024 by Steve Lein

[Peter Labuza]

27 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

I'm not in favor of Amazon's super cartelism and monopolistic agenda, but I don't see how they would "push viewers away". MLB has lost sooooo many viewers with the disastrous streaming situation of the past several years. Amazon Prime is already in more households than Bally, MLBtv and any other broadcaster, and certainly, it's almost certainly going to be much cheaper. a stand alone Bally subscription was unaffordable for most families used to watching Twins games. This will more likely than not bring more viewers in than past iterations.

I absolutely agree, and I think Amazon is a big win in the near term. I'm more concerned what it looks like 5 years from now, 10 years from now. Some of the other Bally contracts run into the 2030s. As much as I have a distate for Rob Manfred, I feel like his plan to bring all the teams under one roof seemed like a better plan in theory. 

[chaderic20]

All I know is that whatever will make MLB/owners $1 today as opposed to $10 tomorrow is what will happen. And fans be damned, what's best for them won't even be in the top 50 considerations.

[Major League Ready]

23 minutes ago, chaderic20 said:

All I know is that whatever will make MLB/owners $1 today as opposed to $10 tomorrow is what will happen. And fans be damned, what's best for them won't even be in the top 50 considerations.

Billionaires as a group have an exponentially better understanding of long-term value than baseball fans in general.  If they don't possess that skillset, and even if they do, they hire people exceptionally skilled in this area.   They also don't need the money.  It is basically certain that they will evaluate the various future state scenarios and pick the option with the best long-term financial outlook.

[Hawkeye Bean Counter]

Bally's really can't force the hand of the Twins for more than 1 year as worst case they go with MLB.   They also don't have the other teams past 2024.  So the real question, does Amazon and Bally's together have more cache and earnings potential, than what MLB can do on its own and with local media rights?  Its a fair question and ultimately I think better than what we had before.  Any new deal will have no blackouts - that is non negotiable, so right there is a major improvement.  For a bunch of mediocre teams Amazon was willing to pay 20 mil per a year for the streaming rights.  That means the Twins are worth at least that much in a new negotiation.   So then what are the Television rights,  20 Mil, 30 mil,  35 mil?    

Ultimately the issue has always come down to money.  Once the dust settles, it doesn't appear to be a major monetary change.  so we have a potential new option with Amazon for a year.  The question is, is Bally's who has said they are done after 2023 now the viable solution moving forward.  If not them, then who?   We still have some moving parts, but I feel a lot better about 2024, and think 2025  and moving forward will turn out pretty good as well.   

[DJL44]

20 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

Billionaires as a group have an exponentially better understanding of long-term value than baseball fans in general.  If they don't possess that skillset, and even if they do, they hire people exceptionally skilled in this area.   They also don't need the money.  It is basically certain that they will evaluate the various future state scenarios and pick the option with the best long-term financial outlook.

Or they'll use their financial clout to make their friends happy and piss off their enemies. Most of these billionaires are into professional sports to impress people.

[nicksaviking]

1 hour ago, Peter Labuza said:

I absolutely agree, and I think Amazon is a big win in the near term. I'm more concerned what it looks like 5 years from now, 10 years from now. Some of the other Bally contracts run into the 2030s. As much as I have a distate for Rob Manfred, I feel like his plan to bring all the teams under one roof seemed like a better plan in theory. 

That would be great assuming it was with a streamer that offered more than just baseball broadcasting. I have zero faith that they have enough foresight to do that though. If they planned on some MLBtv thing, they'll still lose all of their casual fans. Casual fans aren't paying for MLBtv when they're already paying for Amazon, Apple, Hulu, Netflix and Disney.

[DJL44]

21 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

That would be great assuming it was with a streamer that offered more than just baseball broadcasting.

That almost happened. If the FTC had allowed the Disney/FOX merger to keep the RSNs you would be watching everything on ESPN+ right now as part of a Disney+ bundle.

[nicksaviking]

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

Billionaires as a group have an exponentially better understanding of long-term value than baseball fans in general.  If they don't possess that skillset, and even if they do, they hire people exceptionally skilled in this area.   They also don't need the money.  It is basically certain that they will evaluate the various future state scenarios and pick the option with the best long-term financial outlook.

Sorry, I agree with most of your points but not this one. The billionaires care more about immediate returns knowing the quick return will be money in their pockets that can be generating interest right away.

Millionaires may have long term vision, but not Billionaires. If they did, they would have never accepted the broadcasting deals from a decade ago which is hurting the sport now but paid out immediately. And they wouldn’t constantly be trying to torpedo economic, climate and healthcare deals that hurt in the short term but would pay off in the long term.

[Woof Bronzer]

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

Billionaires as a group have an exponentially better understanding of long-term value than baseball fans in general.  If they don't possess that skillset, and even if they do, they hire people exceptionally skilled in this area.   They also don't need the money.  It is basically certain that they will evaluate the various future state scenarios and pick the option with the best long-term financial outlook.

This is just not accurate.  Business today is all about maximizing stockholder value or profits.  (Recall Milton Friedman:  "a corporation's only duty is to create profits for its shareholders"  Big wigs who don't demonstrate immediate returns get fired.  There is no long view.  Ask, I don't know, the Pohlads, who do not seem to understand that investing in the team may cost money now but may also create a new generation of lifetime fans. It's all about short term profits for them.  

[Parfigliano]

2 hours ago, chaderic20 said:

All I know is that whatever will make MLB/owners $1 today as opposed to $10 tomorrow is what will happen. And fans be damned, what's best for them won't even be in the top 50 considerations.

You are absolutely correct.

[Major League Ready]

1 hour ago, Woof Bronzer said:

This is just not accurate.  Business today is all about maximizing stockholder value or profits.  (Recall Milton Friedman:  "a corporation's only duty is to create profits for its shareholders"  Big wigs who don't demonstrate immediate returns get fired.  There is no long view.  Ask, I don't know, the Pohlads, who do not seem to understand that investing in the team may cost money now but may also create a new generation of lifetime fans. It's all about short term profits for them.  

For starters, this have to do with owners who answer to nobody?   They are going to do whatever is best for them in the long run.  If you think they are so ignorant as to prioritize short-term gains you are badly misinformed.  Actually, uninformed would be more accurate.  

[Eris]

I don’t something here. The Twins original contract with Fox Sports (which Bally inherited/bought when Fox Sports sold the rights to Sinclair) ended at the end of 2023. The Twins could sell their broadcast rights to entity they can reach an agreement with). Why are they being forced to Bally (or when was the contract extended). What am I missing. 
 

With regards to cost to the users, I think streaming will be more expensive than cable, as the cost for streaming will be paid directly by the user. With cable, the services were bundled which meant that individual users did not pay the true cost of a service. Streaming services could bundle as well to spread costs but then eventually they will run in to the same dynamic as cable companies—the cost of bundled services will exceed what average user is willing to pay and they stop subscribing to the services. 

[Major League Ready]

5 minutes ago, Eris said:

I don’t something here. The Twins original contract with Fox Sports (which Bally inherited/bought when Fox Sports sold the rights to Sinclair) ended at the end of 2023. The Twins could sell their broadcast rights to entity they can reach an agreement with). Why are they being forced to Bally (or when was the contract extended). What am I missing. 
 

With regards to cost to the users, I think streaming will be more expensive than cable, as the cost for streaming will be paid directly by the user. With cable, the services were bundled which meant that individual users did not pay the true cost of a service. Streaming services could bundle as well to spread costs but then eventually they will run in to the same dynamic as cable companies—the cost of bundled services will exceed what average user is willing to pay and they stop subscribing to the services. 

Streaming offers the opportunity to tailor the service that is completely unbundled.  They could offer the ability to purchase a single game pass.  Obviously, they would charge a higher rate.  It might be $3-4 for a single game but viewers would not have to commit to anything.  Per game fees would be billed to a credit card on file.  They could sell 20 or 40 or 80 game packages or a season pass.  Playoffs could be included in a season pass or even that could be sold on a per game basis.  

[USAFChief]

15 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

Streaming offers the opportunity to tailor the service that is completely unbundled.  They could offer the ability to purchase a single game pass.  Obviously, they would charge a higher rate.  It might be $3-4 for a single game but viewers would not have to commit to anything.  Per game fees would be billed to a credit card on file.  They could sell 20 or 40 or 80 game packages or a season pass.  Playoffs could be included in a season pass or even that could be sold on a per game basis.  

All of which ends up costing the consumer more than cable or satellite TV did.

The cable cutters are getting what they demanded. Less for more.

[Dlee]

i am in the boat of hopefully streaming with no blackouts. Now that the ears don't work anymore radio is not an option although it was my favorite option.

previous cable has been terrible bunch of junk channels to watch a few for several hours a week and the price was not worth it.

I can see why MLB would like to get all the rights with exception of over the air broadcasts etc.  i am sure the lawyers are having nice war room chats.

[nicksaviking]

2 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

For starters, this have to do with owners who answer to nobody?   They are going to do whatever is best for them in the long run.  If you think they are so ignorant as to prioritize short-term gains you are badly misinformed.  Actually, uninformed would be more accurate.  

Yes, best for them, the billionaires as individuals, not one of their many individual investments which would be the team, and certainly not the sport itself.

And they almost always take the money in hand now, which can be reinvested, instead of prospective money two decades from now, when most of them would be dead.

 

[Jocko87]

5 hours ago, Woof Bronzer said:

This is just not accurate.  Business today is all about maximizing stockholder value or profits.  (Recall Milton Friedman:  "a corporation's only duty is to create profits for its shareholders"  Big wigs who don't demonstrate immediate returns get fired.  There is no long view.  Ask, I don't know, the Pohlads, who do not seem to understand that investing in the team may cost money now but may also create a new generation of lifetime fans. It's all about short term profits for them.  

Whats the difference between value and profit?  

[Jocko87]

6 hours ago, nicksaviking said:

Sorry, I agree with most of your points but not this one. The billionaires care more about immediate returns knowing the quick return will be money in their pockets that can be generating interest right away.

Millionaires may have long term vision, but not Billionaires. If they did, they would have never accepted the broadcasting deals from a decade ago which is hurting the sport now but paid out immediately. And they wouldn’t constantly be trying to torpedo economic, climate and healthcare deals that hurt in the short term but would pay off in the long term.

I'm kinda dumbfounded at this.  I'll just respond with this, millionaires may try to torpedo these deals to get out of them but billionaires make those deals knowing they are going to change them.  It's not a difference in money, rather mindset. 

This whole discussion is crazy, we all realize the difference between a million and a billion right?  

[nicksaviking]

1 hour ago, Jocko87 said:

I'm kinda dumbfounded at this.  I'll just respond with this, millionaires may try to torpedo these deals to get out of them but billionaires make those deals knowing they are going to change them.  It's not a difference in money, rather mindset. 

This whole discussion is crazy, we all realize the difference between a million and a billion right?  

Yes, billionaire's investments create so much revenue that the immediate interest return on them can be reinvested and make more than a millionaire's entire portfolio. That's why they almost always take the deals that pay off now instead of a bigger pay off in the future. Money RIGHT NOW is worth way more for them.

[Major League Ready]

9 hours ago, nicksaviking said:

Yes, best for them, the billionaires as individuals, not one of their many individual investments which would be the team, and certainly not the sport itself.

And they almost always take the money in hand now, which can be reinvested, instead of prospective money two decades from now, when most of them would be dead.

 

Who do you think is most likely to look out for the best interest of the game?  Players who have an extremely short-window to cash-in or owners who reap enormous financial reward for growing the sport and keeping it healthy.  The answer is quite clear when reviewing the position of both sides during the last CBA.  I am not suggesting the owners would look out for the long-term interests of the game out of love for the game.  Their selfish interests align much better with the long-term interest of the game than the players who wanted to reduce revenue sharing, pushed hard for a very high luxury tax threshold, and opposed an international draft.

[Fatbat]

MLB has to be shook up at the influx of white knight $$$ coming into the banko proceedings.  The plan to eventually control all of  their broadcasting rights in house is most likely up in flames.  If the last remaining individual teams negotiate a multi year deal with the new org structure , its a done deal. Amazon and their partners will own it and control it for many years. Is that good for the fans? Maybe in the short term but how high will streaming fees go? How will the revenue be divided?  
so many questions! Even in the short term, will MLB acquiesce to the proposal or will they object?  

[Johnny Ringo]

It is disappointing that this discussion has devolved into a rant about millionaires and billionaires. Insert any other group into the discussion, that "they" "always" or "never" do this or that and see what reaction you get. I will tell you that millionaires and billionaires are like everyone else. Ten percent are saintly, ten percent are the devil and 80 percent are somewhere in between. But the notion that they have a herd mentality bifurcated by three 000s is equally ridiculous and funny.    

Casual empiricism  would tell me that historically 80% of the stuff written about Joe Mauer on this forum has been negative. All based on his money and hamstringing the team financially into disappointing results. (Like any one person that wrote that stuff would have turned the money down.) Now that he is headed to Cooperstown, he has always been our guy. 

Perhaps this is my favorite passage  of the week (see above) "The Twins are running out of options and running out of time. Diamond and Amazon have maximum leverage against a team desperate for cash. "  (This may or may not have been written by clickbait AI. )

I am pretty sure this would be news to the folks at One Twins Way.  I would guess the club doesn't need to make one penny from media this year and the Twins/Pohlads will be just fine. 

I would tell Mr. Labuza and Mr. Bonnes that if you want to write about finance and bankruptcy particulars then know something about them or consult someone who does. I realize that this isn't the Wall Street Journal but do we want to have grownup discussions or not?