Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account
  • Twins News & Analysis

    Bally's to Make Final Offer to Twins for 2024; Amazon May Make Bid for Streaming

    Peter Labuza

    By Peter Labuza

    With little clarity on the future of broadcasting rights for the Twins, new curveballs regarding both Bally's and Amazon have only complicated the picture.

    Image courtesy of © Jay Biggerstaff-USA TODAY Sports

    Twins Video

    As reported by John Ourland in Sports Business Journal, Diamond Sports Group, the subsidiary of Sinclair that has handled the various regional sports networks (RSNs) and engaged in bankruptcy proceedings for over a year, has made an offer to fund most of its continuing agreements in Major League Baseball for the 2024 season. As Evan Drellich reported in The Athletic, MLB lawyer James Bromley told the bankruptcy court, "We are in a position to believe that we have a framework to move forward,”

    Those agreements have not been signed by the various teams. If they're ultimately turned down, the rights would revert back to MLB. The league is pushing for an extra clause, however, where any further default would cause Diamond to revert its partial ownership of the YES Network (the RSN for Yankees games and one of the most lucrative in the game) to MLB as well.

    Complicating this deal are three teams who are expected to receive offers before the holiday weekend: the Cleveland Guardians, the Texas Rangers, and a third team not currently on a deal with Bally's but believed by Ourand to be the Twins (Drellich suggests the team could also be either the Diamondbacks or Padres). According to Ourand, "By the end of this week, Diamond committed to put in offers for those teams--presumably at lower rights fees than they have been paying."

    Questions over the future of Twins broadcasting have been largely unanswered since the end of the season, but the Bally's offer comes at a crucial moment. Twins fans expect to see games on television as early as spring training in March, and so far, no details have been provided. Returning to Bally's would mean games still subject to a system of blackouts and high cable fees that have pushed away fans throughout the last decade. It would also go against comments made by new television broadcaster Cory Provus on the team's plan to end blackouts. Those comments suggested a return to local, free broadcasting in a style mimicking the Phoenix Suns and Las Vegas Golden Knights, from which any imaginable deal with the bankrupt Diamond/Bally seems a far cry.

    However, what accessibility means is a big question, and a streaming partner who could solve both problems has recently entered the picture. Earlier this week, shipping, data, and media conglomerate Amazon hinted at interest in becoming an investor in Diamond in exchange for streaming rights for its 40 sports teams. Currently. only five teams would be able to exchange their digital rights (Tigers, Royals, Marlins, Brewers and Rays, according to Drellich), but if the Twins were to become involved once again with the Diamond, they would be able to do the same. 

    The terms of such a deal are entirely speculative. Amazon had exclusive rights to around 20 Yankees games last season as part of its own ownership stake in YES Network. Games were offered at no additional cost to Amazon Prime members, which is around $15 a month. It would mean those without any interest in a cable bundle would be able to stream Twins games.

    The biggest question here is: how much money would any of these options bring in for the Twins? Bally's has already hinted that any deal would be at a much lower fee than the $54 million received by the team in 2023. A deal with Bally's alongside Amazon would still likely leave a deficit, meaning any hope for higher payroll spending by the team in free agency would remain remote.

    Would you accept a deal where the Twins return to Bally's? Would you like to see the team streaming on Amazon Prime? Sound off in the comments.

    Peter Labuza is a Minnesota native living in California as a researcher for IATSE Local 600. When not watching the Twins, he works to support 10,000 camera crew members working in Hollywood, broadcast news, and sports achieve fair wages and working conditions.
    Follow Peter Labuza on Twitter: labuzamovies

    Follow Twins Daily For Minnesota Twins News & Analysis

     Share
     Share
    Go to articles

    Recent Twins Articles

    Recent Twins Videos

    Community Blogs

    • Twins Win Green Glove For Earth Day
    • Minnesota Twins Re-Instate Royce Lewis from 10 Day IL and make a flurry of roster moved

    Forum Topics

    • Twins (Ober) vs Rays (McClanahan): 4/25/26, 3:10pm
    • Royce Lewis Rumors Surface as MLB Insider Floats Trade Possibility

    Twins Top Prospects

    Marek Houston

    Cedar Rapids Kernels - A+, SS
    The 22-year-old went 2-for-5 on Friday night, his fourth straight multi-hit game. Heading into the week, he was hitting .246/.328/.404 (.732). Four games later, he is hitting .303/.361/.447 (.808).
    View All Top Prospects
    The Ultimate Guide to the Minnesota Twins Minor League Team Affiliates

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    Featured Comments

    nicksaviking

    nicksaviking 38,018

  • Community Moderator

    • Posted

    1 hour ago, Cris E said:

    That works because Apple only picks two games a week and makes an event out of them. If they were flooded with 12-15 a night for half a year and had to raise the payout substantially for the opportunity they wouldn't be nearly as pleased with the numbers.

    As far as ad revenue goes, baseball works best selling local ads that can play off the fans' relationship with the club. And until the post-season, most national games won't draw viewers that aren't fans of one or the other participant. So maybe games on Apple or Amazon should be produced and marketed towards the local clubs and merely broadcast nationally.  But as streamers make up more of the viewership there will be more day-after speed viewing where most ads are completely skipped and we'll have to see how advertisers react.

    Whatever, I hardly expect a 3x increase in subscriptions at a price point anywhere near the cost buried in a cable subscription, What was the ESPN tax, $8 per household? RSNs were about the same I think. MLB teams are not going to sell their games for $8 a month. So as they shed the cable subsidy they are going to need to charge 3x just to tread water, and to grow beyond the old income level will be very hard at $20-25 a month.

    I get local adds during a Monday Night Football game between a New York team and LA team, I don't think local targeted advertising is an issue with the streaming giants.

    Riverbrian

    Riverbrian 42,821

  • Old-Timey Member

    • Posted

    2 hours ago, Cris E said:

    That works because Apple only picks two games a week and makes an event out of them. If they were flooded with 12-15 a night for half a year and had to raise the payout substantially for the opportunity they wouldn't be nearly as pleased with the numbers.

    As far as ad revenue goes, baseball works best selling local ads that can play off the fans' relationship with the club. And until the post-season, most national games won't draw viewers that aren't fans of one or the other participant. So maybe games on Apple or Amazon should be produced and marketed towards the local clubs and merely broadcast nationally.  But as streamers make up more of the viewership there will be more day-after speed viewing where most ads are completely skipped and we'll have to see how advertisers react.

    Whatever, I hardly expect a 3x increase in subscriptions at a price point anywhere near the cost buried in a cable subscription, What was the ESPN tax, $8 per household? RSNs were about the same I think. MLB teams are not going to sell their games for $8 a month. So as they shed the cable subsidy they are going to need to charge 3x just to tread water, and to grow beyond the old income level will be very hard at $20-25 a month.

    Great posts

    This is going to produce a churn that hits like a hurricane. The ride will be rough.

    I'm not sure people realize what it will be like to take away accessibility from demographics who are actually consuming to provide accessibility to demographics who are not consuming much.

    Being accessible to more is the only way to lessen the pain.   

    It's necessary though... actually overdue.

    The exclusivity that is necessary to secure these RSN deals keeps them locked into demographics that are aging out. While baseball becomes out of sight out of mind to younger demographics more interesting to advertisers.

    The very same younger demographics that are telling baseball execs in focus groups that the game is too long and slow.   

    Baseball needs to remove the third party, take control of their product, do a much better job marketing the product and the players in the new world they are entering. Then wait for the demographics to grow.

    It might take a little while but the alternative is to follow cable on the path it is taking. 

     

     

    Eris

    Eris 1,629

  • Verified Member

    • Posted

    8 hours ago, Cris E said:

     

    The cable deals worked because bundling gave a huge subsidy to the sports contracts that unbundling cleanly removes.  You need separate subscription dollars to replace that piece on top of viable advertising 

    This is so true. The average cable bill as a result of sports bundling was $20/customer. Of course spread over the entire customer base. $100/month bills has led to the current cable cutting. If 1/3 (I think this number is high) of the households are sports watchers, The unbundled sports would need to charge users $60 or more / month to maintain the services. Very few people would pay that amount of money. 
     

    I think the MLB streaming service is illustrative. It is slightly more than $20/month with local teams being blacked out. I live in NJ a can watch most of the Twins games. I would not pay $20/month if I could not watch the Twins. Even at the current price, I am thinking of switching to radio as I watch more than than half the games on the radio anyway. 

    Jeff K

    Jeff K 1,338

  • Verified Member

    • Posted

    22 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

    Yep... It's in the details. 

    IMO... No matter what. 

    The Minnesota Twins (All of Major League Baseball) needs to be everywhere, everyone is, on whatever device. Anything that prevents that is a huge mistake. 

    If that costs them financially in the short term so be it. This NEEDS to be about the future. Everyone can see the cable demographics and understand what they mean. 

    If any form of blackout is part of the deal... walk away. 

    I fully agree with you.  It's time to rip the band aid off and move into the future.  And it's not cable tv and it's not bally's

     

     

    TopGunn#22

    TopGunn#22 4,223

  • Verified Member

    • Posted

    I'm currently a Charter customer because I can watch Twins, T-Wolves and Wild games thru Balleys.  The Wolves and Wild are supposed to be guaranteed until the completion of their regular seasons.  Twins baseball will overlap that.  I'm just waiting to see what my options are once a Twins decision has been reached.  I have Prime, and I'm pretty sure I would like to find a way NOT to pay $275 per month to Charter.  I get my internet and cable TV from Charter so that $275 is not just TV.  But something's going to change around April 1st for me.  

    As fans of a smaller than large market team, and if MLB ends up taking over all of the teams broadcasting rights as RSN continue to go bankrupt and cable TV as we've known it ceases to exist, I wonder if some form of revenue sharing of all broadcast fees/income is ultimately possible?  It would be nice to be able to see the Cincinnati Reds retain their players.  Or Tampa Bay having the financial ability to keep a Glasnow if they wanted to.  This is why the Giants and Jets or Chargers and Rams don't just gobble up all the high priced talent.

    Would that mean a salary cap would come to baseball?  I doubt it.  The Players Union has made it abundantly clear they would rather see the sport burned to the ground than accede to a salary cap.  But with this tectonic change in broadcast revenues throughout MLB happening I wonder where all this is headed.  

    Heiny

    Heiny 890

  • Verified Member

    • Posted

    I would like to see MLBtv take over the whole damn shooting match.  Give me the oppurtunity to subscribe to watch any MLB game at any time,  plus any minor league game that is broadcast at any time.  I would be willing to pay a reasonable monthly subscription fee for that oppurtunity.  Then for a smaller monthly subscription they could offer local MLB and an add-on of their minor league affiliates games.  No one should be blacked out of the team they choose to watch. Figure out the dollars that it would take for this to work and I think this would work best for everyone.  As long as they don't get too greedy and price themselves right out of most fans homes.

    adorduan

    adorduan 1,359

  • Verified Member

    • Posted

    18 hours ago, Althebum82 said:

    My answer to your final two question is maybe (but, this doesn't help me any because I am unable to get Bally's currently) and hell no, Amazon is evil.

    More evil that Sinclair? I don't think that's possible.

    IndyTwinsFan

    IndyTwinsFan 2,665

  • Verified Member

    • Posted

    On 12/20/2023 at 11:19 AM, DJL44 said:

    I have heard lots of positives about the MLB.tv app.

    They already have a path forward for streaming - use MLB.tv. For cable - use the MLB channel plus a couple of alternates.

    I agree with this thought.  I used the MLB.tv streaming option this past season and found it to be a fairly good experience.  However, because I live well outside any reasonable definition of the local market, I can't speak for any local broadcast options. 

    IndyTwinsFan

    IndyTwinsFan 2,665

  • Verified Member

    • Posted

    14 hours ago, Heiny said:

    I would like to see MLBtv take over the whole damn shooting match.  Give me the oppurtunity to subscribe to watch any MLB game at any time,  plus any minor league game that is broadcast at any time.  I would be willing to pay a reasonable monthly subscription fee for that oppurtunity.  Then for a smaller monthly subscription they could offer local MLB and an add-on of their minor league affiliates games.  No one should be blacked out of the team they choose to watch. Figure out the dollars that it would take for this to work and I think this would work best for everyone.  As long as they don't get too greedy and price themselves right out of most fans homes.

    I agree wholeheartedly with this thought.  Therefore, I'd give two thumbs up to this post, if I could. 

    Major League Ready

    Major League Ready 10,427

  • Verified Member

    • Posted

    On 12/21/2023 at 9:31 AM, TopGunn#22 said:

    I'm currently a Charter customer because I can watch Twins, T-Wolves and Wild games thru Balleys.  The Wolves and Wild are supposed to be guaranteed until the completion of their regular seasons.  Twins baseball will overlap that.  I'm just waiting to see what my options are once a Twins decision has been reached.  I have Prime, and I'm pretty sure I would like to find a way NOT to pay $275 per month to Charter.  I get my internet and cable TV from Charter so that $275 is not just TV.  But something's going to change around April 1st for me.  

    As fans of a smaller than large market team, and if MLB ends up taking over all of the teams broadcasting rights as RSN continue to go bankrupt and cable TV as we've known it ceases to exist, I wonder if some form of revenue sharing of all broadcast fees/income is ultimately possible?  It would be nice to be able to see the Cincinnati Reds retain their players.  Or Tampa Bay having the financial ability to keep a Glasnow if they wanted to.  This is why the Giants and Jets or Chargers and Rams don't just gobble up all the high priced talent.

    Would that mean a salary cap would come to baseball?  I doubt it.  The Players Union has made it abundantly clear they would rather see the sport burned to the ground than accede to a salary cap.  But with this tectonic change in broadcast revenues throughout MLB happening I wonder where all this is headed.  

    Broadcasting rights have absolutely nothing to do with revenue sharing.  They could split the revenue anyway they please under the existing system.  The Dodgers / Yankees, etc are a business worth billions.  Redistributing that income going forward would drastically reduce the value of their franchises.  Why in the world would they agree?  It's just slightly more likely than Jeff Bezos agree to share their massive revenue with less fortunate competitors.  The only way this happens is if the revenue disparity kills the rest of the league.   

    BTW ... when the luxury tax threshold was being discussed during the last CBA, there were very few people here who stood up and said they hope the owners don't give in on increasing the level of disparity.  The players actually started out pushing for less revenue sharing.  Why, because teams like the Dodgers can go wild and their mistakes won't cripple them.  The top revenue teams are therefore more inclined to take a giant leap.  (See Ohtani / Yamamoto) The players also pushed hard for increasing the luxury tax threshold. Should we expect them to care more about parity than earning the most dollars possible.  The players want that revenue advantage in the largest markets and it's also too the benefit of the league in general to put the stars in the largest markets.

    SteveLV

    SteveLV 1,121

  • Verified Member

    • Posted

    The big markets would agree if they wanted to part of a league.  Just like Dallas and NY in the NFL.

    A rising tide floats all boats.  If you kill the competitiveness of the league, or the perception of competitiveness, you will lose fans.

    True parity is one of the reasons the NFL is the King of all sports leagues.

    Baseball is a wonderful game, but the professional sports league is in real danger.

    Riverbrian

    Riverbrian 42,821

  • Old-Timey Member

    • Posted

    22 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

    Broadcasting rights has absolutely nothing to do with revenue sharing.  They could split the revenue anyway they please under the existing system.  The Dodgers / Yankees, etc are a business worth billions.  Redistributing that income going forward would drastically reduce the value of their franchises.  Why in the world would they agree?  It's just slightly more likely than Jeff Bezos agree to share their massive revenue with less fortunate competitors.  The only way this happens is if the revenue disparity kills the rest of the league.   

    BTW ... when the luxury tax threshold was being discussed during the last CBA, there were very few people here who stood up and said they hope the owners don't give in on increasing the level of disparity.  The players actually started out pushing for less revenue sharing.  Why, because teams like the Dodgers can go wild and their mistakes won't cripple them.  The top revenue teams are therefore more inclined to take a giant leap.  (See Ohtani / Yamamoto) The players also pushed hard for increasing the luxury tax threshold. Should we expect them to care more about parity than earning the most dollars possible.  The players want that revenue advantage in the largest markets and it's also too the benefit of the league in general to put the stars in the largest markets.

    Great post

    You are exactly right.

    I just have one disagreement and that is the last sentence. I don't believe it is to the benefit of the league to put the stars in the largest markets. I understand the more bang for the buck logic and the market disparity between New York and Pittsburgh.

    However... even the smallest market has a population base worth providing hope to and therefore interest in the product. 

    Pittsburgh may be small in comparison to New York but there are a lot of consumers living in Pittsburgh.

    What's that old quote: A million Here and a billion there... pretty soon you are talking about real money.   

    All those small markets add up collectively. If you want the entire country to care about baseball you have to give them hope and therefore a reason to care.  

    The Population of the United States is 332 Million,

    The Top Ten Markets combined is maybe 65 Million. 

    Hope in Pittsburgh is vital. Hope in Kansas City matters if you want to increase your reach and interest in the game.

    A system that funnels superstars to the largest markets isn't the best thing for 332 million people.  

    I agree with you though'... The Players union doesn't care about that. They want the big markets to spend like they do, then they want to crank the PR machine and cement the word tanking in our brains just to bully the smaller markets for not keeping up when they can't.   

     

    LanceJS

    LanceJS 119

  • Verified Member

    • Posted

    I have Prime, so that would be okay. Since I live in another state, Bally’s would be okay too as I have used mlb.tv for several years for Twins broadcasts, so that would stay the same. Either way works for me. If they went to local over the air, I am concerned that out of market fans would not be able to view them. 



    Create an account or sign in to comment

    You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create an account

    Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

    Register a new account

    Sign in

    Already have an account? Sign in here.

    Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...