Dodgers TV Deal Allows For Limited Revenue Sharing

The Dodgers' 2011 bankruptcy court settlement gives the club's new owners a chance to cap income subject to revenue-sharing from a proposed regional sports network, five people familiar with the agreement's special terms tell John Helyar, Steven Church, and Scott Soshnick of Bloomberg.com.  The deal, which was first reported by Bill Shaikin of the Los Angeles Times, calls for revenue sharing from a TV deal to be capped at $84MM while TV sports-rights experts say the team could net as much as $225MM a year from a network’s rights fees.

The terms of the agreement likely boosted the value of the franchise, resulting in their $2.15 billion sale in April and allowing them to make upwards of $400MM in future commitments to Adrian Gonzalez, Hanley Ramirez, and others.  One TV sports-rights expert notes that the deal could prompt other owners to seek similar treatment and relief from revenue sharing in relation to broadcast rights.

Meanwhile, Robert Manfred Jr., an MLB executive vice president who deals with revenue-sharing matters, insists that the team will share based on its income from the actual contract and not the settlement-set $84MM figure.  Manfred Jr. went on to say that the club's record-setting price tag was the result of it being a flaghsip team in the second-biggest media market and not because of the special terms related to the TV deal.


16 Responses to Dodgers TV Deal Allows For Limited Revenue Sharing Leave a Reply

  1. 55saveslives 3 years ago

    Shady

  2. ugotrpk3113 3 years ago

    Somewhere in London, John Henry is complaining to his 30 year old bombshell about this.

  3. BlueSkyLA 3 years ago

    Mr. Manfred Jr. is trying to paint a smiley-face on this on awful situation on behalf of MLB. He must know that the bankruptcy judge allowed McCourt to modify the normal franchise sale process and net himself maybe a billion more than he’d likely have gotten for the team otherwise. It may have had less to do with the media rights than other process changes, but the bottom line is that bankruptcy is now clearly the way to go for anyone wanting to sell a MLB franchise and maximize their take.

  4. $21621694 3 years ago

    I am confused. The team filed for bankruptcy, was sold. Then the new owner group nets a multi million dollar TV deal and somehow are able to avoid sharing some of its revenues?

    Why did they sell this team in the first place? I don’t know much about the dodgers, and I’m trying to get a better insight so please save the smartass comments

    • BlueSkyLA 3 years ago

      The Dodgers were bankrupt. I’m not sure I understand the confusion.

      • $21621694 3 years ago

        If they were bankrupt and about to sign this TV deal that would bring enough money to sign every high $ player out there, why was the team sold in the first place?

        It’s mind bending to imagine a team in LA can be bankrupt. 2nd largest market in the US

        • Tko11 3 years ago

          The fans hated him and plus he made a huge profit by selling the team.

        • BlueSkyLA 3 years ago

          The current media contract with Fox doesn’t expire until after next season. McCourt tried to get the bankruptcy court to allow him to rebid the contract ahead of time. Neither Fox or MLB would allow that. McCourt had already borrowed money from Fox and MLB to pay current accounts. In addition the McCourts were in the middle of a nasty divorce battle and were suing each other over who owned what. A total mess. Seriously, you missed all of this?

          • $21621694 3 years ago

            Thanks! I knew bits a pieces but now it makes more sense. It’s nice to see this team spending money because they certainly can hopefully they will be competitive next year

  5. Dodgersarelife 3 years ago

    Does this mean “we” can spend even more money! Wow, this seems to be a disgusting loophole the owners took advantage of.

  6. Exposfan 3 years ago

    Meanwhile in Pittsburgh and Kansas City…

  7. BlueSkyLA 3 years ago

    It’s the solution not the problem.

  8. Tko11 3 years ago

    I think you mean socialism. Without some sort of redistribution how can you expect smaller markets to compete with bigger markets?

  9. $21621694 3 years ago

    Remember the expos/marlins/redsox ownership musical chairs? that was shady!

  10. Tko11 3 years ago

    You know whats even more shady? No revenue sharing or luxury tax. If the Yankees payroll is half a billion, who cares? Let them sign Josh Hamilton and Greinke…no big deal Im sure the 50million dollar payrolls would still be able to compete.

  11. Tko11 3 years ago

    The way they always have? By developing talent and not being able to extend them most of the time. Unless of course they go for an early extension which can be a huge risk. I guess your other comment was deemed bad for business?

Leave a Reply