The Angelos family has a deal in place to sell the Orioles to a group led by David Rubenstein, though that deal still needs to be approved by the league. Commissioner Rob Manfred spoke to the media today about various topics including that sale. Matt Weyrich of The Baltimore Sun relayed some of those comments while also reporting that the league has the power to require the O’s to relinquish ownership of the Nationals’ television rights as part of approving the sale, though it’s not currently clear if they plan to do so. “Change always produces opportunity,” Manfred said when asked about the situation. “We’ll see. We’ll see.”
When the league was moving the Montreal Expos to Washington for the 2005 season, a compromise was reached with the Orioles. Since the league was moving a club into Baltimore’s territory, there was an agreement wherein the two clubs would co-own the Mid-Atlantic Sports Network, which would broadcast the games of both clubs. The Orioles owned 90% of the network at that time and the Nats just 10%, with the Nats gaining an extra 1% each year.
The two clubs have been battling each other over the revenues from that network ever since, reaching a settlement just last June for the 2012-2016 period. In December, Sports Business Journal reported that the two sides agreed on a deal for the 2017-2021 period.
In addition to those difficulties, the MASN dispute may have had an impact on the planned sale of the Nationals. The Lerner family announced in April of 2022 that they would explore the possibility of selling the club. Reporting from about this time a year ago suggested the MASN dispute was a key factor in the lack of progress towards a sale. Given those factors, MLB’s power to put a finger on the scale is a significant development.
Ted Leonsis, who already owns the Washington Wizards, Washington Capitals, and Washington Mystics, has been seen as a favorite to purchase the Nationals. He also owns Monumental Sports Network, which broadcasts those three clubs. Purchasing the Nationals and adding them to Monumental’s lineup would seemingly be a business decision that would make sense for him, but the fact that the Nats don’t own their own rights complicates things. Rubenstein’s group is also acquiring a controlling stake of MASN in purchasing the Orioles and it was reported last week that Rubenstein could sell the Orioles’ share of MASN to Leonsis.
There are many elements at play but it seems the league is motivated to approve the sale of the Orioles fairly quickly. “I’d like to get it done,” Manfred said. “I’ve never been comfortable with protracted approval processes. Once it’s public that there’s going to be a sale, I think it leaves both the departing group — [John Angelos is] not really departing but — the one who’s no longer going to be the control person and the one who’s about to become it, it leaves them both in an awkward spot. So, we just want to get it done as quickly as possible.” The pace of the process will depend upon the paperwork done by Angelos and Rubenstein, Weyrich reports, with a possibility for it to be completed as soon as six weeks from now.
There is zero chance the sale will be approved without the MASN situation with the Nats being resolved. The Angelos family will not care as they’re exiting.
The resolution of the MASN dispute will hopefully get the sale of the Nationals going as well.
Yes. The sale of two franchises depends on a resolution, which is why it will happen.
Lol @ Angelos not caring when there’s a clear avenue to sue MLB over this.
Sale never gonna happen. We’re screwed.
Reducing the Orioles share of MASN would theoretically reduce the value of the ownership stake. It could possibly mess up the Orioles sale depending on the terms
The article implied that the Angelos Family would sell the Orioles to Rubenstein, and then Rubenstein would sell the Orioles’ stake in MASN. The second separate deal shouldn’t affect the first.
Quick note: the Orioles could not have prevented the Nationals from being moved to DC. They could have prevented an AL franchise from being moved to DC, but not an NL team. But Angelos could (and almost certainly would) have litigated the move, which would not have merely dragged out the process. It also presented the risk that MLB’s insider trading of franchises – MLB taking over the Expos from Luria, Luria getting the Marlins, and John Henry moving to take over the Red Sox – would have been put into the public eye through discovery. Selig wanted no part of that, so he bought off Angelos with a deal that the Angelos family has used to line their pockets ever since.
Yes, Angelos litigated the rights fees for a decade before finally being compelled to meet his contract obligations. But MLB was fine with that, because the litigation was focused on the agreement itself, not on the franchise shenanigans prior to the move to DC. So they got what they wanted (keeping the franchise shenanigans under the rug) even as Angelos dragged his feet.on the payments.
MLB baseball rules restrict the movement of any franchise in to another teams territory.
That being said, Rob Manfred is a weasel who hates baseball and the fans
Wrong.as jccfromdc said, that only applies if the teams are in the same league.
Then why could the Giants block the movement of the As to San Jose? Just curious how that worked.
Because the above doesn’t know what they are talking about.
In the early 1990s the Giants wanted to move to San Jose. The owner of the As gave the Giants the rights to San Jose. The As wanted the move to happen so they could attract disaffected Giants fans.
baseballprospectus.com/news/article/17015/franchis…
A team wishing to relocate must obtain ¾ of the votes of the owners in the affected league, plus a simple majority in the other league. However, any team can block another major league or minor league team from playing within 15 miles of its territory (each team’s territory is defined differently by Rule 52 but is usually the county the stadium is in and all counties next to it).
Yep less than 40 miles away from each other
But Baltimore acquired DC as its territory after the 2nd coming of the Senators moved to Texas.
Hence the reason Angelos had the power to prevent the move.
The US Congress was looking into whether MLB should have its anti trust exemption. MLB did not want to lose that exemption. The solution was to put a team in DC. Baltimore paid the price, because the rest of the league voted for it. There hasn’t been any discussion by Congress about the anti trust exemption since.
Having a TV deal is a good problem to have 🙁
That’s bad that the Nationals have spent money in the past 15 years and won a world series yet the O’s cry poor and don’t even try. And yes the drafted well and stocked their big league club and minors with great talent they haven’t yet tried to get their young players signed long term like we have seen with the Braves players there Mariners with Julio Rodriguez or the Royals now have with Bobby Witt.
They need that new owners that want to win because you don’t pay multiple billions of dollars on a franchise to just go cheap and not even try.
apparently you don’t recall when Os had one of the top 10 payrolls in baseball
Over 5 yr period from 2012 to 2016, most
wins in the game. By 2017, it was rebuild time but Mr. Angelos , old and in failing health, didn’t have time on his side to go through that process so he “kept the band together” a year or so too long plus added guys like Alex Cobb. Disaster.
In that 5 year period the Orioles won 444 games; the Nationals won 458; the Dodgers won 455. And there were other teams that won more games.
In AL not all MLB.
So much stupidity in your comment, Braves.
This is the most inaccurate rendition of Orioles history I’ve ever read.
Sorta assumes the standard boilerplate small ball club complaints, and applies it to the Os. I’m not supporting Angelos family at all, but it’s not simply about not spending. There’s been periods when the Os have spent in the last 30 years. Have they spent wisely? Due to Peter Angelos’ interventions, mostly not, but that’s a whole diff argument than what this poster is saying. The current regime of lack of spending is the approach since John Angelos took over. It’s not been like that most of the Angelos tenure.
The team’s revenue from TV took a major hit when WSH got their franchise. I would guess that payroll dropped just as revenue dropped. It may not have been from day one, but once litigation started and disputed money put aside, the change hit home.
You don’t actually watch baseball or know what has gone on in MLB, Butt-head, we can see.
Manfred seems pretty openly corrupt so I’m assuming leverage for executive salary bonuses?
So, take a small market franchise and try to strip away more revenue from them to help a big market franchise? LOL. That sounds about right…
There is room for a compromise, maybe keep the current formula for 4-5 more years and then have it replaced with something even and equal.
I agree. MASN is trash, but if it was possible for the Nationals to get 50% ownership, over time, I suspect a lot of these issues would disappear.
Nats can move back to Montreal and get 100%
honestly, they’d split the Blue Jays 100% of Canada. How about the Vancouver ExPats? lol Do it.
By now everyone can see the O’s and Nats can co-exist in the same area, neither is having their revenue hampered just because of the other’s presence. You could see the concern when the Nats first came in but those concerns seem disproven to me by now. Literally what gets you your revenue and viewership and attendance is putting a good team on the field. My O’s really just need to wash their hands of this masn battle and be done with it. That being said, I can’t expect businessmen to just give up profits and power just because its the fair thing to do for someone else,
Camden was always packed full before the Nationals garbage.
The Orioles attendance steadily dropped from 1998 (3.68 mil) to 2004 (2.74 mil). Camden most definitely was not always packed full before the Nationals came to DC, unless you’re only referring to Yankees games. Failing to put a competitive team on the field from 1998-2011 is to blame for any attendance decline.
Agreed, far less to do with the nats than not having a good team for fans to watch.
Agreed. It’s been too long a wait for the Orioles to get to the level where they can consistently draw with their play on the field.
When the Orioles returned to being one of the best teams in MLB over the 2012-2016 seasons, the attendance didn’t rebound – and the reason was because MLB planted a franchise in Baltimore’s territory. Claiming that is/was not a major factor in lower attendance is either blindly ignorant or a bald-faced lie.
Personally I think that timing was more coincidence than being caused by the nats. The O’s were definitely not built for success at any juncture (prospect wise or front office/development wise) when the Nationals came to be. They had a couple of exciting seasons in there but nothing structured to promote long term success.
Agree w the other posters here. To get a flavor of those 2000s teams:
Those were the days we were hanging our hopes on Billy Rowell, Matt Riley, Daniel Cabrera, and Erik Bedard. And there wasn’t much else. Most of them were ignored by national press and other mlb teams, and hyped amongst Orioles outlets. Most of them flamed out. Occasionally we ran into a surprise like, Melvin Mora, but our teams were also filled with fringe prospects. Occasionally, Angelos would inexplicably sign a Miguel Tejada, without much regard where we were on the ML talent cycle. There was no plan. All of this resulted in mediocre and losing teams. That had a ton more with hurting attendance than the Nats.
Overlooked is that the Nats were also a losing team until the same year the Orioles returned to winning. Nobody being honest can claim that the MLB moving a franchise to DC did not have a major impact on attendance, corporate sales, sponsorships, merchandising, etc.
They should settle it on the field like men.
Tim Anderson for the O’s, and Jose Ramirez for the Nats, eh?
how about Joey Bats representing the Nats and former Oriole Rougned Odor with the right to whiney Jose Bautisa’s jaw?
Not a Jose Bautista fan at all but I’ll give him some props for having a good chin, didn’t get dropped there. That Odor right looked heavy and landed flush on the jaw.
Nats should have their own network and return MASN back to the O’s. At the time, Baltimore was generous with offering Washington some TV. It wasn’t meant to be a long term answer for Washington. Just a charity to help the organization from bankruptcy and making it somewhat profitable. I think it’s time Washington tries to find their own network or find a network who would put them into their programming.
If Ted Leonsis does buy the Nationals, how much will NBA, NHL, and WNBA have an impact on how many games are viewable for the Nationals fans. From Pittsburgh side of things, Root Sports gave the Pirates 70% of the season coverage so there wasn’t much conflicting issues with the Penguins. I don’t see how it would benefit the Nationals to be aired on the same network with 3 other sporting revenues. A 4th would make this ver complicated. Baseball starts near the end of the NBA and NHL season and baseball ends in October (unless they make the postseason) as NBA and NHL seasons kicks off. It is any interesting scenario and be grateful the Washington Football Team is t on this network too lol
MASN was not meant to help the Nationals . It was done to protect the Orioles television market. By granting the Orioles a monopoly on TV rights it greatly hamstrung the Nationals. The MASN deal benefits the Orioles. It’s in the Orioles best interest to keep the Nationals TV rights. If they were to relinquish it there would be no need for cable/satellite systems from DC on south to carry the station. Bottom line the Nationals would love to get out from the MASN agreement and sell their rights to the highest bidder.
Nats encroached on O’s territory which is why that happened.
They would just air something on a “second” network during scheduling conflicts. When the Orioles and Nationals play at the same time, at present, one team is on MASN, the other is on MASN 2.
I wonder if they can defer the money until later. The Nats have been big on that longer before the Dodgers became experts
“I wonder if they can defer”…You’re right about that, the Lerner family was already deferring contracts when LA’s Andrew Friedman was just a young Tampa Bay intern. And if you look up the word “defer” in the dictionary you’ll see a picture of Ted Lerner off to the side.
This TV deal has been in dispute for years and it increasingly feels like it’s going be a lifetime before this is ever resolved. If Lerner isn’t going to open his wallet he should just sell the team with or without the tv deal settled. It’s not doing him or the fans any good at this point.
I thought they did settle on rights fees for 2017 to 2021.
baltimoresun.com/2023/12/15/orioles-nationals-masn…
The MASN deal never made sense. It would be like the Brewers controlling the TV rights for the Cubs or White Sox.
The other way around, you should say. The Cubs and White Sox were established in the region decades before the Brewers came along from Seattle.
… have you ever been to DC? Or Baltimore? They’re… very close together.
Yep the stadiums are less than 40 miles from each other
I’ll start popping the popcorn.
New owners have several billion reasons not to care too much about the TV revenue. Just let the nationals keep 40-50% and call it a day.
First they take the Orioles fan base and give it DC in exchange for their TV rights.
Now they wanna take away the TV rights.
…so what do the Orioles get then for giving up 100’s of thousands of fans, and millions in revenue. Scorn.
I hope all other 29 teams get a franchise placed within an hours drive of their team and get nothing for it.
Anyone NOT supporting the Orioles is saying they would give up 1/2 their fan/revenues for nothing.
Thought so.
If your fans can be given away, then they’re not fans.
Your gift now is a new owner.
LordD99 — They weren’t given away, they were bought.
Not asking for gifts, just the rights of a franchise.
If you take something from someone, there is a cost.
The Nationals owner knew the TV rights deal when he bought the team from MLB, so disputing it now is a little like buyer’s remorse.
Kinda like when the O’s were placed in the Senators market huh?
what ere the TV fees paid to teams back then?
IHLgulls —
More like like when the Senators were placed in the Orioles market.
Or when the whole city of DC was placed in Baltimores market. 🙂
(Now, if your gonna use history, you’re gonna have to use it all, or none at all)
You seem confused. The OG Senators were in the market long, long before the St. Louis Browns came to Baltimore. By your logic I guess the O’s theft of fans is what led the Senators to Minnesota.
IHL — I’m not referring to 1954. More like 1890. The Baltimore Orioles existed before 1954. They became the NY Yankees (there’s a Baltimore orphan who grew up rooting for his home team Orioles, before he became a Red Sox/Yankees named Babe Ruth).
The Orioles were in Baltimore before the Senators were in DC.
Not confused…just know something you didn’t.
Hmm 2 failed franchises and intervening decades before a return (not counting minor league teams of course) sure sounds familiar. So again, it’s odd that you don’t have same disdain for the Browns encroachment of the Senators territory that you do for the Nats.
IHL —
As far as Senators, I know virtually nothing about the MLB politics at the time with regards to Franchises rights. If/how the Senators ownership viewed Baltimore, or if there was a similar payment for their rights or not, I couldn’t say. Do you have insight into their ownerships rights/position on Baltimore team at the time?
Regardless of the past, the present day relationship between the franchises is as follows; Baltimore had the rights to the area, they agreed to Expos move IF they were compensated for it. Theb MLB and the Lerners Agreed to TV rights being tied to Baltimore through MASN and allowing the Orioles a cut of the revenue for perpetuity.
The Lerners bought the Nationals by agreeing to those terms. Now MLB wants to remove the agreement reached by all parties, to help the sale of the Nationals. It sold originally with the MASN deal, and Lerner got a discount. Now he wants more $$$ and would like the the very thing that he agreed to to go away so HE can make more money. (Oh, the other owners get $$$ for sales of franchises too, so all other owners want Nats to sell for big $$$ too).
The MASN deal is an acknowledgement of the Orioles franchise rights. Removing it is tantamount to voiding the Expos move to DC.
If I agree to buy your car for payments of 1000$ over 12 months, then I get the car dealer to void that agreement w/ you after 1 month, and turn around and sell it w/o my debt to you…how would you feel? I just got your 12,000$ car for $1000, and then sold it for $12,000? You good with that?
I knew that actually just making a point
What about the Nats franchise rights? Is 1 more important than the other? It will be interesting to see how that goes…
cool thing for the Os is they get Cal Ripken Jr back involved as a part OWNER if it goes thru
@O’sSay,
I hear the team name, Indians is available now that Cleveland’s not using it.
MLB may also have some used blankets for us.
Best thing would be to move the Orioles to New York and name them the Highlanders and move the Nationals back to Montréal. No more TV issues.
The Orioles used to be the St Louis Browns. The Yankees used to be the Orioles.
Wonder how this impacts the sale of the Orioles. I would think that whether the Nationals rights are owned by MASN or not would impact the price valuation.
only fair thing is to trade the nat’s rights in MASN/Nats TV rights for a small % stake in the club. then the Os continue to make money for the Nats being in their territory.
truthfully in a decade this won’t matter unless MASN and others like it can make money off streaming. These companies are going bankrupt as they can’t sell the service to local stations for the money they used to. Teams payouts will go down or to zero if they go bankrupt and salaries/etc will crash except in NYC and LA. .
No one can own two teams even if it is partial..
Also tv rights have to be agreed to so if the team owns the tv network they most likely own their broadcasting rights and would have to be given huge bucks to sell/lease those rights as the network would be worthless most likely without the team.
The league gets another chance to screw the Orioles. Build your stadium downtown and we won’t give DC a team. Oh sorry we lied but we’ll give 90% of the TV revenue – oh sorry we’re going to take that away also.
I recommend a sale clock. Speed things up, keep the young fans engaged.
The MASN dispute has shown signs of finally ending, as the two clubs have agreed on a revenue split for all years through 2021. If the Nats get sold, though, it could be another mess in the courts. Leonsis wants his own sports media empire, unshared with the Orioles or anybody else. Stay tuned for more legal fun and games.
Hey, it’s just business, and very profitable business it is. Who gets what is less interesting than who pays–and don’t be surprised when the taxpayer, and the fan buying the product, pay.
Businesses sell their product to the consumer, who pays for it. Business 101. Are you really surprised by this? The price of a candy bar has gone up, but its the same product. Perhaps you could find a site to argue that?
With the amount of people cutting the cord these TV deals are going to become irrelevant soon enough. Get something for the rights while you can Baltimore because their value is only going to plummet.
Sure seems like it’s in the best interests of MLB to get this resolved so each team can choose their own network and 1 team is not getting higher % of revenue than the other. The Os didn’t have any restrictions like that when they moved to Baltimore in ’54 and the Senators were already in DC. Can you imagine if the Mets or Yankees had do deal w that with each other?it could affect a team’s ability to be competitive… Mr Manfred please get that hindrance/restriction removed asap and congrats to Mr Rubenstein a true American patriot!