The Braves today announced the launch of BravesVision, a team-owned media entity which will broadcast the club’s games and make them available on television and via streaming. Fans will be able to deal directly with the team to access the broadcasts with no local blackouts. This will include all regular season games except those which are subject to national exclusivities. For those with questions about the details, the club released an FAQ page.
Up until recently, Atlanta was one of several teams with a regional sports network (RSN) deal with Main Street Sports, formerly known as Diamond Sports Group. That company’s portfolio of MLB clubs has been shrinking in recent years as they have hit financial trouble, largely caused by cord cutting. As of the start of this year, Main Street still had deals with nine MLB clubs, including Atlanta. The company missed some payments, which caused all nine teams to terminate their deals in January.
Earlier this month, six of those teams pivoted to having the league handle the broadcasts. Atlanta was one of the three still undetermined, but with some signs they would launch their own broadcast network, which has effectively come to pass with this announcement.
It’s difficult to say how this will impact the club’s bottom line in the long run. As of a few years ago, Atlanta was getting more than $100MM annually from their RSN deal. Travis Sawchik of MLB.com has reported that clubs who have lost their RSN deals and pivoted to new arrangements have been bringing in about 50% less than before, on average.
Atlanta is going a slightly different route than most of the other clubs in this position. The majority of them have handed the reins over to the league. The Rangers have been an exception, as they launched their own network a year ago, with Atlanta now following in that example. Evan Grant of The Dallas Morning News spoke to some team officials about the situation in October. Those employees spoke highly of the increased ratings of the new arrangement but were more cagey about whether the club made as much money as they had on their previous RSN deal.
Down the line, MLB commissioner Rob Manfred has a goal of marketing a streaming package that includes the rights of as many clubs as possible. It will be challenging to get them all on board since many of the large-market clubs have healthy RSN setups that they own or co-own. They will have some reticence about joining a more centralized arrangement that would see them sharing TV revenue with smaller markets.
For fans, today’s news seems to largely be a positive. Due to a dispute in 2024, there were times where the club’s games weren’t even available to some cable subscribers in the local area. Now the majority of the club’s games should be accessible to fans everywhere.
Photo courtesy of Brett Davis, Imagn Images
Sale extension makes a little more sense now
Sounds like something Monty Burns would come up with
Right? cheesy flashing Cartoon tomahawk song icon 24/7
The future Conan?
In the year 2000
Detective Conan?
Let’s watch Sid slide one more time
I prefer saving money via online piracy.
Woah!
Online piracy: is that like the new Rennie Stennett-Andy Van Slyke podcast?
As opposed to real life on the seas piracy?
Oh… ummmmmm
Vanna, Id like an R. Pat: “there are 7 of them. Rrrrrrr!”
Put them back on TBS and call it a day.
That and send in black ops to render Smoltz to a secret offshore site in the Maldives so stupid grandpa takes are never to be heard from again
I was thinking that sending in black ops to render Maddux so he could be cloned would be a good move too.
right, I’ve already seen the Holiday Episode of Modern Family Season 8, and I’m sure The Impractical Jokers will understand.
Every team needs to do this.
I’m sure they would if they could.
They all need to just have a national deal through MLB TV like every other sports league, divide it evenly by 30 and call it a day. No more local TV RSN deals. It has been such a fiasco.
It’s only been a fiasco the last couple of years.
It was a fiasco all along. The big reason for the income disparity between clubs that has grown over time are the local TV deals.
So teams that are popular and/or well run should be paid the same as less popular or more poorly run teams? I don’t get it. Do you think WNBA players should be paid the same as NBA players?
What does that have to do with teams in THE SAME MAJOR LEAGUES sharing TV revenue equally?
It’s not like they are asking them to share equally with the minor league teams.
Could “brave” in your user name have something to do with that? Large market fans don’t like to lose their advantage even though it is killing the sport.
Could Reds in your name have something to do with your bitterness? Teams that generate more money should get more money. I disagree that it’s killing the sport.
The Braves are a success story – its not that long ago Atlanta was a revenue sharing *RECIPIENT* and they’ve transformed themselves, pulling themselves up by their bootstraps, into a revenue sharing *PAYOR*
If Atlanta could do it without needing the league to set it up for them, every team could work on improving their finances and becoming a net payouts instead of a leech on the system.
This should be every team’s goal. Less socialism and less giving the fruits of successful teams efforts to those who dont put in the work themselves.
You didn’t mention the change in ownership. But that didn’t fit your narrative either.
Ownership doesn’t change the market, it just changes how the team is run. If anything, it bolsters his point rather than weakening it.
No offense, but better tv deals don’t go to teams because they are more well run. A substantial reason for it is the population in the region that they reside.
I’m with you that if someone gets paid more for situations where it’s deserved and earned but I think you’re kidding yourself if you think tv deals is a reflection of that
@GASoxFan: Can’t find any proof that the Braves have ever been a revenue sharing recipient. They definitely haven’t since Liberty Media bought the team in 2007. Pretty sure they weren’t when Turner or Time Warner owned them either. Payers only. If you know of a time when they were recipients of RS, I’d like to know when. Thanks.
OK, Sox—sorry. I did just see something that said the Braves briefly were recipients in 2017 and 2018 after the 2016 CBA agreement reclassified them. They were ineligible before that due to being classified as a “large market team.” Jumped back into payor status in 2019. Only 2 years they’ve ever been in recipient status.
Jeff: dont confuse being a bottom 10 in the league team with being a net recipient vs net payor.
blogs.fangraphs.com/braves-print-money-for-liberty…
It appears 2018 was the year when the Braves flipped the page between paying out more than they received back.
Got it Sox, thanks for the link.
Welcome Jeff. I figure, if someone else doesnt recall it, and, off the top of my head I cant pin it down exactly, theres got to be others who would be interested as well and worth at least a cursory look for a decent link
This is exactly why a salary cap/salary floor won’t work in MLB. Small market teams like the Marlins, Pirates can’t survive with a $140-150m payroll without more revenue sharing. Otherwise those teams will just go away….
MLB does share
That’s why I said ‘more’ revenue sharing. Gonna have to accelerate that revenue sharing for a $140mm+ salary floor to work for the small market teams.
The Angels play in the same market as the Dodgers, but have never gotten the same TV deal. It is because they are badly run.
Same with the Clippers vs. Lakers.
The Orioles play in the less affluent, smaller part of the MASN market, but have a way better deal than the Nationals. They are better run.
The Braves were a revenue sharing recipient only in 2017-2018. That was only because of the high debt they took on for building the new ballpark. They were a revenue sharing payor since its inception in 1996.
They have always been a large market team, #7 in the most recent DMA rankings. Since 2018, and not including The Battery, they have moved back into the top 5 or 6 revenue teams depending on the source you prefer.
Just some interesting tidbits. The Bay Area moved up to #6 and Boston fell to #9. The Tampa Bay area moved up to #10.
The top 10 media markets are:
NY (largest gain in TV households in the nation at 5%)
LA
Chicago
Dallas-Ft Worth
Philadelphia
San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose
Atlanta
Washington DC/Hagerstown
Boston
Tampa/St Petersburg/Sarasota
Orlando/Daytona Beach remains the largest market without a MLB team at #15. That market is controlled by the Rays.
Sacramento is #20 and after the A’s leave for #40 Las Vegas it will be the 2nd largest market without a MLB team.
Both San Antonio and Austin individually are significantly larger markets than Las Vegas. A team in either city (they are 78 miles apart) would draw from the other as well.
Portland, Raleigh-Durham, and Charlotte are 33-50% larger markets than Las Vegas. You can tell how much of the decision to allow a move to Las Vegas was about gambling.
Money for appearances in the playoffs increases revenue for only the teams that make the playoffs. That is the reward for success. Making a run to the WS is a $150 million boon for a team that plays 9 home games in the playoffs and WS.
Getting paid more just because you are lucky enough to have a franchise in LA instead of Milwaukee or Cincinnati hurts the league. The Dodgers make no money if they don’t have other teams including the Brewers and Reds to play. Share that TV revenue 100%.
Then let’s see who is the better team 4-5 years down the road when no one is able spend triple the payroll of other teams. I believe that the Dodgers will still be good because of the baseball operations infrastructure and brain trust they have developed, but not dominant because of the spending limitations 100% revenue sharing of local TV money would create automatically.
Yes they do and after the current revenue sharing is accounted for there is still a $300+ million disparity in revenue between teams like the Dodgers and Yankees and teams like the Marlins and Rays.
A $140 million salary floor won’t work for the players. It will have to be over $200 million to ensure enough of the revenue is going to the players.
Baltimore is an entirely different market than DC. The only reason the Orioles made more money in the MASN deal is that was the agreement made to allow the Nationals to move to DC. The Nationals portion of that deal was always larger.
I don’t think that is right; some teams like the Braves; dodgers and Yankees have more fan base. I mean really how big of a fan base can the marlins and Rockies have. So the rights should be different. This is why I think the Braves went out on their own. I used to have the mlb package but only watched the Braves. So instead of $29.99 a month etc and Braves get a little. Imagine if they get the whole pay and have more pre and post game stuff.
Metropolitan Miami has about 6.5 million people alone. Thats a pretty sizable fan base, when you add in that there is *no* reason they shouldnt be able to become the closest team for Dominicans to be rooting for, and, the Cuban diaspora has its remaining relatives in cuba… thats a LOT of potential territory to be had, which Tampa bay wont infringe upon.
Colorado is the nearest major team even for up into Salt Lake City.and many other rocky mountain and upper Midwest areas. Denver alone is well above 3 million people. There’s plenty to work with if they put the effort in.
Miami is huge. The Marlins aren’t a small market team – they are a bad organization. The Rockies are like the Braves, actually, relatively geographically isolated and so they have a built in fan base from a wider area.
Cheap owners make excusez.
Lots of other things to do in South Beach during the summer and not much of a loyal fan base that’s been built over the years in South Florida. Terrible baseball market…not much different in Tampa.
Miami is the 18th largest media market, 1th largest among markets that have a MLB team. That makes it a small market. Both Tampa #10 and Orlando #14 are larger. The LA media market has 4 million more TV households than Miami. It is more than 3 times as large as the Miami media market.
The Braves and Rockies are not even close to the same. The Braves are in a market with 2.9 million households. There are 25 cities across 6 states with a population over 100,000 within 350 miles of the Atlanta media market.
Georgia (Within 350 miles of Atlanta)
Augusta (~150 miles)
Columbus (~100 miles)
Macon-Bibb County (~85 miles)
Savannah (~250 miles)
Tennessee (Within 350 miles)
Chattanooga (~120 miles)
Knoxville (~210 miles)
Nashville (~250 miles)
Memphis (~380 miles – Slightly over, but often included in regional searches)
Alabama (Within 350 miles)
Birmingham (~150 miles)
Huntsville (~180 miles)
Montgomery (~160 miles)
Tuscaloosa (~200 miles)
Mobile (~320 miles)
Florida (Within 350 miles)
Tallahassee (~260 miles)
Jacksonville (~350 miles)
Gainesville (~340 miles)
Pensacola (~320 miles)
South Carolina (Within 350 miles)
Columbia (~210 miles)
Greenville (~150 miles)
Charleston (~300 miles)
North Charleston (~300 miles)
North Carolina (Within 350 miles)
Charlotte (~250 miles)
Raleigh (~350 miles)
Greensboro (~330 miles)
Fayetteville (~340 miles)
The Rockies are in a market with 1.8 million households. There are 3 cities with a population over 100,000 within 350 miles of the Denver media market, Colorado Springs, Pueblo, and Ft Collins. Salt Lake City is 520 miles away. Albuquerque is 449 miles away.
All every other team would need is to be owned by a broadcasting company like Liberty Media.
The big piece needed is TV sales infrastructure. Network won’t survive off subscriptions alone.
What everyone is arguing above is mostly about the need for a salary cap.
The more popular fan bases do deserve to get more money coming in. Of course that should be a benefit to the owners themselves which none of you actually care about. Everyone is upset those owners can then in turn spend much more freely with the players it can put on the field.
Because these teams compete with each other, there does need to be some standardization and limits to the product that goes on the field. In true business no one cares if Amazon wipes out its competition (or most of it). For the MLB though, if the Dodgers wipe out all other competition from reinvesting their profits into the team without restrictions the MLB eventually sucks.
This is an exaggeration but you get the point. Teams that are more popular absolutely deserve to make more but that shouldn’t mean they can go wild spending more to eliminate competition in the field from others who aren’t generating as much.
It’s really as simple as a salary cap (and preferably salary floor as well)
No, a salary cap is not the solution. It’s wild you’ve come to that conclusion.
You believe it’s unfair that some team owners can vastly outspend other team owners, so your solution is to supress what players can earn? That makes no sense.
If it’s determined that the sport is suffering because some team owners can spend more than others, then the logical solution is to make the owners share their revenues with one another equally to where it’s a level playing field.
This is a problem of team owners not being able to play fairly with one another. Saying that the players should sacrifice for an owner problem is completely misdiagnosing the situation.
So forcing independent owners to give money to other owners is the logical solution but a salary cap is not logical.
Lmao wow!
All I’m suggesting is capping what a team can spend on players. 1 individual player can still earn as much as any team wants to give them.
By comparison you want to effectively play Robin Hood and steal from the rich to give to the poor. As noble as you might think that sounds in your head that’s completely ridiculous.
Imagine working your butt off to build a company, or in this case a team, only to have some league operations tell you that you have to share what you earned with others.
If that’s what you consider logical there really is no hope left…. Both in baseball and the world…. What a terrible message to send to someone who puts the effort into creating a successful product.
As for the players sacrificing, there’s no sacrifice. You’ve manufactured som kind of sacrifice. Every athlete goes into it knowing there a limits to their earnings. As hard as it may be for you to believe, they are employees. Their earnings are not guaranteed to be exponential for the sake of the business exceeding expectations. What job do you know where the employees salaries skyrocket the way players salaries skyrocket? Very few, if any. If you’re an engineer you’ll still probably make the same in 2026 as you did in 2025 even if your company pulled in an extra 1 billion in profits.
I don’t know why so many of you sympathize with the players so much. You have some personal attachment to them because you see them on TV. Somehow they deserve more than the owner who started and runs the entire thing. As if the owners just magically have it all without working to put it in place for themselves.
It’s a wild concept… one that poor, jealous people usually hold.
The only people that have no ceiling to their earnings is business owners. A player is an employee. It’s not ridiculous to cap their earnings with a salary cap. Stealing from one owner and giving to another so they can “play fair” is what’s a ridiculous idea.
Real talk
P.S. The owners don’t have to keep the excess money for themselves that comes from a cap. It could very easily be spread around to other employees in the organization, or upgrades to the fan experience at stadiums. Maybe it’s the players disproportionally stealing funds that could be going to everyone else that’s involved in the production of this product. You only see the entertainers themselves and think they deserve it all. Very misguided perspective. Stop protecting players thinking it’s a noble endeavor. It’s pathetic of we’re being honest. Poor players have to sacrifice boo hoo
A cap takes money from the players and gives it to the owners. I don’t watch the owners, I watch the players. I couldn’t care less who owns the Braves, but I do care who is on the field.
Braves2032 = BravesVision official account on MLBTR? Or is it the Braves FO? Or is that really Manfred?
They are not independent. They make no money unless they are playing other teams that own an MLB franchise.
Without the players that are good enough to play in MLB, there is no MLB. Otherwise you would be at your local high school watching those games for free. The players in MLB should make about 50% of revenue in salaries and benefits as they do in every other major sport.
Fascism is what you are trying to call real talk.
Hi Braves2032. Lots to unpack from your poorly thought out response, but we’ll try.
1. You’re either being disingenuous or just not up to understanding what a salary cap is. When you limit what teams can spend on players you are, in fact, limiting what players can earn. How you think those are two different things is bafflling.
2. I don’t care one way or the other if owners share their revenues or if one team can afford to spend more than another team. What I’m saying is that the players shouldn’t have their earnings limited because some owners have more money to spend than others. This is a problem amongst the team owners, so if anyone has their earnings affected, it should be the owners, not the players.
3. If anyone works their butts off to build a company aka the team value, it’s the players, not the owners. I think back to when the new NBA valuations came out showing the Golden State Warriors valuation had gone from a few million to double-digit BILLIONS starting from the year that Stephen Curry was drafted. The players build value in these teams way more than the owners. Revenues are generated by the players, by fans becoming fans of specific players and generating television ratings and earnings from programming rights. Nobody tunes in to a game or buys a ticket because of the team owner. Most fans despise the team owner.
4. Yes, instituting a salary cap to even out the financial buying power between team owners is asking the players to sacrifice on behalf of the owners. Less salaries being paid out to players is a sacrifice upon the players. That’s such a basic concept, I don’t know what to say to you that you can’t understand it.
5. There are lots of jobs that have skyrocketed as much or more than players salaries. Take a look at the board of directors and executive suites of most major corporations.
6. You are attributing way more credit to team owners than they deserve for putting a team together and establishing the organizational infrastructure. They’re not some entrepreneurial individual building up a sole proprietorship from the ground floor lol.
7. You seem obsessed with the idea of owners having rights to whatever they can get their hands on based on some capitalistic principles, which is fine, except you then want to institute some non-capitalistic ceiling on what players can earn. That’s inconsistent and contradictory. What’s good for one should be good for the other.
8. You want “real talk”? Your idea that owners- allowed to pocket more of the revenue because of a salary cap- would somehow choose to spread that extra wealth around rather than pocket it for themselves makes you sound naive as hell. If the next CBA made it so that MLB players earned minimum wage, not a single ticket price for any team would go down by even a dollar.
@Skips: You must not read any of 2032’s posts. He’s attacked AA and the Braves FO for years on here. He’s been beating the “must rebuild now” drum since they won the WS in 21. He recently returned under his “new” screen name after being banned for trolling last year. He’s been Braves 2024…..Braves 2025……etc.
no local blackouts. I get it with the devaluation of RSN rights due to cord cutting, gate receipts become more important. but the Battery real estate development allows them another stream of income and to be honest, removing local blackouts will help keep MLB relevant to younger audiences just wanting to follow along their local team after attending 1-2 games a year in person.
as an Oriole fan no longer living in MD but rather NC… it’s not that easy for me to make a 7 hr trip back to Camden and the blackouts are terrible bc I’m in their “local region”. MASN has just rolled out with a streaming option but this is the first year ever I can watch without blackouts as the MLB app subscription blacked me out in years past.
I am a Braves fan from NC, that lives in PA. When I get mlb.tv games the Braves play against the Orioles, Nationals, Phillies, and Pirates are all blacked out. Then throw in the games on apps like AppleTV I don’t use, and there is almost no point in getting it. I read something earlier that made it seem like games on mlb.tv wouldn’t have the blackouts this season. But your points are so valid, all these goofy rule changes to appeal to a younger audience and yet all they really need to do is just make the games easily accessible on TV.
Try living in Iowa. Cubs, white Sox, twins, royals, cardinals and Milwaukee(maybe Detroit too) all blacked out as “local”
Hear hear!
Dang ohyeah. I guess I’m lucky Braves is the only black out in central Alabama.
Egregious to have all of these blackouts.
I am a Phils fan from Philly that now lives in NC. Same blackout issue in reverse. Blacked out for Braves / Nats / Orioles
I haven’t tried it, but will a VPN allow you to get around a black-out? My VPN gives me cities all over the country and around the world that I can appear to be connecting in.
In my “experience” mlb.tv definitely does recognize and block some VPNs. And that was years ago so imagine they are even “better” at detecting now.
MLB.tv says that your market is defined by the billing address of your payment method.
MLB had blacked me out from Ranger streams for years, despite subscribing for $149.99. When Texas created RSN Rangers Sports Network last year, I was finally able to stream Ranger games for the first time in years. I hope BravesVision is a huge success for the fans and the team.
Good to hear you call North Carolina home. Hopefully you live close to the coast.
No baseball on tv but at least you get solid cue, pleasant weather, competitive intercollegiate hoops, and Andy and Barney Fife as your law enforcement. Life could be worse. Like what they say about heaven and hell in Europe.
Theo as someone who lives in NC, your pleasant weather comment confuses me. Though it can be nice here on the OBX.
Pleasant: relative to Chicago, Boston, Jersey shore. Maybe should have accepted the opportunity for a year in Durham
How does that make any sense? Preventing you from consuming your Os? Watcha supposed to do- road trip to birdland on the weekly? I’ve done that trip- watch out for those state troopers in southern Virginia.
NC is Reds country too, believe it or not. Blackouts there for them too. Crazy.
Reds I’ve never had them blacked out before but I have had the Royals blacked out.
i didn’t know that (Reds black out). never seen a single cap or jersey here from Cincy.
BravesVision4000 now in spectacular technocolor
What was the Braves vision in signing Ha Seoung Kim for 20M this season?
Thats a slippery slope.
Live TV in Technicolor? Interstesting concept.
For anyone wondering the cost, from their FAQ:
“How will Braves.TV work and how much will it cost?
Subscription packages and pricing for the 2026 season will be available in March.”
Very cool that there are no local blackouts but the cost will be important.
Most of these are $99.99 . I was surprised when I ordered Royals.TV that I could bundle it with my MLB.TV subscription for $200 total.
Mariners just released it also for 99.00.
Looks like a great option.
Congratulations to the Atlanta Braves! Hope this works out for them.
Oh come on, just broadcast them in the middle of the TBS primetime lineup like you used to!
That makes sense since Braves Holdings’ parent company is Liberty Media, a broadcasting company.
I think that within a few years it will be a moot point as all teams broadcast rights will be represented by MLB directly.
Just in case you are not aware, in broadcasting increased ratings = more money. If the Rangers ratings are up, they are most likely making more money.
Not really.
libertymedia.com/investors/news-events/press-relea…
Bud, Liberty Media spun off Braves Holdings in 2023. They are still the largest shareholder, hence parent company.
No way the Dodgers, Yankees, Red Sox, or Cubs are relinquishing their networks to MLB
Skip, I don’t think that the Dodgers are going to take kindly to MLB just taking over their broadcasting agreement.
You are right that increased ratings means more money, at least in terms of what businesses pay for advertising. That should mean more money for the teams, but wouldn’t that also mean that if ratings go down that their revenue would go down?
I get that the Dodgers and others would not like the loss of revenue, but if 23 teams vote to turn over all media contracts to MLB, the teams that have big local TV contracts or ownership of an RSN don’t have a choice. They own their franchise, but like all franchises are subject to the agreement they signed when they bought it.
It would be part of major revenue sharing changes and changes to the structure of player compensation like a salary cap, floor, and guaranteed revenue percentage for the players. That probably won’t happen in this next CBA, but Manfred has been pushing pretty hard for it to happen soon. He wants all teams under the MLB umbrella to increase negotiating leverage and he wants a salary cap/floor. That would require revenue sharing changes, open books, and guaranteed percentage of revenue for the players.
With the Braves announcement today 15 of the 30 MLB teams own or co-own their own networks. There wouldn’t be 23 owners to vote to move the rights to MLB there isn’t even a slim majority at this point
Yankees, for sure, aren’t to give up control to MLB when they already have a RSN in partnership with Gotham Sports which bundles all other NY sports except the NFL.
You’re speaking in very broad terms. The big market teams don’t want a salary cap and are willing to pay the luxury tax to keep increasing their own team valuations. Manfred doesn’t get a vote. He’s simply echoing what some ownership groups want.
Basically what the NFL and NHL have.
It only works with transparency and I just can’t see MLB owners doing that. Most are afraid their team will find out how much they make.
Hopefully the league moves in that direction. The floor is the real key IMO. I’ve been stumping for that hard since the last CBA talks.
Rsox, what teams are those?
13 teams have assigned their broadcast rights to MLB Local Media.
The Dodgers (Spectrum), A’s, Giants, and Phillies (all NBC) are on contracts with RSN’s.
SNY is not owned by the Mets, its owned by the Wilpons, Comcast, and Charter.
That is 18 of the MLB teams.
The Angels are sitting on the sidelines with no broadcasting partner.
So that is 19 that don’t own their network.
JJ, Can’t have a floor until there is better revenue sharing and financial transparency.
@Skip I’ve enjoyed the discussion but you’re idealizing a bit for a labor dispute solution. The owners have their own divide among themselves as well which they are wisely choosing to keep close to vest.
Dodgers
Cubs
Red Sox
Yankees
Braves
White Sox
Pirates
Orioles
Astros
Rangers
Blue Jays
Phillies
Giants
Mets
Mariners
All own or co-own their RSN
100%.
Rsox. not sure where you got that info, but it is not correct. I posted the actual information and it came from articles on MLB.com
YBC, I am just saying what it would take, not trying to say that it will happen. The owners definitely have a huge divide. Large market teams want small market teams to spend the revenue sharing money they are getting above their contributions. Small market teams want to be able to compete but don’t have enough revenue to make that possible. Large market teams want a cap so they can make an even larger profits and a floor so small market teams have to spend more. Small market teams want neither.
Which part isn’t accurate?
I’m dumb, I read the name and my little brain thought of the Marvel Cinematic Universe lol
I thought of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.
At first glance, this would appear to be a spinoff/sequel of WandaVision.
The Pirates got so lucky that they could just piggyback on the local RSN the Penguins built.
Which is actually the Red Sox RSN considering fenway sports group owns the penguins.
I’m curious to what that deal looked liked with Fenway and how the Pirates might be affected once the sale of the Penguins gets finalized and Fenway is only a minority owner. Pittsburgh is a pretty small market and even with the penguins and pirates it’s gonna be hard to generate a profitable channel.
They do not.
Some rando billionaire does.
Their original deal was up in 2027 if it had kept going. Does anyone know if this is just temporary? They better get a deal that rakes in billions like the other top teams or they’re doing themselves a disservice.
They’ve got one of the largest fanbases in the country and they’ll be able to sell this new channel to cable networks all over the South. I can’t imagine they see this as a temporary thing.
When I first read the title, I could thought the Braves are creating a vision plan.
There wasn’t enough meat on the bone for both the team and the RSN to make money. But perhaps there will be for just the team.
I miss the days when Braves games were on TBS and the Cubs were on WGN. Made summers great as a teen.
It’s why those two teams were popular with baseball fans. It grew the fanbase for each team, but now it’s about squeezing as much from the current fans as possible.
Yep. I grew up near Bakersfield and have several friends who are Braves or Cubs fans because they grew up watching them.
Bring back The Three Stooges during rain delays.
Looks like we have new threading on the comment section. Hopefully that makes it easier to tell who responded to our comments.
This makes a tremendous amount of sense for the Braves who are a spin off from Liberty Media. I wonder if Arte will take this same approach for the Angels or since he doesn’t have the broadcast background if he will get off his dupa and go with MLB to do the negotiation with carriers and technical side of the broadcasts.
All of this is crap. Been paying for mlb.tv to watch Cardinal games. Trying to re up this year and it’s saying it goes thru ESPN and have to get espn unlimited now also. What the crap ? How much more is that Gina cost now?
If you live in the Cardinsl market you just need cardinals.tv for 99.00. You can stream it though mlbtv.
I’m an Angels fan. But let’s bring back the Cleveland Indians and Washington Redskins.
No, we might offend Mark66 and the other snowflakes around here.
The only snowflakes are the ones who call slavery “heritage, not hate”
No one ever cares about the Charlotte Bobcats or the New Orleans Hornets.
“It will be challenging to get them all on board since many of the large-market clubs have healthy RSN setups that they own or co-own. They will have some reticence about joining a more centralized arrangement that would see them sharing TV revenue with smaller markets.”
Nailed it, Darragh! (This quote will be seen again.)
If all the owners do is find a consensus on this, they can secure the future of baseball.
Is baseball on the verge of collapse with recent record revenues and attendance?
What an awful name. With a name like that I bet you get a free bowl of soup.
What’s wrong with a free bowl of soup? If you don’t want the soup, don’t take it. But there’s 162 games, at some point during one of those games I’m going to want a bowl of soup, and it’d be cool to get it for free.
I’d have to know what kind of soup before I said whether it’s cool or not. Loaded potato? MMMM. Tomato? blech.
@Swing: Braves Vision is also what they call the scoreboard at Truist Park. Whine about that—-maybe they’ll give you a free spoon too.
Off topic, but happy National Trading Card Day to those who celebrate.
Yes, such a thing exists.
Broke open a sealed case of 1983 Topps to celebrate.
It was odd to me having Comcast regional headquarters in the battery ATL and seeing the building out there in beyond the outfield while they weren’t showing the games.
If you sign up before opening day, they’ll mail you a box of Cracker Jack with a free pair of decoder glasses.
Sign me up!
I still think not calling it The Braves Superstation is a missed opportunity.
That might still be trademarked, but I agree.
That would be a great name.
Hawktatoo appreciate the feedback but I live in Kentucky but not in section of Kentucky that can get that. Have to go thru Mlbtv and even then if Cards play Reds I can’t get the games. I was really hoping they would include us in Cards package but cuts off 2 counties shy
Miss the Braves on TBS but you can’t beat no local blackouts.
Should had named it BravoVision