4:37pm: Tom Friend of Sports Business Journal reports that the Tigers, Angels and Braves are all moving on from Main Street Sports as well. Friend writes that it’s likely that the Detroit and Los Angeles clubs will also turn their broadcasts over to MLB, although they haven’t closed the door on working out some kind of independent streaming deal on a different platform than MLB.tv.
Friend’s reporting is most interesting regarding the Braves. He writes that the team could launch its own network rather than turning distribution to the league. The Rangers went that route when their deal with Diamond collapsed last offseason. The Texas franchise created its own network that negotiated directly with distributors to set up cable, satellite and streaming deals on different platforms.
The Braves haven’t made anything official, though they’ve more or less confirmed they won’t be returning to Main Street. “The Atlanta Braves are aware of the reports regarding Main Street Sports Group,” the team said in a statement. “While disappointed with this development, we have been actively preparing for this outcome and are well on our way towards launching a new era in Braves broadcasting. … We look forward to sharing our path forward in the coming weeks.”
1:10pm: Major League Baseball will take over the broadcasts of six new teams in 2026, reports John Ourand of Puck. The six clubs are the Brewers, Marlins, Rays, Royals, Cardinals and Reds. That represents six of the nine clubs who terminated deals with Main Street Sports last month. That leaves the Braves, Tigers and Angels as the three clubs from that group of nine who still need to formalize broadcast plans for this year.
The company has seemingly been hanging by a thread for a long time. Cord cutting and streaming have been eroding the regional sports network (RSN) model for years. Previously known as Diamond Sports Group and operating under the Bally Sports logo, the company was in bankruptcy for most of 2023 and 2024. When they emerged from bankruptcy late in 2024, they changed the company name and switched to the FanDuel Sports branding. More trouble emerged recently as they reportedly missed payments to several teams, which is what prompted the nine teams to walk away last month.
In recent years, MLB has handled the broadcasts of several other clubs who saw RSN deals collapse. The Padres, Diamondbacks, Rockies, Twins and Guardians were with the league in 2025. In those instances, the league largely kept TV broadcasts the same, retaining most of the personnel. For fans, this arrangement worked better as it did not involve local blackouts. Customers without cable packages could buy streaming packages directly from the league.
For teams, this expanded viewership but the financial situation wasn’t as good. Instead of a guaranteed fee from the RSN, they instead got a fungible amount of money based on streaming numbers. Clear numbers haven’t been made available but the industry consensus is that teams bring in less money via this model than they did via the previous RSN system. Travis Sawchik of MLB.com says the new model only brings in about 50% of the previous RSN set-up.
This often has on-field implications. Some of those teams, particularly the Padres and Twins, saw their player payrolls decrease in recent years. The lower spending capacity seemingly had an impact on Juan Soto being traded from the Padres to the Yankees a couple of years ago and Carlos Correa getting traded from the Twins to the Astros last summer, among other moves.
It was reported in September that ESPN would be acquiring the local rights for those five teams for the next three years. It’s unclear how that will impact local customers who have been paying the league directly to stream games. Also in September, it was reported that the Mariners would also be moving to the league. Last month, the Nationals announced that they would be moving to the MLB model.
Assuming the league will still be selling streaming packages for the five teams it was handling last year, then the league will have at least 13 teams in its portfolio in the coming season. With three clubs still outstanding, it’s possible MLB could get to more than half the league.
Commissioner Rob Manfred has previously spoken of his desire to market a streaming package like MLB.TV but without local blackouts. Controlling the rights for roughly half the league will make that more viable. Expanding the portfolio even further will be challenging. Most of the larger-market clubs still have pretty healthy RSN situations and would have less interest in jumping into a pooled system with these clubs.
That is part of a broader league strategy that will come into play in the next few years. A large number of the league’s broadcast deals expire after 2028. Manfred’s hope is to maintain as much flexibility as possible until then, at which point he could try to sell companies packages of combined rights. As an example of how this might play out, ESPN’s deal recently fell apart but then MLB pivoted to split it up and sell it to various companies. ESPN bought back some bits and acquired some new ones, while Netflix and NBC/Peacock acquired other components.
It will take a few years to see how that all plays out. In the shorter term, it could impact the upcoming collective bargaining agreement negotiations. The current CBA expires December 1st of this year. Presumably, MLB doesn’t want those talks to lead to canceled games in 2027. Ratings and attendance have been up lately, with the faster pace of the pitch clock a possible explanation. Missed games due to a lockout would hurt that momentum, which wouldn’t help the league in selling rights the following year.
For fans of the teams involved in today’s news, new information about broadcast options should be forthcoming. The Cardinals already announced their streaming prices, which are $19.99 monthly or $99.99 for the full season. Barry Jackson of the Miami Herald outlined the situation for Marlins fans today, with some more details still to be determined.
This could also impact player payroll for some clubs. Though the streaming model is a less certain source of revenue, these teams now at least have some clarity on what kind of money should be coming in this year. As of less than two weeks ago, the Reds were reportedly interested in players like Eugenio Suárez but reluctant to make more moves until they figured out the broadcast puzzle. They reportedly reached an agreement with Suárez yesterday.
Photo courtesy of Ron Chenoy, Imagn Images
Could’ve been first but nothing to say on it
I wonder what the revenues from this really look like. They used to announce the RSN contract values, but the closest anyone has come to valuing these streaming deals was in the San Diego paper a couple years ago when the first one showed up there. They claimed the money was much lower, but that was before the league began sweetening things with luxury tax cash. I get that this will be the last year of this piecemeal restitution before the CBA tackles the revenue elephant, but knowing anything, even subscriber counts, would help explain what teams are facing.
You can tell from ratings and subscription price that the revenue is a small fraction of what they used to get.
The subscription price seems standard for the Midwest teams. Most teams did the exact same pricing last year
The Reds got an advance from MLB on their dough & blew it all on Geno. Oh well, back to grilled cheese & tomato soup. 🤣
Good question. Teams don’t seem to want to talk about this.
Also it’s not just the streaming revenue. These clubs are also making deals with local cable broadcasting. It’s not like you can only watch these games locally via mlb streaming.
Be nice to have their tv revenue be made public.
Simm, I am sure the union would like to see that too.
Crise, the CEO of the Padres said recently that they did not have lower TV revenue for the 2025 season. In 2023-2024 offseason he said they only lost a small amount that year, probably the payment that DSG defaulted on in May(?) 2023. According to most sources including Forbes their overall revenue continues to climb and their spending at a high level has continued after the DSG default and bankruptcy, which would not be the case if their TV revenue had dropped. Especially not if it had dropped 50% as Travis Sawchik is quoted in this article as saying it has.
Well we don’t know the total tv revenue is, perhaps similar, little less or even a little
More.
Padres also have had an increase in attendance to go along with I believe 3-4 straight seasons of increased in ticket prices. More attendance- higher ticket prices would also be driving higher revenue.
Padres payroll peaked in 2023. Went down in 2024. Since has gone up in 2025 and likely again in 2026.
This sight keeps saying it’s decreasing in recent years. It decreased one year, while also resetting the tax which many clubs have done.
How many years in a row does it have to go up before this sites starts saying the padres payroll has increased in recent years?
Agreed. And the idea that they traded Soto as some sort of salary dump is hilarious. They traded Soto because they weren’t going to pay 700 mil to keep him and they could get a lot back by flipping him.
The funny thing in 2023 was the three highest payrolls all flopped. The Mets had the highest to start the season and they won 76 games. The Yankees and Padres were 2nd and 3rd in payroll and both won 82 games. None of them made the playoffs.
Back to the Padres, them being cash strapped has been a common theme here since Seidler passed. That didn’t stop them from extending Merrill for 135m a year ago or giving Pivetta 55m a month earlier.
Teams are always looking at how to best allocate their resources. When it comes to the Padres just because they are not spending like they did 3 years ago when the owner pushed all the chips in, for good reason, doesn’t mean they’re slashing payroll or no longer spending.
Plus 75m to king this year. Though he may opt out.
For those fans concerned about quality issues.. the Guards were with the league last season and the transition was just fine, in my opinion. All the same key on-air personnel and no major changes.
It depends if those guys hired by the team or by the broadcasting company. Team guys stay no matter who’s in charge of the broadcasting rights generally
Did you have to pay for an espn sub in addition to paying for the team package?
Russell- no. You don’t need an espn sub. You won’t next year either. After that we shall see.
Thanks simm
Cleveland’s newish local TV contract gets the Guardians onto TV in Buffalo and much of western New York. That can only add to the club’s fanbase.
The announcers are usually paid by their respective teams. The networks really don’t have a say.
Didn’t they waive blackout restrictions for those (CLE) games? If so, I’d loooove Braves games being taken on by MLB.
The question do we need to pay for the Braves stream or can we just but the mlb package?
I’m sure Angels owner is working night and day to get it done. I think to start the BevMo Angels Network.
Dolemite,
The Angels are the worse run organization in the league when one considers all factors. They have a huge market, had 2 generational players with star power (marketability), and excellent weather that should not prevent fans from attending. But they have managed to squander everything, largely due to the owner. The Dodgers control the Southern California narrative and a whole generation of would-be fans will be Dodger fans.
So Artie will screw this up as well. You have to wonder how he made his money to afford to buy the team in light of his incompetence running the Angels
He sold his billboard company to buy the Angels from Disney
Yes, the Angels are the dumbest team in baseball these days. However, there is a positive aspect to this fact. Last season, I paid $42 to sit a few rows back from home plate to see my team play the Angels. On that day, Seatgeek and MLB had no tickets at Dodger Stadium for less than $42. (There were so few people in the seats behind home plate that I moved around to find the best seat.)
You think The Angels are bad now? You should been around in early 70’s Our leading HR hitter hit 14 one year. His name was Lee Stanton.
Like that old saying thats been posted on here before. “Tanana and Ryan and 2 days of crying.”
Fun fact for the Angels PR trolls:
Winning percentage in the 1970’s: .485
Winning percentage over last 10 seasons: . 455
Spin that.
I think since the Braves helped build TBS, TBS should offer a honey of a deal
TBS (1) has one of the national contracts (2) and is part of Warner Bros. Discovery, which the Ellison family is vowing to snatch and split up.
And Bud Selig got so mad he got rid of the TV Superstations that helped create baseball fans in the 80s and 90s that led to the RSN of the 2000 til Covid. Now we will see what the Great Manfred gives us.
TBS wouldn’t be able to show Wednesday night Braves games because of their AEW broadcast rights.
Manfred’s iron fist:
Force all 30(+) teams onto a league-controlled broadcast plan, institute revenue sharing through this mechanism. Increase luxury tax penalties by making big payroll teams forfeit certain draft picks to small payroll teams, make all draft picks trade-able, institute a salary floor.
What do you think?
You said one thing I agree with: Make all draft picks tradeable.
bham- I 100% agree make all draft picks tradable. This would make the deadline, draft and the offseason much more interesting
I say sure, but I don;t own the Dodgers and their Ridiculou$ Broadca$t deal. There is no way on earth they accede to that.
@crise Good thing they are only 1 of 30 teams and it’s not up to them.
And the:
Yankees
red sox
Phillies
Cubs
Jays
I agree with all of that except there should be a salary cap. MLB should have an NFL-style system. A floor and a cap that aren’t that far apart and it changes grafually each year based on total revenues.
Problem is no one releases revenue numbers except the braves who are public company owned
The Jays are owned by a publicly traded company also. Their financial statements are available.
The Dodgers signed a deal with Time Warner (Later became Sports Net LA) in January 2013 for $8.35 billion and at that time only 30% of the households in the LA area were able to see Dodger games. It was boosted to just under 50 % as more carriers signed on.
So if I bought the MN Twins yesterday for $1.5B. Then we get complete revenue sharing between all teams. Can I sell the Twins for the same price of the Dodgers, Yankees or Cubs? Figuring those 3 go for between 7 to 12B. Why are billionaires not willing to buy the Rays, Rockies, Marlins and others quickly these days?
It raises the values of the smaller franchises. Look at the NFL. The smaller market teams are valued at $6B. The Cowboys are valued at $12.5B. It makes the NFL more valuable as a whole.
You can’t compare the NFL, a national sport that plays once a week with a regional sport that plays five games+ per week. There is too much value difference to now get equal baseball revenue sharing. The NF model has been in play for generations. Baseball’s local revenue streams are also complicated as many teams own most or all of the network and have manipulated paper deals to hide the true value.
There wouldn’t be “complete revenue sharing “. The broadcast revenue would be pooled and shared like the NFL, but gate receipts and merchandise would not.
No caps, no floors, no revenue sharing, it’s time to sink or swim boys. Btw, I take mine w/extra mustard 🤣
Your teams Value is dependent on many factors. The amount revenue it can bring in and that depends on many things too. Your market size. Your local Tv/Radio. Contracts. Your team will increase in value, but not as quickly as for example The Chicago, LA and NY teams. If accrue a lot of debt that can hurt.
Nationalize the mlb, incentivize player development, cap ticket and concession prices
OK, Fidel.
😉
What a debacle.
I would hate for Blum and TK to go.
I’m a Tigers fan living in Columbus, Ohio so I’m a big fan of MLB.tv because home games were never blacked out. That being said, before the Guards went with the league broadcast there was no legal way for me to watch Reds, Pirates or Guards games because they were all regionally blacked out. Absolutely ridiculous and hopefully league control would fix this.
As a Mets fan living in Charlotte NC, I miss 25% of Mets games that are blacked out on MLB.tv (Orioles, Nats, Reds and Braves), yet I’m still paying full price for my subscription. Hopefully because of this deal the Reds won’t be blacked out anymore. I’m having to pay extra to get a VPN or to pay for their local RSN packages on Ballys or Fanduel or whatever they keep changing their name to.
All 9 of the remaining Main Street Sports ballclubs have opted out according to Sports Business Journal.
The Braves are looking to set up their own mini-network, either on a national platform (such as Prime) or a hybrid streaming/cable/ broadcast setup (similar to the Texas Rangers). The other 8 clubs plan to go with MLB Media or a similar platform.
Imagine if the article’s six teams were the Dodgers, Yankees, Nets, Phillies, Red Sox and Cubs. What would that say about the state of the game?
Awesome. Now I can watch the Rockies vs Reds games without the stupid blackout. I live in the Reds viewing area, but watch the Rox. I usually just skip watching those games because I cannot stand the bald Reds announcer that replaced Thom Brennaman.
Wow really? I liked Thom Brenneman, but I think John Sadak is great. “That ball had a family!”
I cannot stand him. He gets WAY too excited for fairly mundane plays. I like announcers that get excited, but save it for the really exciting moments and not a leadoff double in a 7-2 game.
That’s fair. I like it though. Different strokes for different folks.
He seems to be a very genuine guy which I appreciate, he does get too excited sometimes but I don’t think it’s for show.
True enough. I am not calling for him to be fired or anything. Just choosing not to watch the Reds anymore. I am not one of those people that thinks it should all be about me. I cannot stand people that want someone to lose their job because they don’t like them or something.
Honestly, it is Barry Larkin and his one word responses and the constant use of the same quotes I find annoying. Sadak tries to draw him out even and a lot of time it doesn’t seem to register.
You think as a Hall of Famer, Barry could add more insight. Joey Votto appeared a couple of times and ran rings around him as an analyst.
Sad to say that about a lifetime Red (which is why he’ll be doing it as long as he wants) but have to call it as I see it.
This one, did you see Joey got a gig with nbc
I did. Too bad it wasn’t our guys but can’t blame him going for the national exposure.
I’ll agree with you there. Larkin is pretty bad as well. He seems like trying to have a conversation with a teenager who only wants to say yeah or no or okay. He is definitely no Chris Welsh, even though he could be annoying at times as well. I do like Jim Day though.
I was hoping Jim Day would be the play by play guy after Thom Brennaman was dismissed. But I think Jim likes to be on the field close to the players, and you can tell they like him the way they mess with him. I can’t blame him wanting to be down there.
As far as Sadak, yeah he gets too excited at times, but then again so did the ol’ lefthander and a lot of other broadcasters, some on the national level.
I miss George Grande actually, I know that goes back a ways, and wish Chris Welsh was there all the time. Just my opinion.
I go back to watching Marty Brennamen and Johnny Bench on channel 5, until they changed our cable and we couldn’t get Cincy channels anymore. You are not alone in being old.
Why haven’t the Braves just gone back to TBS?
Because TBS doesn’t want them and Ted Turner doesn’t own the network anymore.
No offense but probably the same reason your not driving a vehicle made in 1980. Things change.
Is TBS still a thing?
Be nice to have an article that talks about, and ranks, the healthiest to unhealthiest teams from a broadcasting standpoint. My guess would have the Dodgers, Jays and Yankees leading. But maybe not. Be nice to see that though.
I think the Cubs and Mets are also in good shape.
The Mets get very little from their RSN. SNY is still owned by the old owners and they set up a sweetheart deal, years ago,to avoid revenue sharing.
The Red Sox own 80% of NESN and do very well as NESN’s service area is most of New England.
Charter Communications and Comcast each own a share of SNY. That’s important from a cable/streaming standpoint with Spectrum and Xfinity.
This site used to print a table of what teams were getting in local TV revenue which highlighted MLBs problem. My guess is MLB HQ in NYC forbids that now.
You can’t polish a turd. And you can rename it all you want, but it’s still a turd. A turd named Sinclair Broadcasting.
You can indeed polish a turd. There is a youtube video up showing it. Surprised me too.
Crap!
What a surprise Angels do what Atlanta is doing. They must of been separated at birth.
I noticed no difference from years past. Watched about 150+ games through cable. Could have watched more except sometimes the local team pops up on ESPN or FOX and I refuse to watch, either.
Comcast charges me a big sports network fee
Which I do not have a choice in accepting
Sports Business Journal is reporting 8 of the 9 are going with MLB, with the Braves the only holdout. Likely going with a national streaming service is what they report.
Let’s say the 3 remaining teams end up with the league sponsored broadcast. Does anyone know how many of the remaining 14 teams keeping their local rights deal own the RSN, in whole or in part?
It’s gotta be most, if not all. If these smaller market teams are losing half their TV revenue the next CBA will have to make up the difference with revenue sharing or a salary cap is meaningless.
The Braves are not going with MLB Media, they’re starting their own channel.
Looks like it might be eight teams heading back to MLB production, with the Braves going for their own in-house operation like the Rangers. Here in the DFW market the Rangers’ transition was seamless. The games are on a dedicated cable channel and streaming service with a small number of games on a local over-the-air station. No muss, no fuss. The onscreen product is pretty much the same.
One more thing. The Rangers have trimmed payroll for 2026 but they’re still spending pretty big. FanGraphs has their luxury tax payroll at $206 million, Spotrac at $219 million. So they haven’t gutted it down to the studs by any means.
The Rangers may be dipping under the CBT threshold for a year to avoid the largest penalties after several seasons in a row over the threshold. Most teams other than the Dodgers have to do that.
Yes. I believe the Red Sox were the first club to dip under (before the Dodgers just said who cares) every three years. It was why after 18, many fans here stated 2020 was going to be a year of reckoning. I was naive and at the beginning of 2019 for example, I never thought Boston would get rid of Mookie. As I’ve stated often lately, Henry now is only interested in cash flow and where he can reinvest Sox profits for the highest returns. With the ownership referring to Fenway as a destination, as long as the park is filled and the coffers are overflowing, they don’t care if the team wins. I think though they projected the financial impact of having at least one home playoff series and that’s why the extra push this season.
Even the dodgers dipped below a like 3 years ago. Think in 2023z
The Marlins Are Wasting Miami’s Goldmine.
Miami is 69% Latino—a passionate baseball market being completely ignored. The Marlins need to stop the fire sales and invest in Latin American superstars who resonate with the community. Copy the Dodgers’ ownership model: bring in partners like Advent International ($90B+ AUM with strong Latin American expertise) who understand the market. Secure an international streaming deal with companies like VIX to reach fans in Miami AND throughout Latin America with bilingual broadcasts. The fanbase exists in Little Havana, Santo Domingo, and Caracas—they just need ownership willing to invest in winning and cultural connection. Until then, Miami squanders baseball’s most valuable untapped market.
Miami is a land of futbolistas. Notice how successful CF Miami have become? Anglos outside southeast Florida don’t get it (and some never will).
@chucky
And Miami is a city that’s 69% Latin with huge populations of Latin’s from Puerto Rican, Dominican, Columbian, Venezuela, Mexican, Argentine, etc. Those countries celebrate baseball too. You don’t think it might benefit the Marlins to lean into that or too have a Latin based streaming company like VIX to broadcast their games bilingual in the city and maybe negotiate to collaborate with mlb for international broadcasting?
The Marlins have a Spanish language broadcast team. Luis “Yiky” Quintana has announced their games for 25 years or so.
@skip
Having a Spanish announcer isn’t the same as having a modern streaming platform behind him. CF Miami (Inter Miami) figured this out with their soccer content—they have massive digital reach into the Latino community. The Marlins have Quintana, but they’re not maximizing him with the right platform. VIX locally could be that missing piece alongside the international play.
The Spanish language broadcast is available on streaming. It was available on streaming before the English language broadcast was.
MLS is not the same as MLB. MLS broadcast rights are not owned by the team, they are owned by the league.
Have you been to a game in little Havana? Even Latinos don’t want to go there.
International broadcast rights are owned by MLB, not the team itself. The Dodgers or Marlins don’t benefit proportionally from international marketing and broadcasting as that is split equally between all the teams.
But the argument still holds because the question is how accessible and modern that local Spanish-language experience is. Right now it’s traditional radio and local TV—no dedicated streaming platform built around it. So even locally, a partnership with VIX could:
Give Quintana’s broadcasts a streaming platform instead of just radio/TV
Create on-demand content, highlights, and behind-the-scenes in Spanish
Make it easier for younger Latino fans in Miami to consume on their phones/tablets
Build a digital-first Spanish experience rather than relying on legacy broadcast formats.
For an international streamer like VIX to stream Marlins games internationally, they’d need to either:
License content from MLB directly (not the Marlins)
Partner with MLB.TV for a co-branded offering
It can be done if the Marlins got creative.
Its accessible locally throughout southern Florida. Its already accessible on streaming. If its international, every team gets an equal cut. International rights to broadcasts are already at 100% revenue sharing.
Less than a week ago at an event to announce what I think was a little league park, the Padres CEO said that they had not lost any TV revenue. The principal owner of the Diamondbacks said that they were running par with what they were earning from DSG.
The Padres overall revenue according to Forbes has risen since the demise of their DSG contract in 2023. I don’t know about the Diamondbacks, but they are spending more money than in the past when DSG was their RSN. Businesses rarely spend a large amount more money like the Diamondbacks have in going from $154 million in 2023 to $223 million in 2024 and $216 million in 2025 when their largest single revenue source falls by 50%. That simply does not make sense.
What does make sense is that those teams are making as much or more money now than they were when the RSN was controlling their broadcasts. They are making more so they can spend more.
Their TV revenue may be variable depending on advertising and carriers that have signed new contracts with them, but it has proven “fungible” which means ” interchangeable with another identical item, having the same value and function.” MLB has replaced DSG with an identical service and revenue stream.
Sometimes I think that baseball writers are just parroting the owners preferred messaging instead of actually doing research or using common sense.
Skip, I think you pointed out the main fallacy in reports that teams are losing TV revenue.
Most teams that had RSN contracts previously are still spending as much or more money with no RSN contract and MLB managing their broadcast rights as they did when they had an RSN deal.
Local TV makes up as much as 35% of the total revenue for MLB teams not including revenue sharing and according to Manfred it outpaces revenue from attendance for every team. If they had lost 50% of their largest single revenue stream those teams would have drastically cut spending, not keep it steady or increase spending.
It’s criminal that the Mariners can’t monetize their own fans living 140 miles north in Vancouver—closer than most cities in their actual TV market—while the Blue Jays profit from them 2,400 miles away. Because Rogers/Sportsnet negotiated a blanket Canadian deal with MLB, every dollar Vancouver fans spend watching Mariners games gets funneled to Toronto’s ownership (who owns Sportsnet) and split 30 ways, with Seattle getting mere pennies. The Mariners have a natural geographic advantage with millions of potential fans across the border, yet MLB’s centralized rights structure lets the Blue Jays—and 28 other teams—freeload off Seattle’s Pacific Northwest market. It’s a broken system that punishes teams for having cross-border appeal while rewarding a monopoly that has nothing to do with geography, loyalty, or competitive logic.
The Padres and Tigers are other teams that face that same issue.
“Commissioner Rob Manfred has previously spoken of his desire to market a streaming package like MLB.TV but without local blackouts.”
This ^^^!!!! Sucks being a Sox fan in upstate NY and being a subscriber to MLB. Sox/Yanks games are blacked out and those are the ones I especially want to watch!!!!
Royals broadcasts can only benefit from the change. I’ve tried watching their games but was turned off by what seemed like random stadium cameras and the broadcasters sounding like they were doing the game from their living rooms
MLB is a third place sport behind the NFL and NBA. They will remain a 3rd place sport until they fix their TV revenue sharing and caps with floors a la NFL.
Competitive imbalance is not good for the league or the sport and Manfred acknowledged a change is in order.
Atlanta should call their upcoming streamer The Braves Superstation.
So let me get this straight…
Because I live in LA County, MLB is going to absolutely blackout Angels games on MLB.tv or any MLB-run streaming service even if MLB takes over the broadcasts.
Why?
Because LA County is inside the Angels’ protected home TV territory,” and MLB enforces blackout rules like it’s the Ten Commandments.
Fantastic.
Can’t watch the Angels on TV.
Won’t go to Anaheim Stadium because I’m not supporting Arte Moreno and the greatest place on earth is down the street
Honestly, probably better for my health anyway watching a 100-loss season isn’t exactly recommended for blood pressure management.
So congrats MLB and Arte Moreno
You’ve created the first team in baseball history that’s unwatchable on the field and unwatchable on TV. I sure miss KTLA channel 5. It’s a conspiracy.
“In recent years, MLB has handled the broadcasts of several other clubs who saw RSN deals collapse. The Padres, Diamondbacks, Rockies, Twins and Guardians were with the league in 2025. In those instances, the league largely kept TV broadcasts the same, retaining most of the personnel. For fans, this arrangement worked better as it did not involve local blackouts. Customers without cable packages could buy streaming packages directly from the league.”
You apparently missed this paragraph. When MLB takes over the broadcasts for a team directly, there AREN’T any blackouts anymore, since this IS the local broadcast!
ANGELS FAN POST: “GoFundMe for Gooby & Friends
Since the Angels don’t even have a TV provider right now, I’m honestly wondering if we should just start a GoFundMe and bring back the broadcast crew ourselves.
Like. MLB doesn’t know what platform we’re on, Arte doesn’t know what direction we’re going, and fans in LA County can’t watch the games anyway because of blackout rules. So why not let us take over
Bring back Gooby
Bring back his sidekick from last year Patrick O’Neal, the man who somehow held the whole thing together while the team fell apart in real time.
If the Angels aren’t going to give us a channel, a plan, or a product, then fine.
Let the fans crowdfund the broadcast and put Gooby and O’Neal back on the mic where they belong.
At this point, a fan‑funded broadcast might be the most stable thing this franchise has going.
Angels baseball, for everybody.
So will I need an MLB.tv streaming sub or ESPN app sub to watch the Halos lose 105 games? And does having the ESPN + & Disney+ Hulu Live bundle get me access to Angel games if it’s the ESPN app?
I don’t like the idea of mlb tv being in control of all broadcast because of the stupid black outs! I really believe Amazon should buy it and setup an Amazon mlb channel. You can purchase one teams games at a set price or all teams at a set price. Just add it to your prime membership or whatever. I’ve had to switch providers several times over the last few years just to watch the braves it’s a hassle every year.
In the areas where MLB is in control of the broadcasts there are no local blackouts other than the handful of nationally broadcast games.
Maybe the Braves should go back to TBS? Remember in the ’90s when you could watch almost every Braves, Cubs, and White Sox game on cable, but you could only watch the other teams on TV sporadically even in their home markets? My, how times have changed.
I am a Braves fan because of that. Got to grow up watching their great teams in the 90s on TBS. That is why launching their own RSN is a smart move. Lots of fans around the country that are at the right consumer age because of that past.
Every single game of every team does need to be on TV most teams in the 70s did limited TV