Will the collapse of RSNs deter teams from moving, particularly the Brewers?

[Brock Beauchamp]

I was listening to MKE Tailgate this morning and turning over the A's potential move in my head a bit.

The A's stadium is a dump and no one attends their games. To some extent, the same is true in Tampa.

But the same cannot be said of Milwaukee, Cincinnati, and other small market teams. Their stadiums are nice/acceptable, their fan support is decent-to-good, and if you remove today's huge television revenue imbalance, it's hard to see teams picking up and moving in the future (which is a good thing, obviously).

Over the past 30 years, almost every MLB team has received a new stadium and pretty much all of them are better long-term options than the abysmal general-use stadiums they replaced.

If television money is restructured - and it almost seems impossible for that not to happen at this point - will we see team relocation basically end for the foreseeable future?

[nate82]

1 hour ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

will we see team relocation basically end for the foreseeable future?

No this is wishful thinking.  The Chargers, Raiders and Rams all relocated in the NFL recently.  The TV contracts have very little bearing on if a team will move or not.  It is always the stadium or facilities.  Teams will even move out to the suburbs if they can as the Bears are contemplating now.

 

[CheezWizHed]

I tend to agree with nate82.  Would Oakland not move if they were getting TV revenue sharing?  Wouldn't they get the same in LV? 

Moves will still be about facilities and attendance.

[owbc]

I think the Oakland situation may accelerate relocations as we move forward. There should have been more resistance to the Vegas relocation since it was basically an act of franchise sabotage by Fisher to get the relocation approved. The A's were doing just fine for themselves as of just 3-4 years ago and were well on the way to getting a new stadium in Oakland with a public financing package that was equivalent to what they got in Vegas. Then the Golden Knights happened followed by the explosion in sports gambling and it was clear that MLB was going to rush to get a team moved to Vegas ASAP. 

Moving forward, any ownership change in a small market is a potential green light for a relocation. Teams like the Brewers need to make sure their stadium leases are iron clad, otherwise the Brewers could easily be playing in Nashville in a decade. If the owners see dollar signs, they will get a team there. 

I would think that the loss of TV revenue will make the publicly financed stadium element even more important. Billions of dollars in revenue can be made up by blackmailing the governments in small markets. The formula has now been proven to work -- drop payroll to zero, raise prices, and make the fan experience miserable. Then wait a few years and blame the fans for not showing up and the relocation will go through without hesitation. 

 

 

 

[Thurston Fluff]

More evenly split tv money would result in smaller market teams being able to compete for free agents. If a team has a good fan base like Milwaukee the ability to put out good teams will draw more fans. It's an easier sell for local governments to build new stadiums for a team that fill stadiums than one that doesn't. The threat of relocation may not go away but the incentives for cities to maintain good facilities would be greater.

[Jopal78]

2 hours ago, Thurston Fluff said:

More evenly split tv money would result in smaller market teams being able to compete for free agents. If a team has a good fan base like Milwaukee the ability to put out good teams will draw more fans. It's an easier sell for local governments to build new stadiums for a team that fill stadiums than one that doesn't. The threat of relocation may not go away but the incentives for cities to maintain good facilities would be greater.

If you’re the Yankees, Dodgers or Cubs why would you ever be the in favor of sharing more of your local media revenue ?

It’s literally their competitive advantage, which makes up part of their brand. Even the mid-market teams would refuse. 
 

no team has ever gone out of business and all the big boys need are clubs to play against. They don’t want them to be good.

 

[Thurston Fluff]

22 minutes ago, Jopal78 said:

If you’re the Yankees, Dodgers or Cubs why would you ever be the in favor of sharing more of your local media revenue ?

It’s literally their competitive advantage, which makes up part of their brand. Even the mid-market teams would refuse. 
 

no team has ever gone out of business and all the big boys need are clubs to play against. They don’t want them to be good.

 

If cable tv viewership dries up the advantage is gone.

[Jopal78]

12 minutes ago, Thurston Fluff said:

If cable tv viewership dries up the advantage is gone.

No, that is an incorrect understanding of how local broadcast rights work.

If someone is visually watching the Yankees outside of Fox or ESPN they’re paying money to YES Network because they own the visual broadcast rights. The manner in which they deliver that content is irrelevant,  because people have already demonstrated a willingness to pay for it one way or the other (cable, streaming, YES Network app etc).

Put another way there is no way to watch a Yankees game on a screen in the NY Metropolitan area that doesn’t involve placing money in the pocket of YES Network, unless the game is on ESPN or FOX etc. 

[nate82]

Sports teams have divided up their TV rights into two now.  One for broadcasting and one for digital broadcasting.  Why sell as one when you can sell both individually for a higher profit.  

[Harold Hutchison]

3 hours ago, nate82 said:

No this is wishful thinking.  The Chargers, Raiders and Rams all relocated in the NFL recently.  The TV contracts have very little bearing on if a team will move or not.  It is always the stadium or facilities.  Teams will even move out to the suburbs if they can as the Bears are contemplating now.

 

NFL teams are not tied to RSNs the way NHL, NBA, and MLB teams are, though.

[nate82]

52 minutes ago, clancyphile said:

NFL teams are not tied to RSNs the way NHL, NBA, and MLB teams are, though.

Your point being?

[Harold Hutchison]

2 hours ago, nate82 said:

Your point being?

NFL teams play once a week, and are broadcast on national networks (CBS, FOX, ESPN, etc.) at specific times.

MLB, NBA and NHL play multiple games a week, and the times vary.

[nate82]

1 hour ago, clancyphile said:

NFL teams play once a week, and are broadcast on national networks (CBS, FOX, ESPN, etc.) at specific times.

MLB, NBA and NHL play multiple games a week, and the times vary.

So what does that have to do with TV contracts and teams moving?

[Harold Hutchison]

1 hour ago, nate82 said:

So what does that have to do with TV contracts and teams moving?

My guess is that it will be a lot more complicated for a team tied to the RSN to move than an NFL team with no such ties.

[nate82]

16 minutes ago, clancyphile said:

My guess is that it will be a lot more complicated for a team tied to the RSN to move than an NFL team with no such ties.

Why would it be more complicated?  The contract is with the team and not a city.  The contract moves with the team.  The naming of the RSN doesn’t really matter as they would just rename it wherever the team moves to.