Will More TV and Streaming Security Help Drive the Free Agent Market?

As discussed this morning, the long-running Diamond bankruptcy, which also involved the former Regional Sports Networks under the Bally brand, is more or less finally resolved for MLB teams. The company, whose RSNs were rebranded as FanDuel, will try to bounce back after bankruptcy. They’ll have the rights to a number of MLB, NBA and NHL teams to try to make it work, but probably only about two or three years before the contracts expire again and everyone takes another look Streaming throws The world has evolved. We know that MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred wants to centralize as many of the MLB teams’ rights across the league as possible by then, but we’ll get there when we get there.

In the meantime, all affected teams (except perhaps the Braves) will have to take significant revenue cuts in order to get their games on the air – either on the FanDuel RSNs or with a streaming-only option via MLB, or some other new broadcast deal – all of them now have at least some certainty. Short term? Yes. Lower dollar? Yes. But it’s not this big black cloud of unknown hanging over teams and their budgets.

So is that one of the reasons we’re seeing more early moves in free agency this year than in years past? And if so, does that bode well for a more exciting two weeks, rather than the drip, drip, drip of so many important steps being postponed until well into spring?

At least some people involved are of this opinion. And he believes that the money will be found in the end.

When asked why some teams are choosing to spend money on the former team this offseason, agent Scott Boras told ESPN: “I wish I could answer those questions. I do. I think it has a lot to do with media safety, that the platforms are functioning as they should, and that the streaming business they are running is very viable and very profitable. I don’t think they like to say that, but obviously the markets are showing that there is a different attitude to it.”

Whether or not we believe that direct-to-consumer streaming options will ultimately be as profitable for local teams as they were during the era of massive cable broadcast deals (I highly doubt it), Boras has a point about the free agent market Operation as if everything would be fine on the TV revenue side in the coming years. Of course, some of this is disproportionately weighted by the fact that a team like the Dodgers has an ironclad, ultra-massive broadcast rights deal through 2039 (it pays far more AND is far more secure than any other deal in baseball). Still, we don’t see any across-the-board reductions in salaries that one would expect if half the league drastically cut spending. Certainly some teams will take a step back, but we are not yet seeing the manifestation of a spending crisis. This was a very real fear a few years ago.

Now, as more and more of these streaming options roll out and we head into 2028 when more of these interim contracts expire? Have we learned that they simply won’t be as profitable as hoped? Or that a huge national streaming deal from Netflix, Peacock, ESPN or whoever just won’t be available? Or that the big market teams, happy with their local broadcast deals, are working extra hard to block a national deal? We’ll see. This will last for several years, not just this winter.

Is something also threatening? The current collective bargaining agreement runs through 2026. These issues will impact player-owner battles and also owner-owner battles. Perhaps more than any other topic on the table. So that will be fun.