TV Contract

[reillymcshane]

Anyone have a clue as to what the Brewers will get on their next TV contract.

 

I just saw that the Angels new deal will give them $3 billion over 20 years. That's $150 million/year.

 

Here's the story on the TV deal: http://www.latimes.com/sp...20111209,0,4052777.story

[PrinceFielderx1]

Anyone have a clue as to what the Brewers will get on their next TV contract.

according to the NY times,

The Brewers receive less than $10 million a year in the deal, and

although that figure should triple starting in 2013, for now it is the

lowest local media payout in the majors.

link to article

[RockCoCougars]

As a DirecTV customer who is tired of seeing FSW as an 'alternative' channel (non full time), I wish the Brewers would have stuck it to Fox when they negotiated their new contract. Is it that preposterous to think that they could have started their own statewide sports channel? I certainly would kick in several extra dollars if I knew the money was going toward payroll. Obviously, such an idea is probably a pipe dream as Fox is a near monopoly now in the regional sports network game.... the Yankees are the only team that I know of that have successfully done their own channel (though the Cubs and Sox are still on a Comcast channel). It's frustrating watching a Minnesota centric sports channel knowing that the Brewers get higher local ratings than the Twins.

[dadofandrew]

Even if its $30M, that's $120M more per season for the Angels. Even with some revenue sharing, it's not a level playing field, as proven by Hairston and Hawkins $3M deals with LA clubs...that's thrown around like bread crusts out there, while Doug needs to be careful, as $3M here and $3M there adds up to a sizable chunk.

[reillymcshane]

Even if its $30M, that's $120M more per season for the Angels. Even with some revenue sharing, it's not a level playing field, as proven by Hairston and Hawkins $3M deals with LA clubs...that's thrown around like bread crusts out there, while Doug needs to be careful, as $3M here and $3M there adds up to a sizable chunk.

this is what i was looking at. even if we get $30 million. or even $50 million. we are still $100 million behind the Angels.

[AJAY]

If I am interpreting this report correctly, the Brewers had more viewers than the Dodgers in 2011 (in terms of total number of households watching per night). The report also says the Dodgers and Angels had identical TV ratings (which therefore implies that the Brewers had a bigger audience than the Angels).

 

I know the LA market has more wealth for advertisers, but shouldn't the Brewers' TV deal be much closer to what Anaheim has???

 

Let me know if I am misinterpreting the numbers.

 

http://www.sportsbusiness...0/03/Media/MLB-RSNs.aspx

 

Edit: Yes, I am aware the Brewers ratings were probably their best possible whereas the Dodgers still have much more upside. But still, the disparity seems extreme relative to the numbers.

[1992casey]

The rating is like a percentage. The total number of households would be an indicator of the number of viewers. I recall that a couple of years ago, the Brewers' total number of viewers was in the top half of MLB for a while. That would be phenomenal.

[logan82]

So we take in an extra $20m but how much of the revenue sharing do we lose?

[kramnoj]

Casey has an excellent memory. Here is a link to a thread that discusses ratings for 2009 and 2010 - http://brewersfandemonium...-2010-reply-16ish?page=1

 

In 2009, the Brewers actually had more total viewers than the Angels when this rating was released. In 2010, the Angels were getting about 23k more viewers, but Milwaukee had a rating about 4 times higher.

[brewmann04]

I agree fox sports Wisc should no longer be a regional network tired of getting a blue screen after the brewers post game.

[RockCoCougars]

Another part of the problem I can't wrap my mind around is how poorly FSW markets the Brewers. I mean seriously, how many Miller, Menard's, Piggly Wiggly, AirTran and Usinger's commercials air per game- not to mention that probably half of the ads are Brewers or FSW related. You'd think that they'd be able to sell ad time to many other businesses considering the ratings. On Brewer game nights, I'd bet that quite often more people are watching the game than the 'major networks'.

[dadofandrew]

I'm sure the Brewers get so many ads a game as part of their contract...obviously, FSW would be happy to sell pricier ads to anyone who wants to buy. They do not get all of them either, as local cable gets X amount, I believe 25-33% is the norm.

[JohnBriggs12]

It doesn't really matter how many viewers the Brewers had actually watching games vs. how many watched the Angels. The Angels have many more that could watch, and the signing of Pujols means advertisers will bet that many more will.

 

It's the basic argument that Bill Veeck made back when he owned the St. Louis Browns. A game requires two teams. Without the 2nd team, there is no telecast and hence no advertising money to be made. Therefore, broadcast rights should be split. The NFL got that concept way back when thanks in large part to 2 men who owned teams in the large markets, George Halas and Wellington Mara. Baseball never got it, hence the inequities. The luxury tax is a poor substitute that doesn't fix the problem, it perpetuates it.

[dadofandrew]

There is no local TV in the NFL, so the question is moot. Do they split radio revenue? I'm sure NY gets far more than GB.

[jeffy]

The Angels have many more that could watch, and the signing of Pujols means advertisers will bet that many more will.

 

But they got the much bigger TV contract first. I would guess the problems of the Dodgers had a lot to do with increase in TV money for the Angels.

[AJAY]

I just read on FoxSports.com that the Washington Nationals were making 29 million a year in their old TV deal and that they are due to double or triple that soon. I also read somewhere else that the San Diego Padres are due for a huge raise in their next TV deal. I also read somewhere else that Rupert Murdoch is giving some MLB teams part ownership

in their local Fox Sports affiliates as part of the TV contract.

 

Now I really want to know what the Brewers will be getting in the future. The local media is completely asleep in covering this issue. Teams all over MLB with lower ratings and fewer households watching are cashing in big-time with monster TV deals. Shouldn't the Brewers ride the wave as well????

 

http://msn.foxsports.com/...stove-free-agency-010212

[PrinceFielderx1]

I think it's safe to assume that the Brewers no matter what will have one of the lowest TV contract in the Majors. I just hope they receive a big enough increase to be able to bump their payroll to somewhere between 105-115 million.

 

I agree with AJAY that the local media is completely asleep on covering this issue.

[TheCrew07]

I'm not sure a jump in local tv contract revenue isn't accompanied by a reduction in the amount of revenue the Brewers receive from the league.

[Invader3K]

It is strange that we haven't heard even a ballpark number for the Brewers' new TV deal, while other teams' contracts are routinely publicized. It makes me worry that even the new deal is still embarrassingly low.

[owbc]

The first problem, as mentioned, is that very little information is disclosed. We know nothing about the Brewers contract except that they signed a new one in 2009 for undisclosed dollars and years.

 

The Nationals had a 1.22 rating in 2011, which corresponds to about 25,000-30,000 households. So the Brewers are getting at least double the number of viewers as the Nationals. If the Brewers signed a contract based on the 2009 numbers, then it is probably worth somewhere in the $30-50 million per year range. I believe the previous deal was for less than $10 million per year but I can not find the numbers.

 

The rest of the Brewers' revenue/expense numbers are hard to guess. We know MLB payroll which is nowhere near all-encompassing. Who knows how much they spend on ballpark operations, player development, executive salaries, etc. For income, there are ticket sales, parking, the TV deal, merchandise, and sponsorships. Ticket revenue is somewhere around $50-60 million but it is hard to guess due to discounts and reduced rates for season ticket holders. In total, the Brewers probably take in somewhere in the $200 million range per year, higher when they make the playoffs.

 

So, if the Nationals can get a TV deal worth $60-90 million, the Brewers should be able to exceed that and add a nice boost to their revenues. However, the TV deal is ultimately driven by advertising sales, and I'm not quite so sure that FS Wisconsin is going to be able to get much more money out of their advertisers. Last I checked, the advertisements during Brewers games were not from the type of companies/organizations that you would expect to be paying millions of dollars to advertise. The difference between Milwaukee's TV revenue and the mid-to-large market teams will likely continue to increase in coming years. It is very concerning.

[AJAY]

Try not to faint when you read this, but a new article in the USA Today suggests that the San Diego Padres are due to get a whopping 75 million dollars a year in their next TV deal.

 

Yes . . . the San Diego Padres.

 

Can you believe that?

 

I really hope the Brewers are getting something sweet too. They should pull Time Warner Cable into the bidding to compete with FoxSports Wisconsin. It seems that most other teams are taking advantage of competition between channels.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/s...o-sign-talent/53032284/1

[kramnoj]

I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that since there are reports that a TV contract is in place, it would be too late to negotiate.

[reillymcshane]

Try not to faint when you read this, but a new article in the USA Today suggests that the San Diego Padres are due to get a whopping 75 million dollars a year in their next TV deal.

 

Yes . . . the San Diego Padres.

 

Can you believe that?

 

I really hope the Brewers are getting something sweet too. They should pull Time Warner Cable into the bidding to compete with FoxSports Wisconsin. It seems that most other teams are taking advantage of competition between channels.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/s...o-sign-talent/53032284/1

Well, that bodes well for Milwaukee. SD is around 28th in market size, while Milwaukee is 33rd. Now, size aside, not all markets are equal. Advertisers look at a lot of factors, including income, education, etc. I would imagine (but I'm not positive) that Milwaukee isn't particularly attractive. But no matter, it would be nice to get some serious dollars from the next contract.

[jjgott]

I really hope the Brewers are getting something sweet too. They should pull Time Warner Cable into the bidding to compete with FoxSports Wisconsin. It seems that most other teams are taking advantage of competition between channels.

Definitely agree with the competitive bidding. The Padres used to be on the local Cox Cable channel so I'm sure a part of the price was getting them to move to Fox Sports. Not sure if Time Warner Sports could really compete with FS Wisconsin, but it would be good to at least have tried to receive a competing bid.

[hawing]

I really hope the Brewers are getting something sweet too. They should pull Time Warner Cable into the bidding to compete with FoxSports Wisconsin. It seems that most other teams are taking advantage of competition between channels.

Definitely agree with the competitive bidding. The Padres used to be on the local Cox Cable channel so I'm sure a part of the price was getting them to move to Fox Sports. Not sure if Time Warner Sports could really compete with FS Wisconsin, but it would be good to at least have tried to receive a competing bid.

I understand the value of a competing bid, but is there a valid potential competitor to FSW with statewide coverage? (I say that realizing that Fox Sports Wisconsin coverage is disrupted by FS North programming at times.) I don't know how far Time Warner coverage extends to the north of Milwaukee, but it definitely doesn't reach Madison. When a market is as spread out as the Brewers', I don't know how real competition becomes available.