Are you wondering why you cannot watch the Los Angeles Dodgers with your cable or satellite provider? More importantly, have you pondered why it has taken so long for the powers that be to agree on purchasing and selling the Dodgers television programming to its customers? It comes down to competition: getting beat at it, too much of it, and too little of it. Here are three reasons why your favorite team is seen, but not seen by all:

ICYMI: Have the Dodgers International Investments Reaped a Return?

 

1.Bubble Buster Competition: The Los Angeles Lakers Entered the Market First

In February 2011, the Lakers announced that they had agreed to a 20-year deal with Time Warner Cable (TWC) to air their basketball games on two channels (English and Spanish). Prior to the Lakers announcement, the Dodgers’ former owner Frank McCourt was discussing the launch of two cable channels in English and Spanish, entitled “DTV: Dodgers Television.” After the Lakers announcement, McCourt scrapped those plans and he eventually left the team when Guggenheim Partners purchased the Dodgers franchise in 2012.

Call it bad timing, but the Dodgers missed a great opportunity to hit the market first. The transfer of power between one owner and another only exasperated the problems to come. The Dodgers did eventually sign a longer deal than the Lakers at 25-years in length, and possibly in dollar value at $8.3 billion, but TWC now had to sell an additional à la carte channel (entitled SportsNet LA) in a full market to its customers and those of other cable and satellite providers, like DirectTV.

TWC sold the Lakers channel to its customers and other provides for what some believe is roughly $2.50-$3.50 per month. The Dodgers channel initially sold for $4.50-$5.00 per month. Even though Charter Communications purchased TWC in April-May 2016 after the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the United States Department of Justice (US DOJ) gave antitrust approval bringing more households under the Dodgers umbrella, many fans were still left without the Dodgers television station. Regardless, the market price had been set and TWC’s/Charter’s major competitor, DirecTV, balked at the price. That, however, is not the entire story.

2. Antitrust and Collusion Allegations: Television Provider Competition

Between Hulu, Netflix, Amazon Fire TV stick, MLBTV, the multitude of cable and satellite providers, and the à la carte channel choices from each, television now models Burger King’s “Have it Your Way” slogan. This is a problem in regards to large television deals carrying exclusive television licensing rights. According to the Los Angeles Times, “no games [are] available for free on over-the-air television [and] [a]bout 620,000 homes do not have a subscription to a pay-TV provider.”

Mix in the blender the cost, a multitude of choices in providers and channels offered by those providers, and the fact that many Los Angeles residents do not have pay-TV, you end up with a large population of fans without the ability to watch their hometown team. You also end up with fans and competitors who simply do not want to buy what Charter/TWC are, and were, selling.

What is worse, is that when AT&T purchased DirecTV, a majority of households now only have two major choices in television in the Los Angeles market, Charter or DirecTV. According to the Los Angeles Times, “Customers in about 1.8 million homes in the Los Angeles region that receive TV service from Time Warner Cable and Charter Communications [now one company] have the channel in their lineups. But there are an additional 3 million homes in the metropolitan Los Angeles area without SportsNet LA.”

Charter has since lowered its price to $3.50 for a reported $100 million dollar loss, but DirecTV is still not interested. That is interesting because the price is comparable to other regional sports channels. Here is a price comparison from SNL Kagan via the Los Angeles Times and USA TODAY:

“DirecTV owns the Root Sports Northwest channel, which provides coverage of the Seattle Mariners and two soccer teams. This year, pay-TV operators pay an average cost of $3.84 a month per subscriber home for that channel.” –Los Angeles Times

“Pay-TV providers would have to pay an average [emphasis added] monthly subscriber fee of $4.06 for SportsNet LA versus $2.83 for YES Network, which broadcasts the New York Yankees and Brooklyn Nets, and $4.55 for MSG Network (New York Knicks, Rangers and Islanders, New Jersey Devils). It compares to top basic cable channels such as ESPN ($7.21) and TNT ($1.82).” –USA TODAY

The dispute is now more complicated as the FCC considers the AT&T purchase of Time Warner for $85.3 billion dollars (not TWC, but formerly under the same corporate umbrella), while the USDOJ filed suit against AT&T/DirecTV for antitrust and collusion violations involving the Dodgers Charter/TWC deal negotiations.

Let us further consider AT&T/DirecTV’s dilemma because it is a complicated one. AT&T/DirecTV is currently being sued by the same entity for antitrust and collusion violations for allegedly leaking information to competitors about the Charter/TWC SportsNet LA Dodgers Channel, while simultaneously seeking approval from the same entity for a buyout of a major competitor (Time Warner). And that entity is the US DOJ. It is complicated enough for AT&T/DirecTV to entice a settlement prior to trial?

“Since that deal will require [US] DOJ approval, AT&T will likely settle this suit,” Phil Swann, president of TVPredictions.com told USA TODAY. “There is no way that AT&T will allow the Justice Department attorneys to begin merger consideration with this lawsuit pending,” he continued. “This is of course good news for baseball fans since the settlement will likely include AT&T’s U-Verse and SportsNet LA on DirecTV next season.”

Meanwhile, the US DOJ continues the fight against DirecTV/AT&T with its recent opposition to the defendant’s motion to dismiss. A potential settlement is great news for Dodgers fans. It is also great news for sports fans in general as the federal government fights back so that folks can watch some ballgames.

3. Bad Deal-Making: Lack of Competition in the Charter/TWC Dodgers Deal

So what makes the Lakers’ deal different from the Dodgers? According to Variety:

“[First] TWC is not keeping the channels exclusive to its own subscribers. Rather, it will make them available to all satellite, cable and telco distributors in the Lakers’ territory, which includes all of Southern California, Nevada and Hawaii . . .

[Second] National broadcast contracts on ABC/ESPN and TNT are unaffected, but 2011-12 will be the last season of local over-the-air broadcasts of the Lakers in Los Angeles.”

In contrast, unless purchased for a fee, the Dodgers made their games exclusive to Charter/TWC customers with no other available outlets. Furthermore, unless purchased for a fee, the Dodgers have no national television contracts with ESPN or otherwise. Was it an overreach in betting the television market? Is DirecTV to blame? The judge and jury will be singing soon unless a settlement prevails. Seemingly, as opposed to having too many options in choosing a platform or channel provider, the Dodgers were too exclusive and the fans have paid for it, literally and figuratively.

To recap, did the Lakers play bubble buster? Possibly, but three things are certain:

First, the two new football teams in Los Angeles, the Rams and Chargers, might have a difficult time getting local television deals in a sport that derives its revenues from the national market.

Second, the Los Angeles Clippers and their owner Steve Ballmer clearly learned from the Lakers and Dodgers when he signed a six-year deal in 2016 with Fox Sports Prime Ticket with digital and streaming rights options (doubling the team’s revenue) as opposed to creating a separate channel for Clippers basketball.

Third, the team channel competition is proving to be too much.

“Chris Bevilacqua, a New York-based media consultant in the sports and entertainment field, agrees with many analysts in that, with six regional sports networks costing viewers from $18-to-$20 a month in fees and populating the same Los Angeles market with just the two FSW channels six years ago, the Clippers’ owning their own network appears unrealistic,” writes the Los Angeles Daily News. “At least, one in the traditional sense. But it doesn’t preclude them with getting creative and being the first to make the leap ahead of everyone else in digital, outside-the-box platforms.”

We can surmise, therefore, that not all television providers are created equal, but justice may be coming soon for sports fans while setting some new antitrust and collusion precedent.

ICYMI: Negotiation 101: How to Get People to Agree in Sports

About The Author

Editorial Writer
Google+

Jeremy M. Evans is the Managing Attorney at California Sports Lawyer®, representing sports, entertainment, and business professionals in their contract, negotiation, and intellectual property matters. Evans is an award-winning attorney and community leader based in Los Angeles.

10 Responses

  1. Pet_Orange

    Forget cable and make separate deals with the local TV stations in the area. Solved.

    Reply
  2. Vicki Roman

    Great article Jeremy! Great to have an attorney who is on top of all these dumb-a$$ broadcasting rules to explain to us lay people on how things work. I’m a Directv customer of 25 years, and am ready to throw them out because they continue to raise rates every February with a lot of crap programming and many “infomercial” channels, and NO DODGER baseball! My 88 year old dad has been tremendously affected by this. He lives with me and it was his daily ritual and ultimate pleasure in life to watch the Dodgers on TV every day. Since the loss, he has turned to soccer which bores the rest of us to tears!

    Anyway, when I asked Directv why they haven’t done a deal with TWC, they always blamed it on TWC that they were not willing to negotiate, which I found hard to believe. Directv has become too much of a monopoly for me and as a consumer, I hate not having a choice.

    I also blame the new Dodger ownership team who signed this deal with TWC not even considering their fans, fans like my senior father who looked forward to Dodger games every day. To me, it was all about the $$ signs with little regard to the fans who just cannot make it to the stadium every day.

    Reply
    • Jim

      The dodger management who took the cash knowing it was so huge it probably wasn’t good, didn’t even consider fans. They could renegotiate the deal any time if they wanted to for a more realistic figure but the sport is no longer a sport to these idiots. Shame on you for losing a generation of fans so far. How can you look in the mirror? Make it right. You ruined LA baseball.

      Reply
  3. DJMadVibes1 .

    I cut the cord on Charter and switched to Directvnow. Gonna be a long season without my Dodgers on TV. Hopefully I can find a reliable website to catch some games. FU Charter

    Reply
    • Carlos

      No “worries” You’ll do just fine, I”ve been a Dodgers fun since 1955, so this is what I say “The heck with you Dodgers”

      Reply
  4. Chuck

    I too cut the cord on Charter, but mostly because everything about their equipment stinks, especially that god awful remote!! AT&T runs a close 2nd because they could have easily sold enough SportsnetLA subscriptions to their Dodger fans to at least make a profit!! Instead, 70% of the Dodgers TV public viewing got shutout for the 4th straight season!!! Not being able to watch Vin Scully’s last season put a fork in me!!!

    Last thing, I totally agree with Jeremy about Dodger Ownership!!!!!!!!! They took a total dump on LA fans, and being the richest franchise in MLB how many more millions of dollars do those greedy men need!!??!!

    Reply
    • john franklin

      infuriates me overtime I think about it. Worse, it is typically stupid upper management thinking. Getting 60-70% of something is far better economically than 100% of nothing. In the meantime, the product continues to lose value because the fan base erodes to other venues. There are many of us that don’t have the option of choosing Charter because we are in counties that Charter doesn’t serve.

      Reply
  5. movonup

    Last season I started looking really hard at the amount of people in the stands, and I’d say 95% of the time there’s a lot of empty seats at home games. Now watch a Giants home game…packed every fricken time.

    Ownership is losing fans, but because of their money grubbing deal, wgaf! Its pathetic and karma keeps the Dodgers from the World Series. Oh and moneyball.

    If I weren’t disabled maybe I could be at one of those non sellout games. F?ck Guggengreed and their blackout.

    Reply
    • Joseph

      Haven’t the Dodgers lead MLB in both home and away attendance for a few years now? Put it in each individual person if they want to pay to watch the Dodgers. I buy MLB at bat every year to watch my Dodgers play. I rarely miss a game. It should be in individual subscribers hands if they are willing to meet the asking price. Miss the good ole days of watching them on regular tv but it is what it is.

      Reply
  6. Cal-OCLA

    So–follow-up question. What can we as Dodger fans and consumers do to put more pressure on making a deal? I feel that DirecTV is right in its war against this single-team sports station fight (even if hypocritical doing it in other markets itself).
    But how to do we as fans get them talking?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.