Bold claim: the ownership shake-up in MLB TV rights could redefine how fans watch games, and it’s bigger—and more polarizing—than it looks at first glance.
But here’s where it gets controversial: Commissioner Rob Manfred envisions gathering all 30 MLB local TV rights, in addition to national rights, so they can be sold to buyers after the 2028 season for a potentially higher total price. The logic is straightforward: more rights bundled together could fetch a heftier overall deal than selling national rights alone.
Now, a big wrinkle: not every team wants to cede control over their local broadcasts. The Cubs are a prime example. Cubs chairman Tom Ricketts, speaking at Cubs camp in Arizona, said, “We love our independence.” And this sentiment likely resonates with other teams that own their own RSNs (regional sports networks), such as the Dodgers, Yankees, Mets, and Red Sox, who currently enjoy strong revenue from local TV deals.
MLB’s plan, as described, isn’t necessarily a full league-wide takeovers of all 30 rights. The league could pursue a package that focuses on the rights it can most easily consolidate, while some teams resist. A crucial detail from MLB’s constitution—introduced in a 2023 court case—states that any action related to video media rights requires a majority vote by team owners, and anything affecting revenue sharing from any source needs a three-quarters vote (23 of 30 owners). That means a determined minority could block a sweeping shift, and the article suggests roughly eight owners might oppose.
At present, MLB already handles production and distribution for 14 teams (including the Diamondbacks, Padres, Guardians, Rockies, Twins, Mariners, Reds, Tigers, Royals, Marlins, Brewers, Cardinals, Rays, and Nationals). These rights largely stem from the collapse of Diamond Sports/Main Street Sports Group, which owned Fox Sports RSNs under various brands. The Angels are the latest addition in question, still weighing their broadcasting future.
A big motive behind Manfred’s push is financial: if national TV revenue is pooled and shared more equitably, big-market clubs—those with the most valuable rights—might be more willing to participate, even if it means giving up some local control. In this puzzle, a salary cap could play a supporting role in negotiations with players, nudging owners toward a model that looks more like a shared revenue system. That said, most fans know a cap isn’t straightforward without a minimum floor and guaranteed player revenue percentages, plus transparent ownership books.
There’s another practical angle fans will care about: how many national packages MLB sells in 2029. If MLB offers multiple national packages, fans could be faced with purchasing several services to watch a full season. This is a common complaint—having to subscribe to multiple platforms to catch every game. MLB’s constitution reportedly limits each team to 17–18 exclusive national games per season across the different channels carrying national broadcasts. For example, last year the Cubs’ 17 national appearances spanned Fox, ESPN, Apple TV, and Roku. This year NBC is in the mix, but Roku drops out, and many of NBC’s exclusive games will land on Peacock. In short, choosing your streaming service for complete Cubs coverage could become more complex in the 2029 era.
All of these moving parts mean we’re in for a wait-and-see period. Fans should stay alert to announcements, because the implications touch residency, pricing, and how easily you can watch your favorite teams.
Discussion prompt: Do you think consolidating local rights under MLB would be good for fans in the long run, or would it mostly benefit the league and the big markets? What’s your threshold for paying for multiple packages to watch all your games?
