Here’s a bold statement: The future of how you watch Major League Baseball could be on the brink of a seismic shift, and it’s all tied to a high-stakes battle over local TV rights. But here’s where it gets controversial: Commissioner Rob Manfred has openly expressed his desire to consolidate all 30 MLB teams’ local TV rights by 2028, aiming to bundle them with national rights for a potentially massive payday. The idea? A bigger pie for everyone—or so he says. Yet, not everyone is on board, and this is the part most people miss: teams like the Cubs, Dodgers, and Yankees, who cherish their independence and lucrative local deals, are unlikely to surrender control without a fight.
Let’s break it down. Manfred’s plan hinges on the fact that all current national TV deals expire after 2028, creating a perfect window to centralize as many local rights as possible. However, as Chicago Cubs chairman Tom Ricketts bluntly put it, ‘We love our independence.’ This sentiment echoes across teams that own their regional sports networks (RSNs) and reap significant profits from local broadcasts. According to The Athletic’s Evan Drellich, even if Manfred can’t secure all 30 teams’ rights, he might still package a substantial portion—but it won’t be easy.
Here’s the kicker: MLB’s constitution requires a three-quarters majority vote (23 out of 30 owners) to force teams to give up their local rights. That’s a high bar, and I’d wager there are at least eight owners ready to block such a move. Why? Because local TV money is a golden goose for many teams, and they’re not eager to share it more broadly. Currently, MLB produces and distributes games for 14 teams—many of which inherited rights after the collapse of Main Street Sports Group (formerly Diamond Sports). Add the Angels to that list, who are still figuring out their broadcasting future.
Manfred’s motivation isn’t just about money—though that’s a big part of it. He wants to even out revenue distribution among owners, betting that big-market teams will play ball if national TV deals bring in enough cash. And this is where it gets even more contentious: a salary cap, long a point of friction with players, could be a bargaining chip in this equation. If owners agree to share more TV revenue, they might push harder for a cap—a move that would require players to concede ground on their earnings.
Now, let’s talk about you, the fan. Manfred claims he wants to end blackouts and make games more accessible. ‘We got a lot of people who watch every single day,’ he said recently. But here’s the catch: if MLB sells multiple national packages—three, four, or even five—fans might need to subscribe to just as many services to watch a full season. That’s right: more platforms, more subscriptions, and potentially more frustration. This is the single biggest gripe I hear from fans, and it’s a valid one.
Take the Cubs, for example. Last year, they had 17 exclusive national games spread across Fox, ESPN, Apple TV, and Roku. This year, NBC (and Peacock) joins the mix, meaning fans need yet another subscription to catch every game. MLB’s constitution limits teams to 17 or 18 exclusive national games per season, but with more platforms entering the fray, the fragmentation is only deepening.
Here’s the question I’ll leave you with: Is Manfred’s vision of a more equitable revenue model worth the potential hassle for fans? Or is this just another example of the league prioritizing profits over viewer experience? Let me know your thoughts in the comments—this debate is far from over. As always, we’ll be watching closely to see how this unfolds.
