The opening games of Major League Baseball next year will NOT be televised.

[hardcorestitch]

Netflix has acquired the rights to opening day games starting 2026.

 

[citruscurtis]

Wow love to be a fly on the wall for that board room decision

 

[hardcorestitch]

All those older viewers will certainly be missing out on the first few games of next year. Thanks Rob Manfred for already lowering your ratings before you even started next year.

 

[Deb]

I'm not seeing anything other than the Yankees Giants game when I google

 

[Buzz Rules]

Netflix has acquired the rights to opening day games starting 2026.

 

[hardcorestitch]

I'm not seeing anything other than the Yankees Giants game when I google

Currently they have that plus the MLB Home Run Derby.

 

[sam_gordon]

How is this any different than NFL doing some "streaming only" games?

I'm assuming Netflix offered MLB more $$ than what they'd get from broadcasters. It's all about the greenbacks.

ETA: I'd also argue the games ARE being "televised", just not from terrestrial broadcasters.

 

[thanxfornoticin]

How is this any different than NFL doing some "streaming only" games?

I'm assuming Netflix offered MLB more $$ than what they'd get from broadcasters. It's all about the greenbacks.

ETA: I'd also argue the games ARE being "televised", just not from terrestrial broadcasters.

It's not really different. The major pro sports are almost controlled by the tv rights - the networks/streaming services pay big bucks, so they control the broadcasting in certain situations. The players, and especially the fans, are really not a concern for them...... They're just pushing for memberships.....

 

[dizneegirl]

Nascar had 5 or 6 races that were on Prime... seems to be the way of things...

 

[jimmymc]

How is this any different than NFL doing some "streaming only" games?

I'm assuming Netflix offered MLB more $$ than what they'd get from broadcasters. It's all about the greenbacks.

ETA: I'd also argue the games ARE being "televised", just not from terrestrial broadcasters.

It's no different, but it's equally terrible. Some baseball fans now need cable and two streaming services to watch all their team's games.

 

[Deb]

It's no different, but it's equally terrible. Some baseball fans now need cable and two streaming services to watch all their team's games.

I can't watch "all" of my teams games. I've moved from their local area and the blackout regions are ridiculous. So I pay for an MLB subscription and still miss plenty of games. Plus the ones on AppleTV

 

[_19disnA]

I think the push to put sporting events on special channels or sell some sort of Pay Per View package is going to back-fire. People simply lose interest when watching turns into a money grab and they find other sports to watch or something else to do. We all know the MILLIONS they pay the players has to come from somewhere, but being greedy isn't going to get them more fans. Then the owners will be wondering why they have fewer followers................gee go figure.

Indy 500 time trials has only been shown on some pay channel the last few years. Always enjoyed watching in the past, but no interest in paying extra just to watch, so they have lost me as a viewer.

 

[sam_gordon]

It's no different, but it's equally terrible. Some baseball fans now need cable and two streaming services to watch all their team's games.

And where were they before cable, much less streaming? Should ALL professional sporting events be free on local TV? Professional sports is a business. Owners/leagues are going to try to make as much money as they can.

I mean, kudos to the Savannah Bananas. I'm pretty sure their games are always free on YT.

 

[jimmymc]

And where were they before cable, much less streaming? Should ALL professional sporting events be free on local TV? Professional sports is a business. Owners/leagues are going to try to make as much money as they can.

I mean, kudos to the Savannah Bananas. I'm pretty sure their games are always free on YT.

I never said it wasn't a business, that the leagues weren't trying to make money, or that they should all be free to access. All of those are you putting words in my mouth.

In the year 2025, there should be a single service that carries all your team's and/or the league's games. The MLB, NHL, and NBA league passes all have blackouts for their "every game" streaming service when the games are on local or national cable TV. The NFL only blacks out games on free local TV, which I don't think is too bad. Make it convenient to watch every game and you'll get more fans than before.

 

[Deb]

mlb blackouts are ridiculous. I live in NC and can't watch my team when they are playing Cincinnati, among other teams, but that one seems really odd to me.

 

[sam_gordon]

I never said it wasn't a business, that the leagues weren't trying to make money, or that they should all be free to access. All of those are you putting words in my mouth.

You're right. You only said it's "terrible", which I took to mean you don't think people should have to pay to see the games.

In the year 2025, there should be a single service that carries all your team's and/or the league's games. The MLB, NHL, and NBA league passes all have blackouts for their "every game" streaming service when the games are on local or national cable TV. The NFL only blacks out games on free local TV, which I don't think is too bad. Make it convenient to watch every game and you'll get more fans than before.

Even if I don't like it, I can understand why the local/national broadcasters would blackout the streaming service from airing the games. If someone can go to MLB.com (for example) to watch a game that's aired on Fox (again, for example), those are viewers that AREN'T watching Fox. Fewer viewers = fewer ratings = less ad dollars.

 

[jimmymc]

Even if I don't like it, I can understand why the local/national broadcasters would blackout the streaming service from airing the games. If someone can go to MLB.com (for example) to watch a game that's aired on Fox (again, for example), those are viewers that AREN'T watching Fox. Fewer viewers = fewer ratings = less ad dollars.

I think that's what landed us in this situation. Fox, Netflix, Prime, etc. will only pay big money if games are 100% exclusive to them and not available online.

 

[sam_gordon]

I think that's what landed us in this situation. Fox, Netflix, Prime, etc. will only pay big money if games are 100% exclusive to them and not available online.

Which makes sense. That drives the MLB.com viewers to those platforms. Heck, it's even the same with blackout rules for NFL before cable/streaming... if a stadium wasn't sold out, the game would be blacked out to that market. In theory, that forces people to go to the game instead of watching on TV. At least that's my understanding.

It's all about the Benjamins. Whether that's for the broadcaster or the rights owner.

 

[thanxfornoticin]

It's a spiral. With many sports now handing out 9-figure contracts to athletes, many of them BIG 9-figure contracts, someone has to help fund it. Ticket prices and concession prices are already really high, they've got sponsorship signs all over the stadiums/arenas (including the stadiums and arenas themselves!!), they're even putting sponsors on the player uniforms, but it's the TV money that makes the big difference for the league and the owners. The 2 1/2 minutes of advertising going on between innings of local broadcasts only pays for so much.

 

[hardcorestitch]

How is this any different than NFL doing some "streaming only" games?

I'm assuming Netflix offered MLB more $$ than what they'd get from broadcasters. It's all about the greenbacks.

ETA: I'd also argue the games ARE being "televised", just not from terrestrial broadcasters.

Streaming technology is different from traditional TV.