Oct 27, 2012; Detroit, MI, USA; MLB former player Hank Aaron (right) greets commissioner Bud Selig (left) at a press conference before game three of the 2012 World Series between the Detroit Tigers and the San Francisco Giants at Comerica Park. Mandatory Credit: Tim Fuller-USA TODAY Sports

The MASN Rights Dispute: Why It's Time To Pay The Nationals

When Major League Baseball chose to relocate the Montreal Expos to Washington, D.C. in 2005, Baltimore Orioles owner Peter Angelos proved to be a significant thorn in their side. He vehemently opposed the move, and made it as difficult for the league as he could. A major part of his sabotage involved the broadcast rights to D.C., which he owned. He refused to permit the move without maintaining significant power over the Nationals’ broadcasts, and as such, the final deal struck for the Nationals was heavily biased in favor of the Orioles. As an exciting, winning team, the Nationals are drawing a great deal of attention, and the team feels its payment from the network should reflect the viewership and revenue it brings. However, Angelos’ hardheadedness and refusal to yield over the original deal continues to make agreement difficult, and no agreement is in sight, even with MLB’s involvement. The league has convened a committee to help reach a fair fee for the Nationals, but progress has been limited. Thanks to their original deal, the Nationals and Orioles are stuck fighting a brutal battle over their TV revenue rights, and with neither side willing to budge, it seems unlikely that a solution will be found soon without significant outside influence.

April 4, 2012; Miami, FL, USA; MLB commissioner Bud Selig in attendance before the opening day game between the St. Louis Cardinals and the Miami Marlins at Marlins Ballpark. Mandatory Credit: Steve Mitchell-USA TODAY Sports

When creating a deal for the Nationals’ broadcast rights in 2005, the MLB created an untenable situation that would have lead to a dispute like the present one no matter what. Angelos was concerned that the addition of another baseball team in what had been his team’s broadcast territory would hurt the Orioles’ revenue. As such, MLB placated him by creating a broadcast deal that heavily favored the Orioles. The Nationals were given 10% ownership of the new broadcast network, called the Mid-Atlantic Sports Network (MASN). The Nats’ stake in the network will increase by 1% over each of the next 23 years, eventually topping out at 33%. The Nationals and Orioles each receive the same rights fees from the network, but the Nationals feel that these fees do not accurately reflect the money the team deserves. Although opponents of change may point to the teams’ equal payments and call the deal fair, MASN charges cable providers a lower than average fee to carry it, which diminishes the revenue it makes. This situation was bound for conflict from the beginning, mainly because it gives one team control over the broadcasting rights of another. In addition, the two teams are in starkly different TV markets. Washington, D.C. is the eighth biggest market, while Baltimore is significantly lower at 27th. MLB, by involving itself in these negotiations, recognizes that the Nationals are not being treated fairly by MASN. The league could have seen this just as easily in 2005, but chose to placate Angelos and kick the can down the road, which has led to the current ugly situation.

The rights fees the Nationals currently receive are not representative of what a team of their profile in a market of their size deserves, and the team is right to have a grievance with MASN. The current deal paid the Nationals $29 million in 2011, $34 million in 2012, and proposes to pay them $37 million in 2013. These figures do not seem extremely paltry, especially noting that the average local TV rights fee to each team was $32.8 million in 2011, but rights values are skyrocketing fast. The Los Angeles Dodgers recently signed a record-breaking, 25-year deal that will pay them at least $84 million per year, plus a huge signing bonus. The Texas Rangers and Houston Astros both signed deals that will give them $80 million a year. If the Nationals were allowed to negotiate their own deal on the open market, there is no doubt that they would fetch a similar price. The team also had the greatest percentage jump in TV ratings of any team from 2011 to 2012, and as such would be an even more attractive TV partner. Unfortunately, the Nats are bound to MASN and Angelos unless a significant change comes to the network, which it may.

Two possible outcomes exist for this fracas: either significant change comes to MASN, such as an increased ownership stake in MASN for the Nationals, or a new network is created. MASN’s revenue this year was under $200 million, which means that a payment of $100-$120 million like the Nationals are requesting is unrealistic, given that the Orioles must also be paid. However, the Nationals would likely stick on with the network if they can immediately receive a larger percentage of its ownership and perhaps enact changes, such as increasing fees from cable providers that carry it to up the network’s revenue. The other, less likely outcome would be the formation of an entirely new Nationals network. MLB has reportedly reached out to investors who could potentially buy the rights to broadcast the Nationals and Orioles from MASN. If an entity could be found to do this, potentially such as Fox Sports, they would be able to negotiate a fair-market deal with the Nationals to pay them adequately for their broadcast rights. Perhaps most fortunately, the Nationals would be free of Angelos’ and the Orioles’ influence. Herein lies the problem, however. Whatever group bought these rights would have to pry them away from Angelos, who is certainly not keen on giving them up. Regardless of its feasibility, this solution would be the best for both parties in the long run, and MLB’s interest in it seems to indicate that they agree.

Although this conflict could be seen coming since the Nationals came to D.C., its arrival remains frustrating. Greed rules the day on both sides. The only difference is that the Orioles’ greed denies the Nationals their rightful dues for the broadcast rights they were deprived of, while the Nationals simply desire to reclaim those rights or their equivalent and gargantuan value. The MLB is working hard to settle this without legal action, and will likely do so, but whether it will be with MASN or a whole new network remains to be seen. What is clear is that the league dug itself and the Nats a deep hole in 2005, one that they are only beginning to climb arduously out of.

Next Nationals Game View full schedule »
Sunday, Aug 3131 Aug1:10at Seattle MarinersBuy Tickets

Tags: MASN Washington Nationals

  • toddboss

    You think this situation will “likely end without legal action?” Ha. I see zero chance this ends without legal action. Because the only way to really settle this is to:

    a) Divest Angelos of his large majority market share of MASN by selling to another party like FoxSports (which Angelos will sue to block)

    b) To increase Washington’s share in MASN far above the 1% vesting/33% maximum (which Angelos will sue to block, since he already has a deal in place)

    c) Forcibly award Washington a larger amount of annual revenue than the Orioles are offering (which Angelos sues over to block/review in courts).

    You forget; Angelos made his money filing lawsuits. You think he’s just going to accept an arbitrator or Bud Selig’s decision on this major situation?

    I know you’re writing this as a Nats fan, as am I. But the tone towards Angelos really isn’t fair. Is Angelos being “hardheaded,” “sabotaging” the Nats or being “greedy?” I don’t think so. He has a very legitimate argument that his franchise was financially harmed when the Nats came to town, and he struck his deal at the time. What businessman willingly just says “hey, i’ll give you millions of dollars more than our originla agreement that we struck just 8 years ago?” Nobody. He’s sticking to his negotiated-in-good-faith deal.

    I’d like nothing more than to see Selig just sell the Nats rights to the highest bidder, give Angelos a one-time payoff and be done with it. Will it happen? I highly doubt it.

    • jdubtrey

      This is well put.

      A deal is a deal. This was the compensation for putting a team within 35 miles of an existing one. The revenues required to run a club in 2005 were entirely different than what was reuired in 1972 when both cities had teams.

      One thing I don’t understand is why the deal wasn’t simply to sell each team’s rights to the highest bidder and then divide the rights fees 50-50 (for 30 years, as the MASN deal outlines). Actually having a network seems to be more of a headache than it is worth (because MASN has to fish for their own carriage fees rather than just let it be someone else’s problem).

  • Darlene Langley

    I don’t see this situation being resolved without someone suing someone else. MLB has been trying to resolve this situation for what seems like forever with no end in sight.

  • Pingback: Orioles, Nationals, and MASN: A deal is a deal