BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: MLB Network Exits YouTube TV Ahead of Spring Training After Contract Dispute

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, January 31, 2023

MLB Network Exits YouTube TV Ahead of Spring Training After Contract Dispute

The MLB Network is being dropped by YouTube TV after the two parties failed to reach a contract renewal agreement, according to an email sent to YouTube TV subscribers on Tuesday.

Though subscribers to YouTube TV’s base plan will still be able to watch select national Major League Baseball Games on Fox, ESPN and TBS, any saved recordings of content from the MLB Network will be lost as the result of the failed negotiations.(Before Tuesday, the MLB Network was available as part of YouTube’s $64.99 monthly base plan.)

“We apologize for the news and will continue conversations with the MLB to advocate on your behalf, in the hope of restoring their content on YouTube TV,” the email to subscribers said. A representative for the MLB Network, the league’s 24/7 channel with live games and studio programming, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: January 31, 2023 at 08:00 PM | 51 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
Tags: mlb network, streaming

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

1. jimfurtado

Posted: January 31, 2023 at 09:11 PM (#6115347)

I'm not switching to another service. I'll just cancel YouTubeTV. The timing is good; my wife and I were just talking the other about how the only thing that ever gets watched on YouTubeTV at this point is MLB Network.

I will get used to not watching MLB Network.

Screw them both.

2. DL from MN Posted: January 31, 2023 at 10:10 PM (#6115352)

MLB is doing a great job making sure they're not on television.

3. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 31, 2023 at 10:48 PM (#6115357)

People pay for YouTube?

4. Brian C Posted: January 31, 2023 at 10:51 PM (#6115359)

People pay for YouTube?

5. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 31, 2023 at 10:59 PM (#6115362)

It's YouTube *TV*. It's basically cable except over the internet, and it only costs $65/mo - a favorite of people who were tired of paying 2-3x that for cable every month and want to get the same thing for way cheaper.

From a cursory view it appears to have basic TV and like two channels I'd ever watch (TNT and cable news). Doesn't seem like a bargain for $65.

6. Brian C Posted: January 31, 2023 at 11:00 PM (#6115363)

OK.

7. John Northey Posted: January 31, 2023 at 11:01 PM (#6115364)

Wow, YouTube TV is quite expensive. Way more than I'd consider spending. Sportsnet here in Canada (exclusive home of the Jays, has a lot of Raptors and misc. hockey games) can be streamed for $15 a month, $150 a year. For other shows I just use Netflix/Disney/Prime/Crave which covers 99% of non-sports stuff for me.

8. Brian C Posted: January 31, 2023 at 11:13 PM (#6115368)

That's great, so you get a fraction of the sports programming for a lower price. Amazing.

9. McCoy Posted: February 01, 2023 at 06:06 AM (#6115370)

It's actually pretty hard to find live basic TV on streamers. So if you value that YouTube might just be the only game in town. If you don't value that it's crazy expensive.

10. Robbo Posted: February 01, 2023 at 10:26 AM (#6115380)

Waiting with bated breathe for our "representatives" in Washington to treat this as the same kind of national crisis as the DirectTV dropping Newsmax.

11. jmurph Posted: February 01, 2023 at 10:33 AM (#6115382)

Doesn't seem like a bargain for $65.

If you're interested in getting live sports, and the comparison is cable or satellite, it's a huge bargain. If you're not interested in getting live sports then there are several cheaper options.

12. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: February 01, 2023 at 11:23 AM (#6115389)

So this is MLB Network asking for higher carriage fees right before spring training to maximize pressure on Youtube TV, right? Seems like a bad look considering how half of MLB teams were dropped from Youtube TV because Sinclair couldn't work out rights fees for their RSNs. MLB Network's content isn't even that great, it's like endless viewings of The Sandlot mixed in with analysis from Dan O'Dowd. But they'll air spring training games here soon so I'm guessing that's why there's a standoff.

13. DL from MN Posted: February 01, 2023 at 12:10 PM (#6115392)

Sportsnet here in Canada (exclusive home of the Jays, has a lot of Raptors and misc. hockey games) can be streamed for $15 a month, $150 a year.

This seems like exactly what most people would want to have in the US - a streaming service that lets them watch their favorite local sports teams for $15-20 a month.

it's like endless viewings of The Sandlot mixed in with analysis from Dan O'Dowd.

If only there were a way to put a different program on instead, like a sports highlights show or even a different sport altogether like a basketball or hockey game. Hmmm...

14. jmurph Posted: February 01, 2023 at 12:17 PM (#6115394)

So this is MLB Network asking for higher carriage fees right before spring training to maximize pressure on Youtube TV, right? Seems like a bad look considering how half of MLB teams were dropped from Youtube TV because Sinclair couldn't work out rights fees for their RSNs. MLB Network's content isn't even that great, it's like endless viewings of The Sandlot mixed in with analysis from Dan O'Dowd. But they'll air spring training games here soon so I'm guessing that's why there's a standoff.

I understand there's a number below which it probably doesn't make sense for MLB to offer out their network to various tv providers (I'm sure tv production isn't cheap!), but isn't there some logic in seeing the network as something of a loss leader? The big money is in the national deals with ESPN/Fox/Turner and the local deals, so isn't MLB Network the perfect vehicle to lure in some new fans? Don't you want those spring training games on when kids get home from school, or a random 4pm out of market game?

15. jmurph Posted: February 01, 2023 at 12:20 PM (#6115395)

This seems like exactly what most people would want to have in the US - a streaming service that lets them watch their favorite local sports teams for $15-20 a month.

It's sort of coming, it just depends on the local market. The Red Sox and Bruins, as an example, are both on NESN, which is now available as a stand alone streaming service. The problem (for omnivorous sports fans) is you don't get the Celtics, who are on a different channel.

16. Dolf Lucky Posted: February 01, 2023 at 12:58 PM (#6115397)

With two solid years of inflation that hasn't been seen by anyone in 40 years, plus a severely inflated sense of don't-give-a-crap raging across the nation, stories like these make me think that the sports landscape is setting itself up to have the rug pulled out from under it. It's not as though the question of whether or not MLB network is on YTTV really matters, it's more that everyone has a tipping point and I suspect that a critical mass of people have already hit the tipping point or are getting perilously close.

If, by chance, we were to stumble across a major gambling scandal in one of the big three sports, the house of cards could come tumbling very quickly.

17. Jose is an Absurd Sultan Posted: February 01, 2023 at 01:16 PM (#6115400)

This seems like exactly what most people would want to have in the US - a streaming service that lets them watch their favorite local sports teams for $15-20 a month.

It's sort of coming, it just depends on the local market. The Red Sox and Bruins, as an example, are both on NESN, which is now available as a stand alone streaming service. The problem (for omnivorous sports fans) is you don't get the Celtics, who are on a different channel.

NESN (Red Sox Pravda) is $30/month. I have ditched cable completely in recent months and now have the following;

Peacock - $3.50/month
Paramount - $4.99/month
HBO - $15.99/month
NESN - $30.00/month
Hulu - $7.99/month

This gives me everything I want for $62 a month. If I were to do the same thing with Verizon it would be about $110 a month plus an additional $10 per TV in the house. I recently dropped $30 on a digital TV antenna which is amazing so I can really ditch the Peacock/Paramount/Hulu combo. The other great thing is that all of these things are monthly services. So one thing I do is cancel my services as soon as I get them. Then they are active for the whole month and I just reactivate when I want to watch something on them. I saved about $400 on TV last year versus having a cable subscription.

18. Jose is an Absurd Sultan Posted: February 01, 2023 at 01:17 PM (#6115401)

If, by chance, we were to stumble across a major gambling scandal in one of the big three sports, the house of cards could come tumbling very quickly.

The NBA had one about 15-20 years ago that incredibly didn't seem to move the needle at all.

19. catomi01 Posted: February 01, 2023 at 01:35 PM (#6115403)

With all the winter leagues and stuff, there is a live baseball game just about 12 months a year...I'd value MLB Network a lot more if they were showing some of these - especially in the offseason when people are hungry for real life baseball.

I always thought that with YES when the Yankees started it - set up camera crews and pipe in the local announcers for each of their minor league home games and air these during the morning and afternoon before the big league game...I'd much rather watch that than find out what kind of Italian food Michael Kay likes.

20. jmurph Posted: February 01, 2023 at 02:23 PM (#6115409)

NESN - $30.00/month

Yeah this is way too much, as I think we've discussed in other threads, but since I don't care about hockey I only have to do it during the baseball season.

Caring about basketball/soccer/baseball (plus movies, some tv, etc.) makes things quite a bit more complicated, but I'm mostly content with YouTube TV and the million streaming services I currently pay for. It all adds up but is still less, all things considered, than I was paying for just cable previously.

21. My name is Votto, and I love to get Moppo Posted: February 01, 2023 at 02:50 PM (#6115411)

I know I'm an old fogey, but I still pay basic cable and pay about $125 a month for cable and internet. Onscreen DVR, no blackouts, no need to manage multiple logins, and basically no fuss.

22. Jose is an Absurd Sultan Posted: February 01, 2023 at 03:26 PM (#6115416)

Yeah this is way too much, as I think we've discussed in other threads, but since I don't care about hockey I only have to do it during the baseball season.

Caring about basketball/soccer/baseball (plus movies, some tv, etc.) makes things quite a bit more complicated, but I'm mostly content with YouTube TV and the million streaming services I currently pay for. It all adds up but is still less, all things considered, than I was paying for just cable previously.

Yeah, the $30 a month is higher than I'd like particularly since one of the teams carried on said network looks like they are going to be less than stellar. But there is a money savings there. If I could get everything for $125 a month like Votto that included NESN and a bunch of other stuff but I can't. Worst case I sign up for Sling ($40 a month) if there is a time where I want to see something that is being carried on a station I don't have.

The antenna is a shocker. I wasn't expecting the selection or picture quality.

23. Jose is an Absurd Sultan Posted: February 01, 2023 at 03:32 PM (#6115417)

Just went through it on Xfinity, $181.75 for a package that would give me the same level of access I already have internet and TV. Verizon keeps saying I'm not eligible for service which isn't true of course but among the many reasons to ditch cable is their customer service is horrific.

24. Dolf Lucky Posted: February 01, 2023 at 03:56 PM (#6115420)

I know I'm an old fogey, but I still pay basic cable and pay about $125 a month for cable and internet. Onscreen DVR, no blackouts, no need to manage multiple logins, and basically no fuss.

This is what I do, but with the added benefit of paying about $100/mo more. I'm in an area that is only serviced by one ISP so I get all the perks and benefits of being a customer of a monopoly provider. Including their award winning lack of customer service.

25. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: February 01, 2023 at 04:03 PM (#6115421)

This seems like exactly what most people would want to have in the US - a streaming service that lets them watch their favorite local sports teams for $15-20 a month.

It's sort of coming, it just depends on the local market. The Red Sox and Bruins, as an example, are both on NESN, which is now available as a stand alone streaming service. The problem (for omnivorous sports fans) is you don't get the Celtics, who are on a different channel.

And Sinclair rolled one out for their Bally's RSNs at about $20 per month. People balked at that price, but it was a godsend for me since it allowed me to drop Directv streaming, something I was paying $65 per month for to basically only watch Royals games.

26. TDF, trained monkey Posted: February 01, 2023 at 04:08 PM (#6115422)

I understand there's a number below which it probably doesn't make sense for MLB to offer out their network to various tv providers (I'm sure tv production isn't cheap!), but isn't there some logic in seeing the network as something of a loss leader? The big money is in the national deals with ESPN/Fox/Turner and the local deals, so isn't MLB Network the perfect vehicle to lure in some new fans? Don't you want those spring training games on when kids get home from school, or a random 4pm out of market game?

As you read this thread, look at how many people have dumped traditional cable for streaming services. And today, major sports leagues are seeing it too - Amazon Prime has Thursday Night NFL games, for instance. Meanwhile, Sinclair (home for many local broadcasts over traditional cable) is going bankrupt and may not be able to honor their existing contracts.

Every new round of broadcast contracts is going to include streaming services bidding on, and winning, at least part of the package. There is no reason at all for MLB to give Youtube.TV any sort of discount now.

27. jmurph Posted: February 01, 2023 at 04:37 PM (#6115424)

Every new round of broadcast contracts is going to include streaming services bidding on, and winning, at least part of the package. There is no reason at all for MLB to give Youtube.TV any sort of discount now.

I'm not sure I'm following your argument- I'm a YTTV subscriber and watch sports on ESPN, Fox, Turner, (before now) the MLB Network, etc., on YTTV, they operate the same way a cable company operates, pay carriage fees to the networks, etc., they just stream it over the internet and don't lock you into contracts.

28. Starring Bradley Scotchman as RMc Posted: February 01, 2023 at 04:59 PM (#6115425)

Amazon Prime has Thursday Night NFL games

I did a fairly good job of ignoring Thursday night NFL games when they were on real TV. Now, the only way I see them is if I happen to be on my Amazon page.

29. Rowland Office Supplies Posted: February 01, 2023 at 05:08 PM (#6115426)

Verizon keeps saying I'm not eligible for service which isn't true of course but among the many reasons to ditch cable is their customer service is horrific.

Those absolutely inescapable "Switchta Vryzin!" spots make my hair hurt and my teeth itch. Every televised game...every sport...every commercial break.

30. SoSH U at work Posted: February 01, 2023 at 05:31 PM (#6115428)

I did a fairly good job of ignoring Thursday night NFL games when they were on real TV.

Al Michaels approves this message.

31. McCoy Posted: February 01, 2023 at 05:39 PM (#6115431)

You guys all know you can watch anything you want online for free, right?

32. Walt Davis Posted: February 01, 2023 at 05:42 PM (#6115433)

The a la carte nature of streaming has lasted longer than I expected. I thought by now there'd be a service offering a "pay us $X/mon and you get Netflix and Amazon and Apple and Disney and Hulu and ...." along with "and for an extra $Y you can get this sports channel." Priced at less than what all those individual subs would cost but probably $15-20 more per month than you'd pay on your own cuz you'd subscribe to only 2-3 at a time but then you don't ever really cancel Netflix and add Disney as soon as you should do you? And you can stop keeping track of "that cool new show is on that other one, well I'll catch up in 3 months when I put them back in the mix if I remember."

Or y'know, if you're gonna be on my lawn, at least you could read books instead of stealing my cable!

33. McCoy Posted: February 01, 2023 at 05:51 PM (#6115434)

Well, Disney sells packages of their streaming sites but I'm not sure why Netflix would sell their rights to a third party so that they could be repackaged with a competitor at a lower rate and giving money to a middleman.

A lot of streamers have premium packages or elevated tiers that for additional money will add more channels. Usually sports and live TV.

34. DL from MN Posted: February 01, 2023 at 06:04 PM (#6115435)

You guys all know you can watch anything you want online for free, right?

Which is why MLB should be focused on getting the largest possible audience and selling advertising.

35. The Duke Posted: February 01, 2023 at 06:20 PM (#6115439)

I love MLBtv. I watch the Cards every night either live or on replay and I watch all
The recaps each morning with breakfast. And I watch a bunch of other games when the mood strikes me. I don't mind paying my 99 or 120 or whatever it is because I get a ton of value. Of course one thing that works for me is that I live out of the Cardinals blackout market so they only get blacked out about 9 games a year for me.

36. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: February 01, 2023 at 06:23 PM (#6115440)

Every new round of broadcast contracts is going to include streaming services bidding on, and winning, at least part of the package. There is no reason at all for MLB to give Youtube.TV any sort of discount now.

I'm not sure I'm following your argument- I'm a YTTV subscriber and watch sports on ESPN, Fox, Turner, (before now) the MLB Network, etc., on YTTV, they operate the same way a cable company operates, pay carriage fees to the networks, etc., they just stream it over the internet and don't lock you into contracts.

Also, this seems like it is conflating broadcast rights to games for channels like ESPN/Fox/TBS with MLB Network, which is its own channel.

37. Jose is an Absurd Sultan Posted: February 01, 2023 at 07:52 PM (#6115446)

You guys all know you can watch anything you want online for free, right?

I’m sure that’s technically true but I certainly don’t know how to do it nor do I particularly care too.

38. Hombre Brotani

Posted: February 01, 2023 at 08:36 PM (#6115450)

I know I'm an old fogey, but I still pay basic cable and pay about $125 a month for cable and internet. Onscreen DVR, no blackouts, no need to manage multiple logins, and basically no fuss.

In my Southern California suburb, the ISP basically has a monopoly so I'm paying about $90 a month for Internet -- and nothing else. Am I going to pirate stuff? You bet I'm gonna.

39. BDC

Posted: February 01, 2023 at 08:50 PM (#6115451)

I'll second Jose's observations on OTA broadcasts. I paid $25 for an antenna 13 years ago and it still works perfectly. Not that I ever watch much of anything: I watch the NFL, and the World Series, and I turn on the OTA when there's a tornado, because each broadcast channel has a parallel weather/news feed that tells me how close the tornado is getting. But compared to the stuff I wouldn't watch if I had cable, or whatever garbage is on the free Roku channels, it's not much of a difference; and I haven't paid a cent for it since 2010.

Broadcast TV is one of those sneaky technologies like snail mail or pencils that never quite went away and is still very useful. Of course I haven't watched regular-season baseball on TV in forever. But that is why I voted for an air-conditioned baseball dome a few miles from my house.

40. John Northey Posted: February 01, 2023 at 08:53 PM (#6115453)

Quite aware of the ability to VPN and download anything pretty much, but you really have to hunt for some stuff and with kids I find pen drives that I put stuff on can vanish without a trace. So I just said 'screw it' and got the main streaming services so they can watch what they want, when they want, on the device they want. All are fully logged in on all our TV's and it is rare I need to go and re-log in anyone. Plus it is nice to watch, say, the Walking Dead on my phone while I do a workout. Or watch the Jays game while I'm at one of my kids events (watching while they aren't on the field or are just waiting their turn at whatever). My teen is a top athlete (captain of her basketball team, leading scorer on her hockey team, shortstop/cleanup hitter in softball) which gives me little time during games but lots between them to do stuff on the phone.

41. Jay Seaver Posted: February 01, 2023 at 09:38 PM (#6115458)

The antenna is a shocker. I wasn't expecting the selection or picture quality.

Compression's a beast. Not only is your cable company probably taking what comes over the air and compacting it further so that they've got the bandwidth for however much they are often trying to send through actual copper, but streaming services can be even worse (Apple and Disney look pretty good, at least until you watch the same thing on a 4K disc, and there's a pretty sharp drop-off after that). OTA has so much bandwidth that they've got room for a bunch of sub-channels.

I'm still paying a stupid amount for cable, because I am used to it and lazy, but don't know if I've turned my cable box on since the last out of the World Series. I'll probably happily replace that with NESN360 and the big studio streamers and not worry too much about the cost, as I probably watch enough hours of Red Sox coverage in-season that the price is proportional (like, if I watch 4 hours of Star Trek and 4 hours of Evil on Paramount+ for $10 and 15 3-hour baseball games on NESN for $30, it doesn't looks so bad).

42. Brian C Posted: February 01, 2023 at 10:46 PM (#6115465)

Compression's a beast. Not only is your cable company probably taking what comes over the air and compacting it further so that they've got the bandwidth for however much they are often trying to send through actual copper, but streaming services can be even worse (Apple and Disney look pretty good, at least until you watch the same thing on a 4K disc, and there's a pretty sharp drop-off after that). OTA has so much bandwidth that they've got room for a bunch of sub-channels.

This, to me, is the biggest problem with YouTube TV specifically - it genuinely looks like sh*t. The resolution is fine, per se - it's full HD, of course, but the compression is extremely noticeable and frequently downright bothersome with lots of motion on the screen. Think Planet Earth when flocks of birds are flying, or championship celebrations with lots of confetti. The picture just falls apart. Less noticeable during, say, a typical baseball game.

In my early days with HD, though - we're talking 2006-2007 - I had an antenna and had the same problem with some networks, living in Dallas at the time. NBC was particularly noticeable at the time, don't know if it still is, obviously that was a long time ago. But I'm in a fairly remote location now so an antenna isn't an option for me either way.

43. Walt Davis Posted: February 02, 2023 at 12:38 AM (#6115469)

I'm not sure why Netflix would sell their rights to a third party so that they could be repackaged with a competitor at a lower rate and giving money to a middleman.

Maybe because they're losing subscribers by the bucketful. Maybe because they're tired of dealing with the monthly churn. Maybe because consumers would prefer a one-stop shop as opposed to managing their own monthly churn.

44. CrosbyBird Posted: February 02, 2023 at 12:54 AM (#6115470)

I know I'm an old fogey, but I still pay basic cable and pay about $125 a month for cable and internet. Onscreen DVR, no blackouts, no need to manage multiple logins, and basically no fuss.

I think it depends very highly on the market you live in. I have a very good deal for a full premium package that would probably cost twice as much were I renting rather than living in an apartment complex that negotiates with the strength of nearly three thousand units.

45. McCoy Posted: February 02, 2023 at 05:31 AM (#6115472)

Monthly churn is going to be there for a long rime. Even when you package products. It's so easy to get into and out of subscriptions that there is always going to be a segment of people that hop around. It isn't like the old cable days where they make you drop off the box and remote or schedule a day to get it picked up.

All these streamers offer some form of free trial as well so you'll get people popping in and out because of that. For instance with my Verizon agreement I get 3 months free of Disney+.

46. DL from MN Posted: February 02, 2023 at 11:58 AM (#6115490)

All these streamers offer some form of free trial as well so you'll get people popping in and out because of that

HBOMax is free with AT&T cell service

47. dejarouehg Posted: February 02, 2023 at 01:28 PM (#6115503)

I'm not switching to another service. I'll just cancel YouTubeTV. The timing is good; my wife and I were just talking the other about how the only thing that ever gets watched on YouTubeTV at this point is MLB Network.

I will get used to not watching MLB Network.

Screw them both.

My feelings exactly. The older I get the more I like to read. Getting by with reading accounts of the games isn't as good as watching games, but I'm adjusting.

I'd definitely rather be able to watch, but I don't need to be the pawn in this pissing match.

You guys all know you can watch anything you want online for free, right?

My kids keep telling me this after years of criticism for spending thousands of dollars annually for all the cable services and then finally ratcheting down to YouTube TV. But I'm not an advocate of stealing services. I'll eventually get an MLB package or MiLB internet package and that will be that.

I guess I'll just keep more of my money.

48. DL from MN Posted: February 02, 2023 at 01:31 PM (#6115504)

test

49. cHiEf iMpaCt oFfiCEr JE

Posted: February 02, 2023 at 01:49 PM (#6115509)

I'm not switching to another service. I'll just cancel YouTubeTV. The timing is good; my wife and I were just talking the other about how the only thing that ever gets watched on YouTubeTV at this point is MLB Network.

I will get used to not watching MLB Network.

Screw them both.

I'm very content with FuboTV which, in addition to MLBN, carries Gary, Keith, and Ron (SNY).

50. JL72 Posted: February 02, 2023 at 03:21 PM (#6115519)

The a la carte nature of streaming has lasted longer than I expected. I thought by now there'd be a service offering a "pay us $X/mon and you get Netflix and Amazon and Apple and Disney and Hulu and ...." along with "and for an extra $Y you can get this sports channel."

The Disney/Hulu/ESPN+ bundle takes care of a lot (and certainly almost all of the live sports that I watch). We already have Amazon due to having Prime. And we get Apple through our Apple TV (which was a one time purchase). We have kept with Netflix, but don't pay for any of the other streaming services.

51. KronicFatigue Posted: February 03, 2023 at 08:34 AM (#6115554)

I've been a YTTV subscriber since it was $35 a month, which sadly, wasn't THAT long ago.

Pros: Unlimited DVR, ability to watch on any and all devices, several streams at once.

Cons: the live guide was terrible, but they updated that recently, the compression of the video quality.

Also, if you play your cards right you can usually get peacock and paramamount for a buck a month each.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Tuesday, January 31, 2023

MLB Network Exits YouTube TV Ahead of Spring Training After Contract Dispute

Reader Comments and Retorts

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

Hot Topics