Cubs Payroll Set to Soar with Potential TV Deal
Since 2004, the Chicago Cubs have belonged to a lucrative partnership with the White Sox, Blackhawks, Bulls, and some iteration of Comcast/NBC to broadcast games on NBC Sports Chicago, previously known as Comcast SportsNet Chicago. That partnership appears likely to end at the conclusion of next season, however, according to Bruce Levine at 670 The Score. While the current deal has been fruitful for the Cubs, the opportunity to own their regional sports network will give them a chance to multiply their television revenue several times over. Over the last few seasons, the Cubs have lingered just behind heavyweight clubs like the Dodgers, Red Sox, and Yankees in terms of payroll. A new television deal should put them on par with those teams for the foreseeable future.
The Cubs’ move to create their own network separate from their current partners has been in the works for several years now. The Chicago market has lagged behind cities like Los Angeles and New York in terms of the presence of RSNs. NBC Sports Chicago is still the only game in town, while LA and New York both have four networks broadcasting the major sports. Other big markets like the Bay Area and Boston also have multiple networks despite featuring the same number of — or even fewer — teams to broadcast.
When I last wrote about the Cubs’ option to start their own network three years ago, I noted the ominous cable bubble that has been pervasive for years but indicated the Cubs wouldn’t have a problem getting their channel carried by cable providers. It’s been three years, but the cable bubble refuses to burst. Even the Rays are getting billion-dollar local TV deals.
The market has changed in the last few years, as the number of cable subscribers continues to fall. Traditional cable providers have not only lost customers who no longer or never will pay for cable TV, but they are also facing increased competition from digital-only providers like DirecTV Now, Playstation Vue, Sling, and YouTubeTV. In 2017, cable companies lost 3.3 million subscribers, but digital providers gained 2.6 million, softening the blow dealt by those who no longer pay for television. In most cases, those digital providers are airing local RSNs and emphasizing to customers the opportunities available to watch sports without a traditional cable package. These models are new and it isn’t entirely clear how long they can last providing a skinnier, cheaper version of cable, but it has provided a lifeline to a model that, at one point, appeared to be on the way out.
The continued survival of the current cable model is potentially very good news for the Cubs. The club is reportedly making roughly $750,000 per game on NBC Sports Chicago and around $200,000 on each ABC or WGN broadcast. With 84 games on Comcast and 70 games on WGN and ABC, that total comes to $77 million. If the Cubs were to start their own network, they would be responsible for broadcasting those 70 games, as well. You might expect that, to calculate the Cubs’ benefit from owning their own network, you’d take those 70 games, note the $550,000 difference between those broadcasts and the Comcast ones, and conclude that the team is set to earn $40 million more dollars. That figure, however, doesn’t come close to what the Cubs could earn with their own channel.
RSNs have traditionally made a vast majority of their money on high per-subscriber fees. In turn, they pay large amounts of money to teams to broadcast games. In addition to the Cubs broadcasts, NBC Sports Chicago airs around 50 games each for the Blackhawks and Bulls, plus around 100 White Sox games. Due to the club’s popularity and the relative lack of RSNs in Chicago, the Cubs should not have a problem getting their network on standard cable packages in the area, nor should they have any trouble demanding something similar in terms of per-subscriber fees. For the Cubs, that means the rights fees that previously went to the White Sox, Blackhawks, and Bulls will now belong exclusively to the Cubs.* That’s not a 50% increase for the Cubs; it’s probably more like double what they are currently receiving. And that’s accounting merely for rights fees, not profits.
*The White Sox seem likely to partner with the Blackhawks and Bulls in something of a continuation of the current setup without the Cubs. With the shared ownership of the White Sox and Bulls and a shared United Center between the Blackhawks and Bulls, those teams have natural alliances. While that might not be as profitable for the White Sox as the Cubs’ potential network, the deal would likely earn them more than what they receive now with one fewer partner to share the pie.
NBC Sports Chicago is not a charity. Even if co-owners Bulls, White Sox, Blackhawks, and Cubs wished to operate without traditional profits and instead pay out the money in rights fees, the other co-owner, Comcast, would not put up with such an agreement. The current arrangement currently provides enough profits to keep the three franchise owners (Jerry Reinsdorf owns both the Bulls and White Sox) and Comcast happy. All of those profits would be diverted to the Cubs, and as an added benefit, those profits are not subject to revenue-sharing with other MLB teams. I’m not going to speculate as to the amount of those profits, but I would note that when the Yankees sold a majority of the YES Network to FOX in 2014, the network was worth $3.8 billion, and after Disney’s purchase of FOX’s assets required selling RSNs, the Yankees might be trying to buy the network back. The Cubs are potentially creating a billion-dollar asset out of what might seem like thin air.
There are costs associated with going it alone without a partner like Comcast, Time Warner, or AT&T, and it is possible the Cubs might cut someone in to make the production and operation of a network a little easier, but if the Cubs do make their own way, it will be because they believe those costs are well worth the potential gains. While the Yankees might not be the perfect comparison given the New York market and Yankees’ history, a look at their rivals does provide an interesting comparison. The Red Sox own 80% of NESN and have been running payrolls near $200 million the previous three seasons — and will be near $240 million this season. The Cubs could soon join them at the top of the league.
In 2020, Tyler Chatwood, Yu Darvish, Jason Heyward, and Jon Lester will account for $75 million in payroll, and it isn’t clear how much those players will bring to the table. Add in another $75 million for players like Javier Baez, Kris Bryant, Willson Contreras, Kyle Hendricks, Anthony Rizzo, Addison Russell, and Kyle Schwarber, and the Cubs won’t have much room to maneuver if they don’t add payroll. The Red Sox had little problem this season in writing off $50 million in contracts to Rusney Castillo, Hanley Ramirez, and Pablo Sandoval, while also proceeding to sign J.D. Martinez to a big deal. The Cubs could find themselves in a similar situation if some of their larger contracts don’t work out. A new television network could allow the Cubs to spend through any potential issues.
Craig Edwards can be found on twitter @craigjedwards.
Another Craig Edwards Cardinals puff piece.
This was funny!
Thanks – I’m guessing a lot of people weren’t around for the start of his tenure when that was a running joke.
Did anyone else have trouble understanding all the relationships in this article?
These contradictory statements probably didn’t help you:
“With the shared ownership of the Cubs and Bulls…”
“Jerry Reinsdorf owns both the Bulls and White Sox”
I was following better than I thought I would until this sentence:
Even if co-owners Bulls, White Sox, Blackhawks, and Cubs wished to operate without traditional profits and instead pay out the money in rights fees, the other co-owner, Comcast, would not put up with such an agreement.
Can someone explain?
Bulls, Sox, Hawks, and Cubs co-own the channel with Comcast. Does not refer to ownership of the teams.
Thanks, but that isn’t the part that confuses me. I should have been clearer.
It’s the “traditional profits” and “pay out the money in rights fees” that are the confusing parts. The only team profit talked about in the article was teams getting paid rights fees. So what are “traditional profits” for teams and how would they differ? And then why would the teams pay out money in rights fees? Aren’t they what the teams collect?
While I do believe the Cubs will make more, it isn’t all sunshine and roses. You have to separate attendance and viewership. According to the Chicago Cubs a few years ago about 40% of Wrigley Field attendees are tourists, which makes sense as WF is one of Illinois biggest tourist attractions. During the rebuild the attendance did take a hit but so did the ratings, which cratered. As recently as last July (2017), coming off the WS, ratings were down 14% from the previous season as the team struggled. The other concern is the fans, the Dodgers did right financially but a decent percentage of their fan base can not watch the games last time I checked.
The Cubs can not support a station on their own, they will need a partner or partners. Notre Dame was thrown out there as a potential partner on local radio. Otherwise, nobody is going to be watching Cubs highlights and infomercials from October to March. They will need more content.
I will watch those highlights.
On that last point, I’m in YES network territory (as well as MSG territory, which runs Mets and Knicks) and the content is pretty hot garbage except during a game time. The non-game time content I’ve seen is mostly highlights, old “classic” game reruns, Michael Kay interviewing old yankees or other new york personalities (e.g. Billy Crystal), esoteric boxing matches and (gulp) the Brooklyn Nets games, which have been incredibly unwatchable for a long time. I don’t even bother to turn the network on between the end of the regular season (since the playoffs are on national TV) and the beginning of spring training. So I’m not sure a lack of quality content during non-game times is actually a problem for these RSNs.
I really enjoy the Yankeeography’s.
Also, the “Homegrown” show highlighting minor leaguers life is great. Allows fans an inside look at a minor league lifestyle while introducing prospects to fans of the major league club.
Yes and no.
No one will watch the fluff, whatever it is. But that won’t be a reason for people to not opt to pay extra for it as part of their cable package.
It’d be like if you got HBO only for GoT, and didn’t watch anything else on it. Yes, paying the premium fee for HBO is a waste of money 99% the time; but damn, you love dragons so much that you’re not going to not pay that price for dragons.
I wonder why they don’t just flow through past seasons, game by game? I mean Cubs fans might be cool to watch the 1989 season nonstop game by game between 2018 contests. Perhaps they won’t own the rights to past seasons or have footage or something, but it seems potentially effective enough to me.
I’d even listen to a past radio broadcast with a photo-slide or something before I’d wanna see the kinds of talking-head-a-thon programming that dominates our times.
If they were to play old games they’d need to add some type of context to them. Even if it’s a bar at the top that says OLD GAME across the top. But someone would have to do that. And they’d have to go through all the games to edit them for time, set the commercial breaks, create a few promos/transitions, etc. Someone will need to be paid to do all that.
Or they can order some syndicated fluff shows and not worry about any of that. If very few people would watch, invest as little as you can. (If no one’s going to watch, just play infomercials.)
There may be also be an issue of who has the rights to rebroadcast old games – the team? MLB? WGN? I don’t know the answer.
Terrific. Maybe then they can afford to stop employing women beaters like Chapman and Russell and homophobes like Murphy. Several teams who could have used Murphy passed on him with their waiver priority. Not the Cubs though, willing to overlook anything if it will help the team win.
Chapman and Russell never beat a woman and daniel Murphy isn’t a homophobe. Nice try.
They were violent against women and Murphy is. You Cubs fans would root for a team of San Quentin Prison’s finest if they put on Cubs jerseys.
Russian troll.
If you read the full quote, Murphy isn’t anywhere near a homophobe. He may be ill-informed, or denying science, but he isn’t homophobic.
People throw the terms homophobe and racist out there without any education on what they actually mean, or the situations at hand.
So what do they mean, oh wise one?
Technically, “homophobe” isn’t even an accurate term, as even the people who legitimately hate gay people (rather than those who just disapprove of their lifestyle) certainly aren’t afraid of them. Maybe there were homophobes back when misinformed people refused to even touch gay people, but that isn’t the case today.
to be fair, it’s obviously not just cubs fans who are willing to give a pass to domestic violence and the entitlement to decide whose sexual behavior is valid. those social views don’t have a team affiliation.
as far as the willingness of the front office to, i can’t help but feel like they should know to be better than that. but i mean its also foolish to rely on businesses to uphold good moral values.
Agree IACS, just ask Astro fans.
Don’t forget about the time the Cubs played “Beat it” when Addison Russell came to the plate this April.
So this money will go directly to Bryce Harper?
I hope so! That would be a great way to absolutely throw it away.
No kidding. The Nats get their vibe from somewhere, and about the only common denominator for their struggles is Harper.
Not to mention with Harper you’re now paying Heyward 30 million a yr to ride the bench. Do not want!
I wouldn’t go that far, but he certainly is very overrated, and you’re absolutely right that RF then becomes an even bigger financial black hole considering the Heyward contract, especially now that Heyward’s bat has finally turned around.
As a Cubs fan, this is good and bad. Of course I want the Cubs to have the financial might to be able to absorb bad contracts while still pursuing extensions/free agents.
But, realistically what’s going to happen for me is the Cubs will have something like a $5 Regional Sports Charge, NBC Chicago’s was $4.21 on my last bill.
The cable or satellite company won’t give you the option of having 1 channel, the bundle to have one channel will have both. So it’s just going to increase my bill.
And because of the MLB’s dumb blackout streaming policy, I can either choose to try and use an illegal stream or pay a little bit more each month.
And then they’ll also charge $9.75 for a Budweiser at Wrigley.
All my money goes to Cubs.
At least it isn’t $20 for beer like at Eno’s home stadium of AT&T Park (though, larger than typical beers).
https://twitter.com/enosarris/status/1014946586453950464
Does Wrigley Field allow you to bring in your own non-alcoholic drinks in plastic bottles like some places do? There’s no reason you have to drink a beer at a baseball game.
Yes. Sealed bottle of your favorite non-alcoholic drink. You can also bring in your own food as well. I bring a bottle of water, bag of pistachios, and my patience for those that don’t understand the difference between Sections and Aisles.
The plight of sections vs. aisles is very real.
Apparently, you can only bring in water to drink now, if you can believe the guy running Bleed Cubbie Blue. Sealed bottles of soda were rejected starting at the beginning of August, although the website has not been updated.
60 bucks a year to listen to JD and Len? Sounds like a good deal. For 60 bucks I don’t think you can park your car within a mile of Wrigley during a game.
Does anyone out there actually believe the Cubs’ payroll was related to their revenues? Their revenues were already among the highest in the majors even before the Ricketts family took over and they’ve skyrocketed with the team’s recent success, yet the payroll remains roughly where it was when the Tribune owned the team. I’m sure the team will keep payrolls high enough to be competitive, but they already had the money to be the Dodgers, Yankees, Red Sox before the TV deal. I don’t think the TV deal will change anything.
Since tanking in the early years of the Ricketts’ ownership, the Cubs have had a lot of good / cheap young talent. Bryant, Rizzo, Baez, Schwarber etc. will be getting far more money in the coming years, so the Cubs will need higher payrolls to remain a playoff contender. More revenue doesn’t guarantee there will be higher payrolls, but it makes them more likely.
And with the farm system depleted for the next couple of years, they’ll need to re-sign these guys whose salaries are set to skyrocket or find other free agents.
The Ricketts family paid roughly 875 million to acquire the Cubs and their net worth at the time was roughly 1 billion. Meaning they leveraged quite a bit of their personal assets as well as taking out loans to make the purchase. There was a concentrated goal in the early years of their ownership to go from the 3rd-5th highest spending team annually to more middle of the pack. Part of this was because they were tanking to set up the rebuild, but another reason was because the Ricketts were saving money so that they could be able to afford a sky high payroll in the years of the competitive window for the rebuild. What the TV network could allow is for them to sustain a high payroll indefinitely without needing to drop down and rebuild again like most teams have to when the competitive window becomes too expensive. For point of reference the net worth of the Dodgers, Yankees, and Red Sox ownership is all 1-2 billion higher than the Ricketts net worth. A billion dollar TV network would bring them right in line with those teams who never have to cut payroll to rebuild.
Yes, there were a lot of rumors(?) around 2010/2011 that the Ricketts were on shaky ground with the Cubs because the team was so leveraged, and may have been one of the reasons they were okay with the rebuild/tank. That obviously worked out and the concerns about the Ricketts/Cubs fiscal situation are long gone.
RE: Cubs payroll vs Revenues. I don’t know the details, but the Cubs ownership actually is a partnership with the previous majority owner. What this means is that ownership cannot spend their own money to operate the team. Only team-generated revenues can be used. Also, as a previous commenter noted, the purchase was highly leveraged. There are debt service limits that prevent ownership from spending.
It’s not really surprising that the RSN model has yet to burst. Aside from MLB’s own streaming service, they’re still the only way to watch live baseball games, and even the streaming services recognize that. Most hardcore sports fans either aren’t among the people switching away from cable/satellite, or they only do so because their new streaming service carries their network/cable/satellite sports channels anyway.
It is coming, though. And the cable companies are going to be in trouble when they are locked in to these 10 and 20-year deals with teams.
Given the below information/quote, courtesy of Jason Notte of Marketwatch.com published June 30, 2017, I can see why the bubble hasn’t burst yet. The primary MLB viewer is old, but youngsters are not watching. Either way, the cable/satellite model is on life support. Content creators are increasingly moving toward streaming services with exclusive original content. We are going to get to a point where you will have to get 4 or 5 services just to watch everything you want, or wait until Disney buys up everything.
“Major League Baseball’s television audience is among the oldest in professional sports, according to data recently released by Street & Smith’s Sports Business Journal and Magna Global. The average age of a baseball viewer is 57, up from 52 in 2006. There won’t be a youth movement, either, as just 7% of baseball’s audience is below age 18.”
Eh, I’m not so sure the cable/satellite model is on life support. There is still something like 90 million household subscribing to cable or satellite. Maybe the subscriber base is not growing, but it’s not like it will disappear overnight either.
And if you want to watch live sports, you have to subscribe to something.
Whether people are watching the RSN’s on cable/satellite or streaming services like Sling, what does that matter for these big contracts? These cable channels are still getting watched (and therefore paid) regardless of whether or not it’s actually a cable or satellite broadcast.
If this means problems for the Cardinals, then I like it.
FWIW, the Blackhawks have been rumored to be apart of the Cubs channel as the President of the Hawks is a long time Cubs FO exec (John McDonough). But the Bulls/Hawks relationship has historically been close, so we’ll see.
I think the White Sox could (would?) do something interesting with their TV contract if they could (basically go the streaming route). IIRC, the Sox were the first to go to pay TV, but were probably a good five years ahead of their time. But I see almost no way MLB would allow the Sox to agree to a deal with Google/Amazon. But whichever team moves first there (or is allowed to) will have a nice advantage.
It’s been a while since I have been to Chicago, but didn’t the Cubs pretty much own WGN?
the cubs are already close to the luxury tax and this is even before arbitration of their young core. I’m sure they can go higher but even with contracts running out (heyward, lester) they will still need to buy elite pitching to replace lester as well as paying arb raises for bryant, russell, schwarber, contreras and happ.
will they be willing to go way over the luxury tax?
Heyward’s contract still has quite a ways to go.
I’m sorry if this may be obvious, but what does RCNs mean?
Oops. RSN. No wonder why my google search wasn’t coming up with anything. I was searching the wrong acronym. RSN is Regional Sports Network, per Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_sports_network