Despite Risks, Cubs Eyeing Own TV Network

The Chicago Cubs are located within the third-largest media market in the country, have a base of rabid fans supporting the team even in lean years, and — despite having closed the bleachers for much of the early part of the 2015 season — have received greater attendances at Wrigley Field since 2011, in part due to the team’s playoff run this year. While the team has started to have tremendous success on the field, they are moving forward slowly with payroll due to renovations around the ballpark, investments in rooftop bleachers, debt incurred by the Ricketts family when they bought the team, and a below-market television contract that runs out after four more seasons.

That the Cubs are interested in starting their own cable network in Chicago is not a secret. The team’s deal with Comcast runs out after 2019, and they have been setting the stage for an exit. The Chicago Cubs have a long history of airing games locally on WGN, which also found its way on to most cable packages around the country. The Tribune Company owned WGN as well as the Chicago Cubs, and the baseball team provided the company with relatively inexpensive programming that provided a big help to the bottom line.

The television industry, and in particular the sports television industry, have changed over time, rending the broadcast of games on WGN less beneficial. Regional sports networks began swooping up the rights to local baseball games, putting more and more games on cable. The regional sports networks gained much of their revenue from subscriber fees as opposed to traditional advertising, and cable providers felt these stations were necessary to give to subscribers as part of the basic cable bundle. This meant that the Tribune Comany airing games on WGN, while a cable channel to those outside of Chicago, was not maximizing revenue by putting games over the air in Chicago.

In 2004, Comcast Sportsnet Chicago (CSN Chicago) was formed. At the time the Tribune Company still owned the Cubs. CSN Chicago’s ownership was split between the local clubs. Right now, the split is 20% each to the owners of the Cubs, White Sox, Bulls, and Blackhawks, with the remaining 20% to NBC/Universal. Jerry Reinsdorf has the biggest share at 40%, as he owns both the Bulls and White Sox. The Cubs kept about half of their games on WGN, but opted out of that contract when it was up after the 2014 season. The Cubs negotiated their current contract with WGN and the local ABC affiliate so that they would expire after 2019, the same season as their deal with Comcast.

While the Cubs might not have a mega-deal like the Dodgers, they are still doing fairly well financially. The team is a sure bet to crack 3 million fans in attendance next season for the first time since that 2011 season. They are increasing ticket prices by 10% for next season. Moreover, the team has saved money with a relatively low payroll. After holding steady at roughly $140 million from 2009 to 2011, the team slashed payroll as it went through the rebuilding process — before increasing salaries again this past season, per Cot’s Contracts.

CUBS OPENING DAY PAYROLL 2006-2015

You Aren't a FanGraphs Member
It looks like you aren't yet a FanGraphs Member (or aren't logged in). We aren't mad, just disappointed.
We get it. You want to read this article. But before we let you get back to it, we'd like to point out a few of the good reasons why you should become a Member.
1. Ad Free viewing! We won't bug you with this ad, or any other.
2. Unlimited articles! Non-Members only get to read 10 free articles a month. Members never get cut off.
3. Dark mode and Classic mode!
4. Custom player page dashboards! Choose the player cards you want, in the order you want them.
5. One-click data exports! Export our projections and leaderboards for your personal projects.
6. Remove the photos on the home page! (Honestly, this doesn't sound so great to us, but some people wanted it, and we like to give our Members what they want.)
7. Even more Steamer projections! We have handedness, percentile, and context neutral projections available for Members only.
8. Get FanGraphs Walk-Off, a customized year end review! Find out exactly how you used FanGraphs this year, and how that compares to other Members. Don't be a victim of FOMO.
9. A weekly mailbag column, exclusively for Members.
10. Help support FanGraphs and our entire staff! Our Members provide us with critical resources to improve the site and deliver new features!
We hope you'll consider a Membership today, for yourself or as a gift! And we realize this has been an awfully long sales pitch, so we've also removed all the other ads in this article. We didn't want to overdo it.

The Cubs do not appear in a hurry to make any further drastic increases in payroll. That relative modesty of the payroll increases and the increased buzz regarding a possible Cubs network four years from now would appear to make the two linked. That is not necessarily the case. When the Ricketts family purchased the Cubs, they did so with a complicated debt due to demands by the Tribune Company, and the debt service payments cut into revenue that could be invested back into the club. Couple the debt service payments with massive renovation in an around Wrigley Field — along with the purchase of local rooftops — and it is not clear that the TV deal is really holding the Cubs back.

The Cubs are making $60 million to $70 million per season under their current TV contracts, a figure that is below market compared to other big markets like New York, Los Angeles, Boston, Dallas, and Philadelphia. However, the deal is still around the back end of the top-third in all of baseball. The Cardinals’ new billion dollar contract, which doesn’t kick in for a few more years, is set to pay the Cardinals an average sum roughly equivalent to that which the Cubs currently receive. A new television deal might solve some of the Cubs’ pre-existing problems, but it is those problems themselves that are keeping payroll down, not the Cubs’ current television contract.

The Cubs will wait a few more years before inking their deal. According to recent quotes from business operations president Crane Kenney, the Cubs will indeed start their own network in 2020, and believe the club can carry a network by themselves. There is some risk in waiting for 2020 to start their own network. For several years there has been a fear of the cable bubble bursting, and while the Dodgers might have set the mark a bit too high, teams that have negotiated deals since that time have still made out well. The Cubs could choose to renegotiate with Comcast, and much like the Cardinals deal, hedge their bets a bit on the future of cable television. Their current tack indicates that they still believe there will be a heavy market for their broadcasts in four years.

While deals in Houston have not worked out and the Dodgers’ contract is in turmoil as they’re still unable to broadcast their channel in much of the greater Los Angeles area, assuming the cable model exists in its present form, the Cubs should have no problem forming their own network and forcing their way into homes on the lowest cable tier. In addition to the Cubs’ popularity, Chicago has just one cable sports network, an oddity for a major market, especially one that has more than one team in a single sport. The chart below shows the top markets in the United States, the regional sports networks those cities have, and the sports teams they broadcast among the major three sports (MLB, NBA, NHL) that air games regionally.

Regional Sports Networks in Major Markets
Market TV Network Team 1 Team 2 Team 3 Team 4
New York YES Yankees Nets
SportsnetNY Mets
MSG Rangers Knicks
MSGPlus Devils Islanders
Los Angeles TWC Sportsnet Lakers
TWC Sportsnet LA Dodgers
Fox Sports West Angels Kings
Prime Ticket (FOX) Clippers Ducks
Chicago Comcast Sportsnet Cubs White Sox Bulls Blackhawks
Philadelphia Comcast Sportsnet Phillies Flyers Sixers
Dallas Fox Sports Southwest Rangers Mavericks Stars
Bay Area/San Jose Comcast Sportsnet Bay Area Giants Warriors
Comcast Sportsnet California A’s Sharks
Boston NESN Red Sox Bruins
Comcast Celtics

The Dodgers faced a crowded market when launching their channel, a problem not likely to be duplicated in Chicago. While New York and Los Angeles spread their teams across four channels, Chicago has four teams sharing just one channel. This allows the Cubs to air some games on WGN, but that will likely end in 2020, and even with that split, Chicago still airs many of its other sports broadcasts on other channels because one channel cannot meet the capacity. The Cubs could form their own channel, or they could try to add the Blackhawks if they wanted a winter sport. While the Bulls and White Sox are unlikely to be separated given their ties to a single owner, the Blackhawks and Cubs could make for interesting programming together in light of the fact that the Blackhawks have had higher ratings recently than anything shown on CSN Chicago. The most profitable route would be to go it alone, but if they want to have no problems negotiating their way onto cable packages the Blackhawks make an enticing partner.

A lot will change over the next few years, and even if there is a bit of a cable bubble, the Cubs are still in good position to capitalize on their popularity and the ability to show three to four hours of programming almost every day for six months. Even without cable, the Cubs will still own their content, and as mass broadcasts targeting everyone deteriorate in favor of niche targets, the Cubs will be in prime position to deliver targeted content to a devoted audience — at a cost, of course.





Craig Edwards can be found on twitter @craigjedwards.

31 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Stan
10 years ago

With Comcast/ NBC wearing two hats as a station owner and cable provider, the Cubs are going to have a harder time competing in that market. They’ll be negotiating with Comcast to put their channel on Comcast’s network in direct competition with Comcast’s channel. That’s going to be a tricky negotiation.

Matt P
10 years ago
Reply to  Stan

Exactly. Thing is if they want to make $80M a year in rights fees and a standard 33% profit then they need revenue to be at about $170M. Figure that means an average subscriber fee of $2.80?

Should be within reason for that market. Even a worst case scenario of $2 per subscriber should result in some $40-50M in profit and a rights fee starting in the $55-60M range. Not great, but probably better then any status quo.

Stan
10 years ago
Reply to  Matt P

I don’t know about that. It seems to me that the Cubs would still get a healthy increase if they stayed on Comcast. $2.80 seems like an awful lot for rights fees too. The thing about Chicago is that it is a big bandwagon town. The Cubs are huge right now, but so are the Hawks. When the Bulls were winning big they owned the town, same with the Bears of the 80’s. Point being: though the Cubs’ near future looks great, this channel will be a bust if/when that stops. It was just a couple years ago that the Cubs and Sox both had the lowest local TV rating in baseball.

Matt P
10 years ago
Reply to  Stan

The Cubs will get a huge increase because more of their games will be on Comcast or cable rather than WGN. Comcast pays twice as much.

The Cubs poor ratings will hurt it but they’ll have a strong legal case against Comcast if it refuses to carry their new RSN.

$2.80 isn’t very high because most of CSN-Chicago’s subscribers are in-market as opposed to living in say Iowa. NESN was at $4.22 in 2014.

Admittingly, this would be just a one sport RSN unlike NESN which had the Bruins also but they should be fine.

Paulallen
10 years ago

Is there anything preventing the Cubs from doing something online-based similar to MLB.tv or WWE?

I would love to enjoy tons of Cubs content for just 9.99.

james
10 years ago

And as you kept pointing out, there is a chance that cable will be a thing of the past by the time this comes to fruition. There are more cable cutters, and mlb is actually taking steps to get more of the games on their internet platform. I just wish the internet platform was a little cheaper

I had mlb.tv for a few years back when it began- for I think 60-80 bucks, I cancelled and got cable when it reached 100 bucks, and that was at least 5 years ago. When I could get all the local games (nats and Os) plus all the braves games on TBS, some cubs on wgn, and several more games a night on mlb network… and end up only paying a little more for all the other cable stuff, cable actually became the better option for me.

Jake
10 years ago
Reply to  james

But MLB.tv is $100 for the entire season, cable can often end up being $60-100 per month…

Stan
10 years ago
Reply to  Jake

I believe that MLB.TV only allows streaming for out of market games though. That doesn’t work for most fans, and especially the ones that would be watching on a regional sports network.

Matt P
10 years ago

“The Cubs are making $60 million to $70 million per season under their current TV contracts, a figure that is below market compared to other big markets like New York, Los Angeles, Boston, Dallas, and Philadelphia.”

That’s false. Lower then NY and Boston but not Texas and Philly. Rangers earned $54M this year while the Phillies new deal hasn’t started yet. Angels new deal also hasn’t started yet and will start at about $70M.

You can’t compare the average value of deals that go from 2016-2032 to rights fees in 2013. Your units are completely wrong.

“The Cardinals’ new billion dollar contract, which doesn’t kick in for a few more years, is set to pay the Cardinals an average sum roughly equivalent to that which the Cubs currently receive.”

Why do you think it’s reasonable to compare what the Cardinals will earn from 2021-2027 to what the Cubs are actually earning in 2015? The Cardinals new media deal doesn’t even start till 2018 and goes until 2032. The average value of the deal would be what the Cardinals earn in 2025.

Andrew
10 years ago

There is one piece of this topic that I do not understand.

The deal with CSN that the Cubs, Sox, Hawks and Bulls are a part of is an under market deal – so these teams don’t get as much $$ as they could.

But… these teams also own the network (-20%) that is underpaying them. So, shouldn’t that make up for that to a large degree? Yes some teams are more undermarket than others (I suspect that the Cubs are getting hit a bit harder than the Sox, but I don’t know what each is paid out by CSN), but, all these contracts are undermarket, so shouldn’t that mean that the owners of this network are profiting?

Not saying this to gripe that the Ricketts don’t spend more, I genuinely don’t understand.

Matt P
10 years ago
Reply to  Andrew

The reason why the network underpays them is because the network itself charges below market subscriber fees and therefore brings in below market revenue. My understanding is that the network itself had a subscriber fee of $3.25 in 2014 and has 4.7M subscribers. This would indicate that revenue is roughly $200M. But it costs money to produce 292 games and there are four teams plus Comcast getting a cut.

It isn’t so much that they’re receiving a small piece of the pie as it is that the pie itself is small.

Meanwhile, Comcast is the primary cable provider in Chicago which means that it may pocket 20-30% of any profit that CSN-Chicago earns, but it receives the majority of profits from lower RSN costs.

Comcast wins either way.

Andrew
10 years ago
Reply to  Matt P

That makes some sense, thanks. But, why would the majority owners (80% owned by the teams) allow Comcast to undercut the “size of the pie.”

I assume that the subscription fees etc. wouldn’t have been locked in when CSN began operating.

Matt P
10 years ago
Reply to  Andrew

There are a number of possible reasons. I don’t know for certain.

But in general, a station in Chicago needs carriage from Comcast in order to be successful. This gives Comcast an incentive to ensure that stations in which they have equity are successful and ones where they have less equity are less so. If they have no equity or limited equity, then it’s possible to fight with them legally for higher rates, but it would take years to go through the legal system with no guarantees about results.

And when you consider Comcast actually has equity in CSN-Chicago? It would be a tough fight to get significantly higher subscriber fees then Comcast is willing to pay.

Peter Litman
10 years ago
Reply to  Andrew

There has been a big increase in the cost of sports programming since the CSN Chicago deal was first struck. Sports have been the sweet spot. In the last decade the TV programmers have benefitted from the the increase in competition among TV distributors (entrance of Verizon, AT&T, Google Fiber). Also, the growth of DVRs has made live programming more attractive relative to programming that is not time-sensitive.

Matt P
10 years ago
Reply to  Andrew

That’s true. But CSN-MA has shown an amazing ability to increase prices and my understanding is that they didn’t renegotiate with other carriers until either this year or 2014. It was my understanding that CSN-MA and CSN Chicago were on the same negotiating schedule with affiliates. Am I mistaken?

I think your distributors argument is a bit unfair. How much benefit did Comcast and Time Warner get when Adelphia went under? There has been some new competition but there has also been a lot of consolidation in the area.

In any event, I agree with your distributors argument for areas like Los Angeles and Houston where RSNs have failed miserably. I disagree with your argument for Chicago. Comcast has a dominant position in Chicago as well as areas like Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington. What other provider is going to create an RSN in those areas?

Stan
10 years ago

If you assume that the White Sox take up at least 25% of the Chicago market, how big of a market do the Cubs have? Is that the equivalent of the 5th biggest market? 8th?

Andrew
10 years ago
Reply to  Stan

If you are going to play that game, you have to also subtract the Mets share from NY and the Angels from the Dodgers, etc. From there, you would need to know the numbers of transplants, relative popularity of baseball in general, etc. etc.

Not saying there isn’t truth to that, but its complicated.

Stan
10 years ago
Reply to  Andrew

I agree Andrew. But (presumably) if the New York and LA markets are significantly ahead of Chicago in market size then 75% of the NY/LA markets is still much bigger than all of the Chicago market. I’m making that presumption based on the Chicago metro area shrinking and almost falling behind Houston/ Dallas/ DC these days.

Alex
10 years ago
Reply to  Stan

Actually, Chicago MSA is is about 50% larger than Dallas/Houston/DC. If current growth rates keep up, Chicago would “fall behind” around 2030-2035.

Stan
10 years ago
Reply to  Stan

I think your numbers are off.
Chicago is 500K bigger than DC at the moment, though you’re right about Houston/ Dallas (their city populations are caught up but not the MSAs).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_areas_of_the_United_States

Looks like 75% of Chicagoland is just about equal to Philly, a little above Dallas and behind Boston.

Stan
10 years ago
Reply to  Stan

Its worth noting that DC includes Baltimore on that list and that SF includes Oakland, so the Cubs’ portion of Chicagoland would still be about the 7th biggest baseball market behind NYY, LAD, BOS, NYM (25% of NYC), BOS and PHI.

Matt P
10 years ago
Reply to  Stan

MSAs are the wrong thing to use. You want to use DMA (Designated Media Areas). You can find them by either googling nielsen dma size.

Matt P
10 years ago
Reply to  Stan

Chicago is the core market for both clubs because they share the same area. This is different then the Rangers and Astros where they share the same broadcast territory but Dallas is considered inner core for the Rangers but not the Astros and vice versa for Houston.

Of course, as you implied, the media rights for the Cubs is less valuable due to the existence of the White Sox. This is why things like ratings are taken into account.

cody k
10 years ago

I know carriage fees are a big part of the discussion for revenue Cubs would generate with their own network but wouldn’t they also be getting money from all ad sales, which I imagine should be decent if team/ratings continue to be good

Bob Paine
10 years ago

When tumbling numbers, keep in mind that a) DMA population is the first yardstick to measure by and b) don’t forget the satellite DMAs around Chicago where the Cubs network would get carriage. It’s a much bigger territory than just Chicago and it’s loaded with Cub fans. That’s part of the reason networks like NESN and YES do so well in total dollars.

Matt P
10 years ago
Reply to  Bob Paine

That’s normally true, but not the case for Chicago. The Chicago clubs have a very small outer core media market. My understanding is that the CSN Chicago has 3.1M subscribers from Chicago and just another 1.6M from other DMAs. In contrast, MASN has 2.9M subscribers in the inner core DMAs of Baltimore and Washington and another 3M subscribers from other DMAs.

James Steever
10 years ago

Cubs and Bears make a lot more sense.
Blackhawks and Cubs have too many conflicts and baseball fans are not ardent hockey fans and vice-versa.

That Guy
10 years ago
Reply to  James Steever

The NFL going towards an RSN model for tv broadcasting? LOL.

Uh, wait a minute…

DavidBowser
10 years ago

As a reference point for this conversation, I suggest reading the Wiki for SNY. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SportsNet_New_York

It is 65% owned by the Mets with Time Warner and Comcast owning the rest. That split pretty much guaranteed coverage for local cable customers. The Mets broadcast most of their games on SNY, but some are on local WPIX11 (one weekend game per week I think).

SNY also broadcasts Big East basketball games, which gives them LOTS of live events when baseball is off.

That Guy
10 years ago

Every year I keep thinking (hoping, apparently) that we’re one year closer to a true ala carte tv menu…

Marty34
10 years ago

Rocky Wirtz isn’t going to leave Reinsdorf to partner with Ricketts for a few extra TV dollars. Anyway, by 2020 Wirtz might own the Sox.