Garber vs. MLB Lawsuit Still Bears Some Fruit for Fans
A little over a year ago, Major League Baseball settled a class-action suit against fans who contended that blackout rules violate antitrust laws. The ramifications for not settling could have been massive, as ending the current blackout rules would prevent regional sports networks (RSNs) from claiming exclusivity over territories to air baseball games. This, in turn, would have prevented them from charging cable providers large amounts of money per subscriber to place them in the basic-cable tier — amounts that cable providers still seem (mostly) willing to pay. Instead of risking that potential financial catastrophe, MLB settled. In the process, they lowered the price of MLB.TV and offered single-team solutions. In a less notable development, the deal also included stipulations regarding in-market streaming of baseball games.
As Nathaniel Grow discussed at the time of the settlement, the lawsuit provided incentives for in-market streaming.
Finally, although not mentioned in the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ statement, Eric Fisher of the Sports Business Journal is reporting that the settlement could also pave the way towards allowing subscribers of RSNs owned by Comcast and DirecTV to stream in-market games via MLB.TV. In particular, the settlement agreement will reportedly specify that MLB cannot raise the price of its MLB.TV service until both Comcast and DirecTV reach an in-market streaming deal with MLB for their RSN subscribers.
For a few reasons, this provision wasn’t a big deal at the time at the time of the settlement. For one, preserving blackouts was probably the most important objective the settlement accomplished for MLB. Lowering the price of MLB.TV by 15% and securing lower fees for viewing just a single club’s games was also a bigger priority. Also, MLB had already agreed at the time to in-market streaming for half of the league’s RSNs — namely, those operated by FOX. For all of last season, half the league plus the Toronto Blue Jays had access to in-market streaming. The final reason the provision wasn’t that big of a deal at the time was due to when it would actually matter — i.e. one year later. Of course, that happens to be now.

