Yankees Buy Back YES and Bring Along Amazon and Sinclair

With 80% of the YES Network up for sale, the New York Yankees have formed an ownership group that will give the club a majority interest in the network. The deal is valued at $3.47 billion, more than four times the network’s estimated value when it was formed in 2002, though that figure is also about half a billion dollars less than it was when YES was last sold in 2014. Disney recently acquired the 80% share of YES as part of their acquisition of Fox, but they must sell Fox’s regional sports networks in order to gain government approval of the broader Fox purchase. The Yankees, not willing to go it alone on a multi-billion dollar investment, found financial backing in the form of Blackstone and a few other private equity groups. More important to the actual running of the network, Sinclair Broadcasting Group and Amazon will also be significant investors, with the Yankees possessing a majority interest.

A little over six years ago, Fox bought nearly half of YES Network for $1.5 billion. While the team was the most prominent owner of the network at the time, that deal most benefited Goldman Sachs, Providence Equity, and a group headed by former Nets’ owner Raymond Chambers. The latter three groups owned roughly two-thirds of the network at the time, and sold most of their share. The Yankees sold about 9% of their share, netting them around a quarter of a billion dollars. That deal allowed Fox to later purchase the rest of the equity groups’ shares, as well as a bit more of the Yankees’ share, for another billion or so dollars. Fox completed that purchase in 2014, owning 80% of the network; the Yankees owned the remaining 20%. In what would turn out to be a big part of the agreement and the current sale, the Yankees retained the ability to buy back the network.

The Yankees’ buyback clause was one of a few factors enabling them to repurchase their network at a lower price than the one they sold it for earlier in the decade. To start with, the sale was essentially forced, with Disney unable to choose when to sell. With Fox selling the network and Disney unable to buy, two of the biggest media companies in the world were taken off the table as potential competitors to drive up the price.

The Yankees’ ability to buy the network back meant that if a buyer wanted to acquire a majority stake, it would have to bid beyond what the Yankees were able to pay or scrape together with investors, a tall order given the Yankees’ finances. Potential buyers could partner with the team, but they wouldn’t be able to gain a majority interest, and bidding with the Yankees instead of against them takes away other potential buyers. Factor in that the Yankees and MLB control game streaming rights — which could prove incredibly value down the line — instead of a potential buyer and it’s not difficult to see how the price might have been a bit lower than the valuations in 2012 and 2014 when Fox bought in.

As for how this deal will affect broadcasts, the impact is likely to be small, as the network will probably remain the same. If there is a change, it is more likely to come in the distribution of the network than its specific content. Amazon’s expertise should be helpful for streaming games locally in New York, though they aren’t currently allowed to stream Yankees games outside of New York, as MLB’s blackout policies not only prevent consumers from watching their local games without paying for a cable subscription that includes the local RSN, but also prevent teams and local RSNs from broadcasting outside of their market.

The Yankees would stand to make a ton of money if they could broadcast their games nationally through Amazon or Sinclair’s large group of affiliated stations, but MLB restricts arrangements like that so that local teams have exclusivity on traditional television, while MLB.TV enjoys exclusivity online. The settlement of the Garber lawsuit a few years back gave consumers the option to purchase a single-team streaming option, but preserved the blackout policy from an adverse decision in anti-trust litigation.

If there is an aspect of this deal that might make fans nervous, it comes with Sinclair’s involvement. When the possibility of Sinclair investing in the Cubs’ RSN was reported back in December, I wrote about the concerns I had over Sinclair’s business practices, and their penchant for getting into carriage disputes that have resulted in Sinclair-owned channels remaining off the air.

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. In case you didn't read all that, here's the short version. Membership includes:
✓Ad-free browsing
✓Unlimited FanGraphs & RotoGraphs articles
✓Historical & platoon projections
✓Leaderboard & player-page stat heatmaps
✓One-click data exports
✓Customizable player-page dashboards
✓Dark & Classic site modes
✓Weekly Members-only mailbag
✓FanGraphs Walk-Off, your year in review
✓Optional homepage photo removal
✓Gift articles to non-members

The problem for baseball is less the federal regulations, and more in how Sinclair would negotiate carriage fees. Of the cities with Fox RSNs, Sinclair owns local stations in Minneapolis, Cincinnati, St. Louis, and Milwaukee. They also own stations in a whole host of smaller markets in Michigan, Ohio, California, Texas, Georgia, Florida, and New York. It’s not difficult to imagine how Sinclair might attempt to leverage retransmission fees to extract even more money for the RSNs. With few exceptions, RSNs have had little difficulty gaining entrance to cable providers basic digital package. This isn’t a situation analogous to the Tennis Channel, as the RSNs are already in a large percentage of homes. But if Sinclair raises the price higher than providers are willing to pay, disputes become more likely.

While Sinclair does not own any networks in New York City, they do own a handful of stations throughout the rest of the state, and the potential exists for disputes on carriage fees that might prevent fans from seeing games. In addition, YES Network is available in New York on a more accessible cable tier with both Time Warner and Cablevision than the Sinclair-owned Tennis Channel is. Sinclair could attempt to use YES to gain better access for the Tennis Channel, though that isn’t highly likely given the amount of revenue they can expect from YES. This is now the second RSN deal between a baseball team and Sinclair, with the Cubs being the first.

Sinclair has reached deals with two of the richest clubs in baseball, but they might not be done. The remaining Fox RSNs are still up for sale. At one point, a $20 billion valuation for the 22 channels was thought possible, but without YES and with teams retaining streaming rights, that figure looks very high. In addition to Sinclair, Liberty Media, which owns the Braves, could enter the fray, and the networks could be sold off individually or in smaller groups, but MLB has reportedly made an offer of around $10 billion. Resolving the sale of YES should make it easier to move forward with the rest of the networks, though MLB should be wary of Sinclair or any buyer like them that is reliant on the old cable-bundle model to make money. Making new, younger fans is incredibly important for the future of the sport and relying on a delivery system that younger people use less frequently, and that often involves disputes preventing networks from even airing, should be avoided.





Craig Edwards can be found on twitter @craigjedwards.

27 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
London Yank
7 years ago

It will be a great day when fans are able to purchase individual streaming rights for the team or teams of their choice no matter where they live. As an American expat living in the UK I get all MLB games streamed through my annual MLB tv service. Ironically, it is easier for me to watch Yankees games living in the UK than it was for me to watch them while living in New York. In New York MLB TV covers every team except the Yankees and Mets (i.e. the ones you want). I was unwilling to purchase an otherwise useless (to me) cable TV subscription that would have cost me monthly what MLB TV costs me for the year. Thus, while living in New York I was stuck with John Sterling and Suzyn Waldman on 660 WFAN, or pulling a glitchy, popup ad ridden illegal internet stream. In the UK, £100 gets me all the games I can bare to watch given the fact that games typically start at midnight here.

rsvp_nj
7 years ago
Reply to  London Yank

At least with MLB TV you can watch the game after it airs live, whenever it’s convenient for you to do so.

London Yank
7 years ago
Reply to  rsvp_nj

In theory, that’s wonderful. In practice, I can’t stop myself from checking scores. Thus, I become nocturnal from April through October. My girlfriend loves it.

CL1NTMember since 2025
7 years ago
Reply to  rsvp_nj

Yep, and to add to the convenience of the ‘archived’ games — if you’re watching an archive game using MLB.tv on a TV — the service makes it possible to fast-forward, by innings; which is very cool.

If only it was possible to do so on the mobile version!!

I have become extremely precise when using my pinky finger against my phone in order to fast-forward through the commercials, but no so far that I miss game action. It took an entire season to develop such pinky coordination!

stonepie
7 years ago
Reply to  London Yank

you can buy extremely discounted MLB TV packages on ebay

Jon
7 years ago
Reply to  stonepie

any idea how/why that works?

RobertMember since 2017
7 years ago
Reply to  Jon

I’m 100% theorizing since I annually buy legit MLB.tv packages.

It’s cheaper in other countries than the US and then you watch via a private website or through a VPN the “purchase” sends you; therefore, you’re paying the prize it costs to watch MLB.tv in Thailand and watching it “there”.

oozyalbies1
7 years ago

I’m certainly a layman on this, but seems like a very shrewd business maneuver by the team.

Regarding the Sinclair angle, I understand where the concern is coming from, but I think it’s mostly unfounded. Sounds like that group is only a partner, and how much of one isn’t specified, so do we really know how much decision making power they’ll have? Even if it was a majority stake, I don’t know that we should expect them to be motivated to raise prices significantly, especially given their experience with the Cubs.

The fact that they’re partnering with the team and with Amazon, along with their model employed in Chicago, would seem to make the availability of games pretty safe.

Nelson S.
7 years ago

Any chance that fans will get some reprieve from Sterling and Waldman in the next decade? Who decides on that? Do they think Sterling is some beloved Vin Scully-esque broadcaster?

martyvan90Member since 2017
7 years ago
Reply to  Nelson S.

Nelson, I assume you’re too young to remember Phil Rizzuto? The later years were classics- leaving in the 5th inning to beat traffic across the bridge, talking about it from the second inning, and then being ridiculed by the Bill White and Frank Messer. The Scooter was beloved, but virtually everyone realized he was a homer. Hometown announcers are supposed to be bad in a lovable way.

hopbittersMember since 2020
7 years ago
Reply to  martyvan90

That announcing team (plus watching the games with my dad) was a large part of the reason I love baseball today. Phil had an extraordinary ability to make the game (or the broadcast, at least) interesting when absolutely nothing of interest was going on. Nobody these days seems to understand that if I care about the stats, scouting reports, wind direction, whatever, I have all those stats in front of me and don’t need to hear it from them. And if I don’t care about them, I really don’t need to hear it. Stop flapping your gums just to fill the space and tell me a story about the cannoli you had last Tuesday. God, I miss Scooter.

London Yank
7 years ago
Reply to  hopbitters

I also grew up listening to the Scooter. No question those broadcasts contributed to my love of the game.

I also agree that the worst commentary is generally stats commentary. What I want to hear are the insights of former players. I’ve learned so much from Jim Kaat and Ken Singleton. The insights of former players often give direction to the questions we should be asking analytically.

Connor Grey
7 years ago
Reply to  Nelson S.

John and Susan have grown on me. They’re objectively bad at analysis but they’re not as big homers as they’re made out to be. John can be just as animated and excited sounding when something good happens to whoever the Yankees are playing. That being said, I completely understand why people hate them.

London Yank
7 years ago
Reply to  Connor Grey

John and Suzyn are idiots, but they’re our idiots. They’re family. …even Suzyn with her horrendous Boston accent.

TheGarrettCooperFanClub
7 years ago

I know for me, Fox Sports Go was the only way I would be able to watch the Yankees some times, you just sign in with your cable company and you can watch it anywhere. I hope something like this is still an option now that Fox is out of the picture completely. If there could be a way for me to watch the Yankees without blackout restrictions through Amazon Prime or something, that would be ideal for me.

RobertMember since 2017
7 years ago

Idk if you were paying separately for FS Go (I’ve never looked in to that), but I have to imagine there’ll be a standalone app (through cable subscription) for customers that were streaming. YES will need to fulfill any existing contracts and I’d think the existing app would be part of that.

I also expect that there’d be a local streaming option in 2020 or 2021.

TheGarrettCooperFanClub
7 years ago
Reply to  Robert

The only (legal) streaming option for Yankees games on YES was through Fox Sports Go, but since it’s no longer a FOX network, I have to assume that will stop. they will probably have a YES app, similar to MSG Go but Fox Sports Go was solid whereas MSG Go is just a mess, so I;m a bit worried

fjtorres
7 years ago

Buried lede?
MLB is bidding to buy the bulk of the Fox RSN’s?!
Doesn’t that deserve more than half a sentence? The consequences would not be trivial.

Also non-trivial: MLB returning game streaming rights to the individual teams.

Roger21
7 years ago
Reply to  fjtorres

There’s been a decent amount of coverage about MLB’s bid elsewhere, since it actually happened a few weeks ago. For example:

“Major League Baseball Commissioner Rob Manfred has taken an acute interest in the RSN sale out of fear that amid the declining buyer interest, smaller market baseball teams would be put at a marketing and distribution disadvantage if the buyer was too highly leveraged to invest in the properties. That’s why MLB has placed a bid for the RSNs valued at around $10 billion.”

https://www.foxbusiness.com/media/fox-rsn-sale-grows-more-confusing-as-angels-owner-eyes-several-networks

As that article points out, Arte Moreno is also considering a bid for up to four of the RSNs, so the situation still seems pretty fluid, even if a lot of bidders who were originally anticipated to show interest did not do so.

jsdspudMember since 2018
7 years ago

I don’t mind not being able to stream games locally when they are televised on my RSN. The RSN has paid to transmit the game and their investment needs protected. I live in Pittsburgh where the Pirates and Penguins are both on Root Sports. If game times conflict, Root always televises the Penguins. Sometimes, Pirates games are broadcast on MLB network which is a fine alternative. If they aren’t on MLB network then I am out of luck as MLB.TV won’t let me stream the game. This bothers me because Root has chosen not to televise the game, they should let it be streamed to those who want to see it.

Eminor3rdMember since 2019
7 years ago
Reply to  jsdspud

But if you don’t find cable TV worthwhile, you’re paying $60-90 a month for, essentially, the right to watch local games live only.

Tough to justify, which is why so many complain so often.

fjtorres
7 years ago
Reply to  Eminor3rd

That is where cord cutting comes in.
SlingTV, for one,offers up a package that includes the local (Fox) RSN for $25. Sling Blue. No blackout.
Look it up.
Not sure which of the other live-streaming players offer RSNs but since Sling is tops, the others will follow.

London Yank
7 years ago
Reply to  jsdspud

The problem is that the cost of your subscription to RSN also requires you paying for all the programming you are not interested in that is included with your cable package. We have the technology for programming on demand. We should be able to pay for only the things we want to receive.

HandsomeBoyModel
7 years ago

Of all the major North American sports leagues, MLB has the best online infrastructure and app for streaming games hands down (I’d put MLS second).

It’s too bad that local teams are handcuffed from streaming their games out in more ways other than being latched to a regional network.

With all the talk of banning shifts and moving the mound to increase viewership, how about MLB look at how they distribute their product?

johansantana17Member since 2026
7 years ago

Seriously, expanding viewing options is 10 times more important for increasing interest in the game than all the proposed rule changes combined. People can’t get into baseball if they can’t watch any games.

johansantana17Member since 2026
7 years ago

That last sentence is incredibly important and I am not at all confident that the MLB has the foresight to handle the situation correctly.

averagejoe15Member since 2018
7 years ago

Something Craig wrote back in 2016 is incredibly relevant as well.

“The Yankees used to have a much higher share of the YES Network, but have sold off most of it to FOX over the past few years for roughly $2 billion. It’s no surprise, then, that the Yankees are voicing their displeasure about revenue-sharing given that much of their revenue used to be sheltered from the rest of MLB through the network, but those sheltered revenues have been decreasing.”

As majority owners of their own network, the Yankees retain a greater share of local TV revenue as it will be shielded from revenue sharing. Which, with the teams performance booming, should be quite lucrative and well-timed.

The Dodgers deal is sort of BS in this regard if you really look into it, they are essentially gaming the system with their deal since while they are technically “owners” of their network, but all the financial risk is on TWC.