For most of this century, Regional Sports Networks (or, “RSN” as used throughout) became a massive revenue generator for MLB teams, as they recognized that they could fetch tens of millions of dollars (or more) from their local cable providers to show games in their home market.
However, the last few years have seen a massive acceleration of “cord cutting,” as a new generation of TV consumers has eschewed conventional cable packages in favor of streaming options, thanks to the rise of smart TVs, fast internet, the reliability of tools like Roku, etc. This isn’t a groundbreaking statement (duh Captain Obvious), just putting it there to set the stage for what comes next.
This almost immediately led to some of the weaker RSN markets encountering financial difficulties, which in 2023 started to lead to major changes in the marketplace. And, in the last few weeks, we’ve seen an acceleration of these actions that now have nearly half the league without RSN deals. Here’s some of the salient inflection points over the past 3 years:
- Diamond Sports Group: was the first domino to fall in 2023, declaring Chapter 11 and failing to pay multiple teams its RSN fees, leading them to sever ties and have MLB pick them up. This included San Diego, Arizona at first in 2023, then Colorado, Cleveland, and Minnesota in 2024.
- In Late 2025, Seattle decided to exit the RSN market (they owned their own RSN) and joined up with MLB. That made them the 6th team to join MLB’s umbrella. As we will see, this turned out to be kind of a shocking issue in that Seattle was a 9-figure market AND owned the RSN, but they had what most call a pretty poorly-negotiated contract locally.
- Soon after, in Jan 2026 the MASN-Washington Nationals parting was announced, making the Nats the 7th team in the MLB portfolio.
- Main Street Sports: the Diamond group emerged from bankruptcy in early 2025, rebranded, and tried to continue its operations, then partnered with FanDuel Sports Network. However, in early 2026, they missed payments to a slew of teams, who all bailed and went to MLB. This included: Cincinnati, Kansas City, Miami, Milwaukee, St. Louis, and Tampa. Now this makes for 13 teams in the MLB network.
- FanDuel Sports also had rights to Atlanta, Los Angeles Angels, and Detroit last year; they remain up in the air for 2026 as of this writing and could very well all join MLB as well, making it possibly 16 of the 30 teams for 2026.
- Interestingly, Texas Rangers were also embroiled in the Diamond Sports Group issue, but launched their own RSN in 2025 and are there for the time being.
(A quick Tangent: A side effect of the MASN termination, by the way, is bittersweet: Mark Zuckerman was let go. Here’s his MASN farewell post, This is not the first time he’s had to find new work, having been axed by the Washington Times in 2009 when they ended all their sports operations, then depending on donations and individual contributions to self-finance his 2010 spring training coverage. He initially covered the team at a Blogspot site, then fired up NatsInsider.com for a bit before landing at Comcast Sports Net for a few years, getting axed there and joining MASN for the last decade. He’s covered the Nats since Day 1 and I certainly hope he picks up with a media outlet that continues to allow him to cover the team, whether its MLB.tv, or as MLB’s beat reporter covering the team, or perhaps whatever local cable shop ends up buying the MLB.tv Nats stream (Monument?). Nonetheless, He’s too valuable a resource in the community to have this be it.)
So, now with nearly half the league with MLB, what does the landscape of RSNs look like? I’m going to order the list below roughly by the current or immediate previous RSN revenues to illustrate a specific point, which will become clear soon enough. I’ve also included a very-old 2012 overview of known RSN Deals at the time, some of which are still valid and a much more updated 2024 version at MLBtraderumors.com.
| Market DMA Rank | Revenue Rank | Team | RSN | Team Owned? | Est Revenues (2022 latest) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 1 | Los Angeles Dodgers | Spectrum SportsNet LA | Yes | $196M |
| 1 | 2 | New York Yankees | YES Network | Yes | $143M |
| 4 | 3 | Philadelphia | NBC Sports Philadelphia | No | $125M |
| 2 | 4 | Los Angeles Angels | In Flux: was Fan Duel | No | Was $125M |
| 5 | 5 | Texas Rangers | Rangers Sports Network | Yes | was $111M |
| 10 | 6 | Atlanta Braves | In Flux: was Fan Duel | No | $100M |
| 7a | 7 | Toronto Blue Jays | SportsNet | Yes | Unreported |
| 13 | 8 | Seattle Mariners | MLB.tv | No | was $100M |
| 3 | 9 | Chicago Cubs | Marquee Sports Network | Yes | $99M |
| 9 | 10 | Boston Red Sox | New England Sports Network | Yes | $97M |
| 8 | 11 | San Francisco Giants | NBC Sports Bay Area | Yes | $92M |
| 1 | 12 | New York Mets | SportsNet New York | No? | $88M |
| 7 | 13 | Houston Astros | Space City Home Network | Yes | $73M but now ? |
| 21 | 14 | St. Louis | MLB.tv | No | was $73M |
| 8 | 15 | Nomad Athletics | None? | No | was $70m Believe nothing til move to LV |
| 12 | 16 | Arizona Diamondbacks | MLB.tv | No | was $68M |
| 6 | 17 | Washington Nationals | MLB.tv | No | Was $64M |
| 26 | 18 | Baltimore | MASN | Yes | $64M |
| 3 | 19 | Chicago White Sox | NBC Sports Chicago | No? | $60M |
| 14 | 20 | Detroit | In Flux: was Fan Duel | No | was $60M |
| 24 | 21 | Pittsburgh | SportsNet Pittsburgh | Yes | $55-$60M |
| 35 | 22 | Cincinnati | MLB.tv | No | was $60M |
| 17 | 23 | Denver | MLB.tv | No | was $57M |
| 11 | 24 | Tampa Bay Rays | MLB.tv | No | was $56M |
| 19 | 25 | Cleveland | MLB.tv | No | was $55M |
| 15 | 26 | Minnesota Twins | MLB.tv | No | was $54M |
| 16 | 27 | Miami-Ft. Lauderdale | MLB.tv | No | was $49M |
| 29 | 28 | San Diego | MLB.tv | No | was $47M |
| 32 | 29 | Kansas City | MLB.tv | No | was $45M |
| 36 | 30 | Milwaukee | MLB.tv | No | was $33M |
A couple of quick observations from this list:
- I think these links vastly under report the Dodgers’ actual revenues: they’re on an 25 year, $8.35B deal that averages $334M/year. Not sure why its only reported as $196M/year; maybe that’s after the 48% share?
- Same to a certain extent with especially the Yankees and Boston; there’s just no way Boston is “only” pulling $97M from NESN. They own 80% of the network and it had $574M in revenues last year.
- The two points above highlight the utter cynicism of MLB teams, at the same time, crying poor but then refusing to open their books. There’s only one “real” publicly traded team (Atlanta) and their finances are just fine: more than $600M in revenue last year with a payroll of $261M.
- That being said …
- Teams that own their own RSNs by and large are quite healthy, especially the Dodgers. The Dodgers have been taking every dollar of that massive amount of RSN revenue per year and throwing it at payroll, to the point of ridiculousness. Same for the Yankees and Mets famously. I’m not sure I really trust the revenue figures that these self-owned RSNs advertise (especially the $88M that the Mets supposedly get or the amount that the Cubs are pulling).
- I also have no idea how much Toronto gets, but I suspect its a massive figure as the sole Canadian team controlled by the group that has a monopoly of TV in that country.
- These healthy RSN revenue teams of course, also mostly benefit from being in the largest markets. NY, Chicago, LA, Philly. It remains to be seen what happens with Texas (in the 5th largest market) trying to make it a go with its own RSN.
However, the salient observation from above is easy to see: the smallest 10 teams in terms of historical RSN revenue have ALL seen their deals collapse in the last two years. They’re all now MLB.tv owned, joined by a smattering of slightly larger market teams. The only top-half market size team now in the MLB mix is Seattle, who interestingly decided to give up their own RSN because of some restrictive contracts with the local cable provider w/r/t local streaming options.
Tangent: DC is the 6th biggest DMA market, but was paid at the 17th highest rated team. I mean, I get it, these other markets have had decades to establish a fan and TV base for their teams … but this is one more illustration of how much the MASN deal screwed this franchise for decades.
So, what’s next? Well, first, we need to see what all these MLB.tv deals are going to pay. Something tells me that all these teams are going to take a massive haircut on the per-year revenue figures they were getting, even from failing RSNs. Do we really think the Nationals are gonna get $65M in shared fees and drip-drip streaming packages? Does anyone believe Seattle’s getting 9 figures? I don’t.
Next, we have the commissioner throwing a pretty major shot across the bow of the owners he supposedly represents by being on record saying he wants the broadcast rights for all 30 teams by 2028. But, what’s the incentive for these big market teams to do this? LA is in a deal that gives them an increasingly large amount of money until 2038. The Yankees are committed to their deal well into the 2030s. Toronto’s RSN has a monopoly in a country of 40M people; that’s twice the size of the NYC MSA. These wealthy teams aren’t just going to give up hundreds of millions of dollars so that Kansas City and Milwaukee can get more money. Oh, not for nothing, the 28th ranked media market out of the 30 teams? Frigging San Diego, who’s been running $200M payrolls for years … so something doesn’t add up when you have Miami and Minnesota and Cleveland crying poor.
Don’t get me wrong; I think in an ideal world where MLB could ‘start over” they’d nationalize TV deals, just as NFL/NBA/NHL have done. In a heartbeat. If MLB had what the NFL has, there’s be such a different competitive landscape. You can plunk a team in Green Bay or Podunk, Iowa and with a level playing field of TV revenue everyone can be competitive. But, I also recognize the current state of NY/LA/Chi markets and can’t quite come to terms with taking hundreds of millions of dollars out of the pockets of some teams so as to hand it to the (multi-millionaire) owners of smaller market teams, many of whom literally havn’t “tried” to win in years.
The last time we had a really significant work stoppage was in 1994, and a major reason behind that strike was internal battles between big and small market owners related to TV revenue sharing. They eventually agreed to partial revenue sharing, which still exists today (each team puts 48% of its RSN money into a big pot and re-distributes it equally), which but there’s been significant grumbling when the $110M or so of shared revenue gets handed to teams like Miami ($72M payroll in 2025) or Cleveland ($76M payroll) or even to Washington ($91M payroll last year) and they don’t even spend it all.
Now, in 2026 with LA making a mockery of the luxury tax cap with a projected $403M 40-man 2026 salary, fully $159M over the tax threshold and a slew of small-market owners losing their minds … something tells me we’re to going to see a massive issue this coming off-season. You have the commissioner running around telling players they “need” a salary cap (and guys like Bryce Harper telling him to get the f*ck out of their clubhouse), so the MLBPA is already girded for a massive salary cap fight … but Manfred also has to get his owners in alignment to be able to negotiate a common stance.
It’s “collective bargaining,” not “collective demanding,” and if the Owners want a hard cap, they’re going to have to “give up” something the players want in return … the question is, are they willing to give up enough to satisfy the players union? And, what could that possibly be? We alluded to it in the last column with the Skubal arbitration issue: would owners give up arbitration altogether, or let players go after 4 years to free agency, in return for a salary cap? Maybe. Would they agree to a salary floor to go along with the cap? That kind of has to be in there else we’re right in the same boat we are now.
And, all of this happening the year when half the teams in the league potentially face a franchise-altering loss of RSN money?
Not good.







