MLB Comes To Its Senses And Declines To Oppose Overwatch League Trademark

from the intentional-walk dept

We recently discussed how Major League Baseball had asked for an extension with the USPTO so its legal staff could decide whether it wanted to oppose a trademark application for eSport organization Overwatch League's new logo. The request was more than a little head-scratching for a variety of reasons. As we pointed out in that post, the two logos aren't particularly similar and certainty don't appear to give ground to any confusion among the public about any affiliation between the leagues.

Different color schemes, different fonts, and clearly identified names of the league on each logo didn't give MLB much ammo for a trademark opposition. Add to that the plethora of sporting league logos done in a similar style that actually do use the same color scheme, yet don't face aggression from MLB, and it raises the eyebrow as to why MLB's lawyers wanted to even go so far as to ask for an extension over any of this.

Well, it seems that either MLB's lawyers are Techdirt readers or they simply came to their senses (I choose to believe it's the former), because the time to file an opposition has come and gone with no action taken on MLB's side.

Major League Baseball has decided not to oppose Blizzard Entertainment’s OverwatchLeague trademark filing, per law firm Morrison / Lee. As part of the OWL’s trademark review process via the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, organizations have the opportunity to oppose trademarks—and earlier this month, the MLB was reportedly preparing a challenge, along with a request for a 90 day extension.

The deadline to file the challenge and extension, July 26, has now come and gone without issue. OWL’s trademark is presumably in place, and while it could still be challenged as a trademark infringement down the road, such a challenge is unlikely given the lack of current filing.

While MLB has been happy in the past to be the bully on trademark issues, it seems it decided even this one was too silly to take on. That doesn't feel like it deserves applause as much as brief sigh of relief at one less dumb trademark issue I'd have to write about.

Filed Under: logos, overwatch, sports, trademark
Companies: blizzard, mlb

MLB Mulls Over Opposing Trademark For New Overwatch League Logo

from the swing-and-a-miss dept

It's no secret that Major League Baseball has proven themselves to be happy bullies regarding its trademarks. Between thinking it owns the letter 'W', forgetting that fair use exists, and its decision to bully amateur baseball leagues, the legal staff for MLB has shown that they can produce some really head-scratching moments.

Which brings us to the present, in which Major League Baseball has asked for an extension to decide if it wants to oppose the new logo for Overwatch League, the eSports league dedicated to playing -- you guessed it -- Overwatch.

As noted in a post on the website of law firm Morrison / Lee, the Overwatch League’s logo was approved for a trademark on March 28. Under the standard practice of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, this meant that any other parties with trademarks of their own had one month to respond to the logo—either to oppose it outright or to request more time to be able to oppose—before the logo’s trademark would actually be registered. Just one day before the end of that 30-day window, MLB filed for a 90-day extension to investigate the likeness of the OverwatchLeague’s logo to its own and potentially oppose it. Their request was considered valid and they were granted the extension immediately.

The extension expires in mere days, so we're all going to find out very soon if MLB thinks it should oppose the trademark for the following logo, helpfully placed next to the MLB logo so you can decide for yourself how confusing any of this is.

So, let's just get the obvious out of the way: these logos look nothing alike and will not cause any confusion. Period. Other than having a white outline of a "player" of each sport separating two colors and some words on the bottom, there's nothing even similar here. The colors are different, the outlines are different, the names of the leagues are both different and specifically descriptive. Confusion is simply not going to be a thing in this case.

But let's say you're not convinced. Fine. Please tell me if the following logo also confuses you.

Of course it doesn't. The NBA uses a logo with the same style and yet MLB is not at their throats over it. That's because this logo style for sports leagues is fairly standard and there hasn't been issues with confusion before.

Perhaps as MLB's legal staff considers whether to oppose Overwatch League's logo, they'll happen to come across this post. If they do, I have but one bit of advice: don't.

Filed Under: logos, overwatch, sports, trademark
Companies: mlb, overwatch league

Former STL Cardinals Scouting Director Gets Jail Time For Illegally Accessing Astros Scouting Database

from the the-cardinal-way dept

If you'll recall, early on this year we wrote about the very strange story in which the at-the-time scouting director for the St. Louis Cardinals, Chris Correa, used the old passwords of a former employee who had since taken a job with the Houston Astros to break into the opposing team's scouting database. The actions were fairly brazen, leading many to wonder how in the world Correa thought he was going to get away with this. The government charged him under the CFAA, to which Correa pleaded guilty. At the time, I concluded the post guessing that Correa, given his standing and the fact that he isn't named Aaron Swartz, would get off with minimal if any jail time.

Well, when you're wrong, you're wrong. While Correa didn't get anything like the half-a-century jail time that the feds had threatened Swartz with, he is getting nearly four years worth of jail time, which is much more than I had expected.

Chris Correa, the former St. Louis Cardinals scouting director who illegally accessed the Houston Astros database known as Ground Control, was sentenced to 46 months in prison today in Houston federal court.

Correa, who was fired by the Cardinals in July 2015, pleaded guilty in January to five counts of unauthorized access of a computer. According to prosecutors, Correa used an old password of a former Cardinals employee, who took a job with the Astros, to log into Ground Control and download the Astros’ scouting reports, information on possible MLB draftees, and other notes. Correa has also been assessed a fine of $279,038. Prosecutors valued the damage done to the Astros from his actions at $1.7 million.

Without wanting to dance on another human being's jail sentence, I will say there is something slightly satisfying in seeing this case conclude with real jail time, as opposed to some kind of slap on the wrist. It does nothing to soften the still gaping wounds stemming from the Swartz tragedy, of course. Still, so much of the time we see laws like the CFAA applied in the most haphazard way, whereas this was about as perfect an application for it as I can think of.

Somehow the rest of the Cardinals organization has skated by unscathed. The Cardinal Way and all that, I guess.

Filed Under: cfaa, chris correa, hacking, jailtime, scouting
Companies: houston astros, mlb, st. louis cardinals

Baseball Equipment Makers In Trademark Spat Over The Word 'Diamond'

from the play-ball dept

Everyone should know by now that language is ever evolving. New, cultural, or colloquial words get added to the dictionary. In addition, existing words attain new definitions, typically contextual definitions. Like the word "diamond", for instance, which has a different definition when spoken in the context of baseball. In baseball lingo, the diamond is in the filed, or infield, and the term is as common as "bat", or "ball", or "single." And, yet, two makers of baseball equipment are now in a trademark legal spat over the word "diamond."

Cooperstown Bat Co. has asked U.S. Magistrate Judge David Peebles to declare that its use of "Pro Diamond" on its bats doesn't infringe on the trademark of a California sports-equipment manufacturer. Cooperstown Bat Co. sued Diamond Baseball Co. in federal court in Syracuse in response to Diamond Baseballs' demand that Cooperstown Bat stop using the name. Diamond Baseball sent a "cease and desist" letter to Cooperstown Bat in December, demanding that it remove "Pro Diamond" from its web site and send all of its bats with that mark on it to Diamond for destruction.

Complicating this is that Major League Baseball has a rule for bat manufacturers that an ink dot must be on any bat constructed of maple or birch wood, in order that players and teams can better see the quality of the wood grains, which is an indication of the strength of the wood. Cooperstown Bat began using a diamond for its ink dot because, again, baseball. Shortly after, Cooperstown Bat began marketing these professional grade wooden bats under the "Pro Diamond" brand, after which Diamond Baseball sent out its C&D notices.

But, in the context of baseball, how in the world is "diamond" not generic? Cooperstown Bats brings this up in its filing.

"The word 'diamond' has been used generically to refer to a baseball field, and more specifically, the four-cornered part of a baseball field in which the corners are the three bases and the home plate, for well over 100 years," Cooperstown Bat's lawsuit said.

Adding to the silliness of this is that the two companies don't even make the same equipment. Cooperstown Bats makes -- you guessed it -- baseball bats. It also sells a few accessories and apparel as well, but it's a baseball bat company. Diamond Baseball makes baseballs, softballs and catchers gear. Both are in the baseball business, but they don't make the same products and, again, in the baseball business the word "diamond" is as generic as "field."

It's high time the trademark office began a stricter policy on these types of generic marks. Sadly, we've seen little to indicate its willingness to do so.

Filed Under: baseball, trademark
Companies: mlb

Feds Confirm Cardinals Accessed Astros System With Old Password, File Unauthorized Access Charges

from the the-cardinal-way dept

Sports fans in the city of St. Louis are having a rough go of it lately. Fresh on the heels of losing their football team to Los Angeles, now we are learning that the federal government has charged former Cardinals scouting director Christopher Correa with unauthorized access into the Houston Astros computer systems. While some had speculated that the government would go after the Cardinals under the Economic Espionage Act, it's beginning to look like our original assumption that the CFAA would be the tool the government would wield has been proven correct. Also appearing to be correct were reports that the "hacking" that took place in this instance was of the less hack-y variety and more of the let's-try-the-guy's-old-password-y.

Correa illegally accessed the Astros' computers in the following way: In December 2011, as Victim A prepared to leave the St. Louis Cardinals and join the Houston Astros, he was directed to turn over his Cardinals-owned laptop to Correa -- along with the laptop's password. When Victim A joined the Astros, he re-used a similar (albeit obscure) password for his Astros' email and Ground Control accounts. No later than March 2013, Correa began accessing Victim A's Ground Control and Astros' email accounts using this variation of the password to Victim A's Cardinals laptop.

Note that Victim A is Jeff Luhnow, now Astros General Manager and former Cardinals employee, while Ground Control is the name for the Astros' player scouting database. As far as competitive information goes, this is the treasure chest for any baseball team. At the court hearing, Correa entered a plea of guilty, claiming that he only accessed the Astros' systems because he believed that propietary information from the Cardinals' club had been taken first. Correa followed that up by admitting that such reasoning was "stupid."

And indeed it is stupid, given the penalties that can be assessed for his crime.

The parties agreed that Correa masked his identity, his location and the type of device that he used, and that the total intended loss for all of the intrusions is approximately $1.7 million.

Each conviction of unauthorized access of a protected computer carries a maximum possible sentence of five years in federal prison and a possible $250,000 fine.

Given the plea deal, and the fact that Correa isn't a young man pushing back at the government in trying to change the world, I expect that the jail time will be minimal if any. Which is probably unfortunate, because as far as CFAA cases go, this is one where actual crimes have been committed.

Filed Under: astros, baseball, cardinals, cfaa, christopher correa, hacking, jeff luhnow
Companies: houston astros, mlb, st. louis cardinals

MLB Goes To Court To Defend Antitrust Actions That Go Against All The Progress MLB Has Made

from the swing-and-a-miss dept

We have talked quite a bit about Major League Baseball for a technology site, in no small part due to many of the forward-thinking things the league has done regarding operating its business in the digital age. In the realm of sports streaming, I've typically referred to MLB.TV and the league's Advanced Media products as the gold standard and I think I'm on pretty solid ground in saying so. Beyond that, the league seems poised to embrace expanded streaming options and the dropping of some of its more intrusive blackout rules, positioning the league well in the midst of the cord-cutting epidemic winding its way through the cable television industry.

Which is why it just feels so damn strange to see the league preparing to go to court along with DirecTV and Comcast to argue that it needs many of the practices from which it is actively moving away in order to not only provide more customer choice, but indeed to keep smaller-market teams in business entirely.

The background on this is that in 2014 a court decided that baseball's antitrust exemption could only be applied to core aspects of the business of baseball. Those core aspects traditionally, going back over a hundred years, referred to how MLB interacted with competing leagues and how player contracts would be handled given that players crossed state lines as part of their jobs. In more recent times, MLB attempted to use the antitrust exemption to allow for how it handles broadcast rights and blackouts, specifically arguing that allowing its member teams to negotiate their own national broadcast contracts would allow teams to get a free-ride on the league's popularity, and the court's opinion rejected those arguments in 2014. After that, the court agreed to certify a class action on behalf of fans looking to force Major League Baseball into allowing more inter-competition among its own member teams, which the fans argue would allow for national broadcasts (or national streaming) of any team anywhere in the nation.

MLB is now defending that action in pre-trial documents, apparently with the argument that giving teams more ways to get their product to their fans would result in small-market teams folding up completely, because the Yankees.

Defendants’ position, which will be substantiated at trial, is that the territorial rules enhance the overall quality of MLB live telecasts, which in turn enhances the ability of these telecasts to compete with other programming. (See Defs. Trial Mem. at 12-13.) The evidence will also show that eliminating the territorial rules would reduce the ability of certain small-market teams to invest in players and other resources, hampering their ability to compete on the field—and could, over time, prevent certain clubs from remaining viable.

This is similar to comments made by league commissioner Rob Manfred during deposition, where he specifically cited the New York nine as an example of why allowing more broadcast options would eventually limit broadcast options by eliminating teams and markets entirely.

"[A] lot of New Yorkers go down to Florida, and we think that [if the Yankees] go down [it] would kind of destroy that market for Tampa," he said. "[T]here are certain iconic, generally large market clubs that I believe have national appeal that would put them in a position to present a threat to the viability of certain of our smaller market clubs."

It's an argument that essentially claims that MLB must limit the number of broadcast options customers have to choose from because not limiting them will eventually lead to even less options when teams fold. This argument rests on MLB's revenue sharing practice, where teams negotiate their local broadcast rights and leave the national rights entirely up to the league, which then doles out national broadcast (and streaming) revenue democratically through the league, meaning the popularity of the Yankees and other large market clubs is resulting in income for small market teams (like the Tampa Bay Rays).

Here's the thing: everyone knows this argument's time was twenty years ago. Fans know it, because they use the internet and streaming services and they embody the desire of customers to watch more teams in more ways without blackout restrictions. MLB knows this as well, as you simply can't make sense of all the work the league has done to expand its streaming options without that knowledge. What they are trying to save in all of this is a bit of the right to still handle national streaming rights the way they handle national broadcast rights. It's about retaining control. But the league itself is what allowed for the expansion of the league into small market areas. For them now to rest the argument for their antitrust exemption on the un-viability of those markets, resulting in harming consumer choice, doesn't make any sense. It's essentially asking for a kind of bailout for some teams via the exemption. Put another way, MLB's argument amounts to: some of our teams don't have enough fans to sustain themselves, so we need an antitrust exemption to keep them afloat, just because. How is that in the public's interest, even if MLB's assessment is correct?

And here's the other thing: they're probably wrong. Major League Baseball is enjoying an immense level of popularity at the moment, finally recovering from the player lockout all those years ago. How does it benefit a small market team for the government to bless MLB's ownership of that team's ability to reach more fans, new fans, and other markets via its own negotiation of national streaming rights? Artificially limiting the reach of teams in an era where the ability to do national streaming is less costly doesn't enhance that team's viability; it limits it.

We'll have to see how this plays out, but the good news is that MLB knows all of this already. I'm actually a bit surprised it is even bothering with any of this.

Filed Under: anti-trust, baseball, streaming
Companies: mlb

No, WSJ, Baseball Revenues Don't HAVE To Come Down Due To Cord-Cutting

from the new-baseball-business-models dept

As a Techdirt reader, the business of professional baseball is not required reading. That said, for many reasons, the baseball business aligns nicely with many of the topics we discuss here, and baseball in general is probably the math-iest of sports. That's why it seems necessary to push back on this Chicken Little piece at the Wall Street Journal, which claims that the laughably large baseball contracts players are signing today are doomed to drop precipitously because of cord-cutting.

At first blush, the premise here might even seem reasonable.

But there is one question looming over the sport, even as it indulges in another no-holds-barred cashapalooza. Salaries in baseball have been rising without fail ever since the advent of free agency in 1975. But for the first time, there are real warnings from responsible people that the party may be coming to an end.

As more people downgrade their cable service for smaller bundles of channels, or “cut the cord” by disconnecting from cable in favor of online streaming services, or just decline to ever subscribe, the economics of baseball will take a hit. MLB teams will no longer be able to ask cable services to pay a premium for the right to show their games. If they can’t find other sources of revenue to make up for this, it’s hard to imagine salaries to escalate at this rate in perpetuity.

The qualifier built into the premise is the premise's undoing. "If they can't find other sources of revenue" with regards to broadcast contracts, amounts to, more generally, "If baseball doesn't make as much money they won't pay the players as much." Well, yes, obviously. The problem is that no professional sport has positioned itself as well for cord-cutting as has Major League Baseball. As we've discussed at length in the past, MLB's Advanced Media product is the gold standard in sports streaming, so much so that other sports leagues are actually piggy-backing off of the MLB.TV product for use in their own sports. In addition, while the WSJ presents all this as some kind of surprise doomsday on the near horizon, MLB has been prepping for this for some time. We've already seen the league and its teams embrace streaming options with the current broadcast partners, as well as look to end the old blackout rules that would hamper streaming availability. What the WSJ piece attempts to paint is a picture in which it sees the doom coming, but MLB does not and is blithely handing out huge player contracts unwittingly. Baseball has done nothing to demonstrate that kind of ignorance, though, and in fact has done everything to demonstrate instead its willingness to be out in front of cord-cutting.

Vince Gennaro, the director of the graduate sports management program at Columbia University, said he wonders if the current deals between teams and cable services are sustainable. “These are major strategic issues that the consumer is going to have a large vote in,” he said, adding that he is not sure that baseball’s regional networks have an accurate view of the threat they’re facing. “Are the networks reading the market right? Are they reading the consumer right?”

Valid questions, but not when it comes to MLB revenue and player contracts. There is nothing in the cord-cutting trend to indicate that baseball viewership is going away. And the viewers are all that matters for revenue purposes. In fact, the cord-cutting trend has quickened as sports streaming becomes more widely available. That would seem to indicate that fans are simply trading television broadcasts for streams which, while it may hurt the local broadcast partners, presents no reason why it should hurt revenue overall, thereby affecting player contracts.

In the end, the article does a lot of hand-wringing over the questions it itself is asking, and yet the league and teams are moving forward confidently. That should tell you everything you need to know about whether or not the league is prepared for cord-cutting.

Filed Under: baseball, cable, cord cutting, revenues, streaming, tv
Companies: mlb

That Didn't Take Long: MLB Plans Action Against Fallout 4 David Ortiz Mod

from the swing-and-a-miss dept

Fallout 4 was recently released to a world full of ready gamers eager to get their paws on the latest installment in the franchise. And, because the game was released on the PC, modders immediately got to work on the title, coming up with fun little customizations for it. Those mods ranged from altering the companions players can recruit within the game to more cosmetic changes. One of those cosmetic changes included a custom outfit which allowed for players to don a David Ortiz Boston Red Sox jersey while cracking skulls with a baseball bat for a weapon. And, of course, Major League Baseball got its knickers in a twist over it.

If you're not aware, this latest game takes place in post-apocolyptic Boston. The player can roam the streets of the once-great city, picking up any number of items along the way to aid in their quest. The game even includes a bombed out depiction of Fenway Park, where the Red Sox play. One modder took the next logical step.

Richie Branson created a David Ortiz mod, and gave players the chance to bash baddies in a full Red Sox uniform. (Kindly overlook the fact that Big Papi’s actually a lefty.) It was a neat, free customization, but MLB was not as receptive. Steve Annear of the Boston Globe received a terse comment about the mod from a league spokesman:

“The use of these marks is an infringement of our rights. We plan to enforce those rights,” an MLB spokesman said in an e-mail Thursday.

Branson had reportedly said that if MLB actually requested it, he would voluntarily take the mod down. It seems likely that request came, because the mod is no longer available for download. And for what? The modding community regularly makes use of existing material in doing their work. Characters from one series are brought into another. Weapons from one set of fiction are foisted in a game where they did not originally appear. And, yes, David Ortiz's Red Sox jersey made its way into Fallout 4. The mod wasn't being sold. The mod wasn't made by the folks behind Fallout 4. This was an independent modder having a little bit of fun.

And MLB shut it down. Is there really commerce to consider here in protecting the team's trademarks? Please. No, this is permission culture run amok. Thanks to this little power play, gamers are denied the opportunity to bash in mutant skulls while wearing an Ortiz jersey. Just like the framers of trademark law intended, I guess.

Filed Under: david ortiz, fallout 4, mods, privacy rights, trademark, video games
Companies: mlb

MLB Drops Trademark Opposition Against WalletHub For 'W' Logo After WalletHub Bows At The MLB Altar

from the petty-stuff dept

You may recall that several months back we wrote about Major League Baseball getting into a trademark dispute with Evolution Finance, who operates a website called WalletHub. The reason for the dispute was that WalletHub's logo was a white "W" on a green background, which MLB thought was too similar to symbols used by the Washington Nationals and Chicago Cubs teams. That Evolution Finance wasn't in even remotely the same industry as two major league baseball teams is a fact that appeared to escape MLB, as the league actually had the stones to claim that customers might be confused between the "W" symbols. Adding to the silliness of it all was the simple nature of the logos.

The top left image is a registered logo for the Washington Nationals baseball team, the bottom left is the registered "W" flag the Chicago Cubs fly whenever they win a game, and the logo on the right is WalletHub's. Yes they all look somewhat similar...because they're all basically just the letter "w." Similarity or no, the idea that WalletHub's logo might cause a human person with a human brain to think that it was associated with Major League Baseball requires the kind of thinking that I'm not capable of.

But all has ended well, it appears. MLB has agreed to drop its opposition to WalletHub's trademark application after the latter agreed to amend the application to absolutely needlessly clarify that it wasn't a baseball team.

The addition of a single sentence ended a lengthy period of negotiations over trademark infringement allegations over how the letter "W" was used in logos between D.C.-based Evolution Finance's financial information company WalletHub, the Washington Nationals and Major League Baseball. With that, MLB's complaint was dismissed July 14.

Evolution Finance’s original filing said it was “creating an on-line community for users seeking financial information to participate in discussions, get feedback from their peers, read and customize their news” and other services. But the new trademark application also adds “all the foregoing not relating to baseball or softball or to a baseball or softball team, league, mascot or stadium.”

If pettiness were a sport, MLB's lawyers would be winning the pennant. Honestly, this sounds more like a legal team extracting some kind of action out of an opponent simply to justify its own existence rather than an action with any actual legal interest. But, hey, trademark, amirite?

Filed Under: baseball, trademark, w
Companies: chicago cubs, mlb, wallethub, washington nationals

NHL To Piggyback On MLB Advanced Media For An Actual Legitimate Streaming Option

from the finally dept

For quite a while now, some of us in the business of discussing digital business models and entertainment have suggested that the ongoing trend of cable-cord-cutting, which will eventually turn the cable TV business into something completely different than what it's been for decades, would be best spurred on by better streaming sports options. What once seemed like a trickle of streaming adoption by sports leagues and broadcast partners has begun to turn into a river, with baseball and football looking to expand streaming options and some very serious web companies getting into the game as "broadcast" partners with major pro sports leagues.

It isn't stopping. In fact, it's only ramping up further. The NHL, the group with the lowest television revenue of the major sports leagues, and therefore the most to gain from streaming its product to expand the fan-base, just announced a deal with Major League Baseball to piggyback on the excellent MLB Advanced Media platform to stream NHL games.

The partnership will transform the fan experience by creating a fully integrated global hub of digital content that encompasses video, live game streaming, social media, fantasy, apps, along with statistical and analytical content. With an emphasis on deeper access into the game and telling the stories of NHL players, MLBAM and the NHL will collaborate on developing new digital products and platforms while enhancing current offerings.

The deal awards MLBAM rights to distribute live out-of-market games, including through the NHL GameCenter LIVE and NHL Center Ice subscription services in the United States and certain international markets. MLBAM will operate NHL.com, including the League's seven native language sites, and Club websites. MLBAM will operate NHL apps and be available to develop apps for the Clubs. The NHL and MLBAM will partner on the design and development of new digital products and platforms. The NHL and its Clubs retain editorial control across all platforms. The Emmy-Award winning MLB Network will provide studio space and production resources for the NHL Network for distribution in the United States and certain international markets.

This works on so many different levels, it's hard to know where to begin. First, any baseball fan, or really any sports fan, should be aware by now that MLBAM is the absolute gold standard in sports streaming. The price, the offering, the quality, the organization, the replays and the presence on new media is done amazingly well. If you're a baseball fan and you don't have MLB.TV, you clearly enjoy self-masochism in a way that I will never understand and may God have mercy on your soul. The NHL, in partnering with MLBAM, doesn't need to create their own platform. They simply partner with the best in the business and go on doing what they do best: producing hockey games. Give up a little control, get back a ton of exposure and a platform that makes the game widely available throughout the country/world.

Which is exactly what some of us (ahem, me) said the NHL should have done immediately after the last lockout. The promise of streaming is a customer-base unimpeded by borders or geography, one where your best fans can access your product wherever you go. The NHL, more than any other league, needs this sorely. Now they have it in a package that almost inevitably will be better than the Center Ice streaming product, which, blech. The only question is going to be just how long is it going to take, how many smart TVs need to be sold, and just how wide does the high-speed broadband net have to be cast before the leagues realize the obvious conclusion they should be drawing from all of this: they don't really need the broadcast partners anymore.

Notice the language that the NHL used in announcing this deal. MLBAM is the distribution channel for out-of-market games for the NHL. Today that means streaming the television broadcasts out of market. But also note that MLB has its own cable network and is its own broadcast partner for some games. Exactly how far is MLB away from partnering with MLB franchises to broadcast on its own station, where it can sell its own advertising, hire its own on-air talent, and all the rest? And if they can do that, they could simply stream the games as a priority and leave the television station on as an afterthought. They already know how to do this, through the MLB.TV service. Exactly what purpose are the TV stations filling that MLB can't do on its own?

And if MLBAM wants to strike up deals with other sports leagues to be their broadcast partners on the web? Well, if you work at ESPN, you ought to be shaking in your shoes right about now.

Filed Under: hockey, streaming
Companies: mlb, mlbam, nhl