Bally Sports+ to Launch September 26, Without Twins For Now

[Melissa Berman]

Earlier this year, Twins Daily covered the details of Sinclair Broadcasting Group's new standalone streaming service, Bally Sports+. Now the service has an official launch date, but Twins games will not be included on the service, not yet at least.

Bally Sports+ will officially launch on September 26th in all 19 Bally Sports Regional Networks, but as of now, fans in Minnesota will only be able to watch Wild and Timberwolves games. This means that Twins fans will not be able to catch the remainder of the 2022 season on the standalone service once it launches, but Bally Sports is hoping that changes for 2023. 

"Bally Sports currently has the rights to stream the Detroit Tigers, Kansas City Royals, Miami Marlins, Milwaukee Brewers and Tampa Bay Rays on Bally Sports+. We are in discussions with MLB and our other MLB team partners to expand our offering next year," said Bally Sports on their website. 

When Bally Sports announced the service, there was also uncertainty regarding whether fans would be able to watch out-of-market games using the service, similar to MLB.TV, a service which gives subscribers access to the broadcasts of all teams (subject to blackout restrictions). According to the company's website FAQ, the answer appears to be "no," writing that "the Bally Sports+ product is another way to watch your local teams, so the same league territory restrictions apply to out-of-market games."

According to their website, fans can determine if they live in a specific Bally Sports region by visiting GetMyHomeTeams.com and inputting their zip code.

Bally Sports+ comes at at time when several prominent streaming and satellite providers do not offer Bally Sports, including Hulu, YouTube TV, and Dish Network. This lack of access has been a source of frustration for sports fans with these providers, and Bally Sports+ could be a solution for them- for a price. Fans can purchase a monthly subscription for $19.99, or an annual subscription for $189.99 (about $16 a month) with the option for a seven-day free trial.

View full article

[wsnydes]

Nope.  Not for $20/month for just the local RSNs and basically only games.  Even worse without the Twins.

Honestly not sure how professional sports think this is tenable.  They just keep pricing people out.

 

[LewFordLives]

It's not a bad deal. The monthly cost is still less than the cost of a ticket. I get MLB.tv where I live. The bally sports app is only a little more and you get wolves and wild in addition to the Twins (presumably).

[Otto von Ballpark]

56 minutes ago, wsnydes said:

Honestly not sure how professional sports think this is tenable.  They just keep pricing people out.

To my knowledge, the Minnesota RSN has never been available to consumers at a lower cost than this.

[wsnydes]

7 minutes ago, Otto von Ballpark said:

To my knowledge, the Minnesota RSN has never been available to consumers at a lower cost than this.

I know.  I know we've had this discussion before and you do make valid points.  I'm still paying for it from when it was dropped from Hulu since that subscription didn't go down.  I can't imagine I'm the only one in that boat.

And really, I'd only be watching it for games.  That's a lot of money each month for a lack of other interesting content.  Plus, I have no interest in the Wolves, so if the Twins aren't on it then it's really not worth it.

Obviously, there will be plenty of people that will subscribe.  I just see it as another way for professional sports to make it harder and more expensive to consume their product.

[dberthia]

If there's any good news here, apparently there is no current Twins agreement with Bally? Theoretically the Twins could find another partner next year? There's zero chance I spend $20 a month on this.

[nicksaviking]

18 minutes ago, Otto von Ballpark said:

To my knowledge, the Minnesota RSN has never been available to consumers at a lower cost than this.

FSN/cable never cost $20/month for one channel.

But I’m confused, why do they need to negotiate? Don’t they have the broadcast rights already? If not, stay firm Twins, tell them to screw off, wait until they cry uncle, sell you back the rights, then send it to any and every willing broadcaster. Stop killing the game.

[Otto von Ballpark]

31 minutes ago, wsnydes said:

I know.  I know we've had this discussion before and you do make valid points.  I'm still paying for it from when it was dropped from Hulu since that subscription didn't go down.  I can't imagine I'm the only one in that boat.

And really, I'd only be watching it for games.  That's a lot of money each month for a lack of other interesting content.  Plus, I have no interest in the Wolves, so if the Twins aren't on it then it's really not worth it.

Obviously, there will be plenty of people that will subscribe.  I just see it as another way for professional sports to make it harder and more expensive to consume their product.

I wish they were still on Hulu or YouTube TV for the benefit of you and others who prefer it, but I wouldn't describe that $65+/month package as particularly cheap or accessible.

And the games are a lot of content. Even if you only watch 1/3 of Twins game action (or 1/3 of Wolves/Wild), you'd probably be around 20 hours a month. That's about the same as binge-watching two whole seasons in a month on Netflix.

[Steve Lein]

No, I will not pay this.

The most I would pay is $5 for strictly games. But without the Twins, that's a moot point for me.

Bally does not have other content like ESPN to justify such a price. Literally nothing else on their channel I have any interest in watching, that I can't get from another, far better source, for much cheaper (ESPN+ is $9.99/month, after their price hike from $6.99 later this month).

I used to pay 24.99 for the  SlingTV package that had FSN...and 40+ other channels that I watched far more in total than the games on FSN.

I find the price to be ludicrous and at this point don't even understand how the channel is turning a profit with how few people can even watch it. Then again, maybe that's why the price is what it is.

Also, I seem to recall a year or so ago, they put out a survey to see how much people were willing to pay, suggesting this price point, and the feedback I recall was overwhelmingly negative. They obviously ignored it.

 

 

[PatPfund]

I was very interested last spring with the promises to be up by around the beginning of July. Even checked in. But no baseball means no dice for me. If the Twins are on it next spring, I can see going month to month for a bit.

Though maybe not. Radio works, doesn't lock me down to locations/devices, and I can watch archive games if I do MLB.tv

[RpR]

I have watched the Twins,  a big fan but not addicted to any sport any more, on what ever channel had it on TV or listened on radio.

I have cable and see it there now, does this mean I may have listen to game on radio only?

[Otto von Ballpark]

28 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

FSN/cable never cost $20/month for one channel.

But I’m confused, why do they need to negotiate? Don’t they have the broadcast rights already? If not, stay firm Twins, tell them to screw off, wait until they cry uncle, sell you back the rights, then send it to any and every willing broadcaster. Stop killing the game.

But cable never gave us the option pay as little as $20/month and still get FSN. On cable, we were almost certainly paying more than $20 towards carriage fees of channels we rarely if ever watched, just for the privilege of paying for FSN too.

As far as I know, unless the existing TV deals specifically included direct local streaming rights, they are not included. So teams have to negotiate for those separately (or renegotiate their TV deals).

FWIW, the MLB teams on Bally networks collectively seem to be taking a harder stance on this than the NBA/NHL teams. I don't know if MLB will come up with a meaningful alternative, though.

[wsnydes]

15 minutes ago, Otto von Ballpark said:

I wish they were still on Hulu or YouTube TV for the benefit of you and others who prefer it, but I wouldn't describe that $65+/month package as particularly cheap or accessible.

And the games are a lot of content. Even if you only watch 1/3 of Twins game action (or 1/3 of Wolves/Wild), you'd probably be around 20 hours a month. That's about the same as binge-watching two whole seasons in a month on Netflix.

No, I don't consider Hulu to be cheap either.  Which is why paying another $20/month is even more ridiculous.  

Netflix can be had for half the price of BSN+.

The idea of cord cutting was to save some cash.  If you keep subscribing to all of these different apps, it adds up.  Obviously, the apps allow for flexibility to be able to pick and choose which is great.  One has to stop at some point though.  There's only so much TV a person can watch.

And I've found other ways to follow that don't cost me anything.  Less than ideal, but considerably cheaper.

[Otto von Ballpark]

8 minutes ago, Steve Lein said:

I used to pay 24.99 for the  SlingTV package that had FSN...and 40+ other channels that I watched far more in total than the games on FSN.

The early streaming TV providers were not sustainably priced -- they were losing money trying to gain subscribers/market share. Those prices shouldn't be used as a barometer for current prices any more than Columbia House's 12 CDs for a penny.

Best case going forward, you're probably looking at a $65+ package like YouTube TV.

[Otto von Ballpark]

20 minutes ago, RpR said:

I have cable and see it there now, does this mean I may have listen to game on radio only?

No, this doesn’t affect cable viewers. It is an alternative service for people who want BSN without getting cable.

[silverslugger]

I've been a Twins fan since the mid-70's as a young boy.  Went through the days of a weekly Saturday game and Monday Night Baseball.  Twins were rarely on either, so had to listen to 'CCO.  Lived out of State when Cable first started telecasting 60ish games a season, so continued to listen to 'CCO and other affiliates from afar.  Enjoyed watching many games a year while Twins were on FSN and I had DirecTV.  Also went to a few games a year despite being 250 miles from Twin Cities.  Cut the cord when DirectTV got up to $170 a month for me and switched to $60 Hulu.  Enjoyed watching FSN on Hulu for a couple years.  Then, poof, a switch to Bally and it's all gone.  Also, I live in some sort of baseball created viewing hell called Iowa where the Twins/Brewers/Royals/White Sox/Cubs/Cardinals all choose it as part of their blackout territory.  So, no baseball on TV for me.

I watch a few games a year now when the Twins play the Sox and it's on Hulu.  I listen a bit on the radio, not as much as before.  I get my Twins fix here, for the most part, rarely even watch any highlights from anywhere on the 'net.  I haven't gone to a game since this mess began and haven't spent any money on Twins merch...REFUSE.  They will get none of my hard earned $$$.

As an aside, I'm 57 and grew up worshipping baseball.  The powers that be are absolutely killing the game.  I teach in a High School.  When I started teaching in the late 80's many kids were still interested in baseball.  Now, almost none of them.  The only ones interested are the very few who have grown up as little leaguers/legion ball/school ball.  95% of kids don't have a clue and don't give a care.  30 years from now, MLB and it's fanbase is going to look much, much different than it does now.  Much, Much, Different!

[nicksaviking]

59 minutes ago, Otto von Ballpark said:

I wish they were still on Hulu or YouTube TV for the benefit of you and others who prefer it, but I wouldn't describe that $65+/month package as particularly cheap or accessible.

And the games are a lot of content. Even if you only watch 1/3 of Twins game action (or 1/3 of Wolves/Wild), you'd probably be around 20 hours a month. That's about the same as binge-watching two whole seasons in a month on Netflix.

Most of us don’t binge watch two seasons of something a month; that’s a completely different demographic than the mid-to-upper-middle-age fans that casually watch their local baseball team a few times a week.

The “streaming revolution” was full of false promises and cheaper rates. For consumers, regional sports and local news have been most impacted. Regional sports still have leverage to change things, and they can if the owners would care more about prolonging the product instead of maximizing profit from in the moment. 
 

And comparing cable prices of yore to now is ridiculous. You used to be able to watch EVERYTHING on cable for one fee. Now you’d have to pay 20x that amount to watch everything, 

[Otto von Ballpark]

26 minutes ago, wsnydes said:

Netflix can be had for half the price of BSN+.

The idea of cord cutting was to save some cash.  If you keep subscribing to all of these different apps, it adds up.  Obviously, the apps allow for flexibility to be able to pick and choose which is great.  One has to stop at some point though.  There's only so much TV a person can watch.

There is a $10 Netflix plan, but it is limited to 480p resolution (standard definition). It's probably the equivalent of a phone-only streaming service, since the picture quality suffers so much on larger screens.

The potential cost savings in cord-cutting was always about unbundling -- you wouldn't need to spend $100 on cable if all you wanted to watch (or all you had time to watch) in a given month was on just a few networks.

[Otto von Ballpark]

11 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

Most of us don’t binge watch two seasons of something a month; that’s a completely different demographic than the mid-to-upper-middle-age fans that casually watch their local baseball team a few times a week.

I wasn't suggesting that a lot of people binge-watch two seasons of something every month! But for most people, binge-watching the one or two shows you want to watch is the best way to get value out of a service like Netflix, rather than subscribing indefinitely. (Which is why some services are moving back to weekly releases of new episodes.)

And having a source to pseudo-binge-watch sports (watch them a few times a week) for $20 could likewise be more economical than paying for it in a more expensive TV bundle.

[Yoke]

$20 is just way too much. $10 is pretty much the sweet spot, and that’s after adding the Twins. There’s just nothing on there worth watching besides Twins and Wild games (for me).

 

No point in cancelling cable and getting 10 different streaming services that add up to the same price as cable. I used PS Vue and Sling, but it cost too much for limited content.

[Ryan_K]

MLB, NBA should partner and create a bundle potential with options for just 1. MLB has history of building tech platforms and are good at it. Make content as near free as possible and focus on getting engagement up. Between ads, and affiliate rev from potential gaming rights the app should be like classic broadcast TV available to everyone.

 

They can add more picture in picture ads, and offer hyper targeted ads so companies pay MLB more because of the amount of eyes on the content. If baseball was everywhere and accessable, the ad rev would be the best there is. 

[Steve Lein]

54 minutes ago, Otto von Ballpark said:

The early streaming TV providers were not sustainably priced -- they were losing money trying to gain subscribers/market share. Those prices shouldn't be used as a barometer for current prices any more than Columbia House's 12 CDs for a penny.

Best case going forward, you're probably looking at a $65+ package like YouTube TV.

I'd very much rather watch full games, but I've become very content with highlight packages and places like our wonderful website here to save that money these days.

You have me, literally one of the biggest Twins fans you can run into (who has spent a good amount of time in his life now paying so much attention to them that he writes about them in his spare time) watching more minor league games than major ones, because the price to watch them is what he's willing to pay for his baseball fix (MiLB.tv is great, BTW).

So I disagree, the prices we're being forced to pay for unwanted content is what is not sustainable.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I’ll gladly pay if the Twins are involved. Better than DTV’s awful $90 sub I currently use to ONLY watch BSN. 

[Tiantwindup]

9 hours ago, Otto von Ballpark said:

But cable never gave us the option pay as little as $20/month and still get FSN. On cable, we were almost certainly paying more than $20 towards carriage fees of channels we rarely if ever watched, just for the privilege of paying for FSN too.

As far as I know, unless the existing TV deals specifically included direct local streaming rights, they are not included. So teams have to negotiate for those separately (or renegotiate their TV deals).

FWIW, the MLB teams on Bally networks collectively seem to be taking a harder stance on this than the NBA/NHL teams. I don't know if MLB will come up with a meaningful alternative, though.

It seems to me the meaningful alternative is for mlb to do offer in-market viewing option as an add-on to the current plan; for example, for $10 more per month allow MN residents to watch the Twins. 

[MABB1959]

Greedy MLB, owners, satellite companies and to some extent players.  They have made it so you cannot get to really know your hometown team.  Many can't afford to attend a game and if you can why spend it on a team you barely know!  I think maybe 5 games have been televised this year on "free" TV.  

• Owners:  There are some teams that invest and I would not put them on the greedy list.  I would put the Twins on the greedy list.  This has to affect ticket sales that trickles down to less revenue on food and apparel, parking, downtown business revenue, etc.
• MLB:  They can now charge us for apps so we can hear a game while we watch the fake players on Gameday.  But again this has to affect their overall revenue.  It is not much but I will not renew it again next year.  Especially if they can't come to an agreement with Bally's.  Even the few "free" games are blacked out,
• Satellite Companies:  When Bally's first dropped, their reasoning was to save us money.  Well Bally's left and we did not see a reduction in price.  So DiSH isn't paying Bally's and pocketing that money.
• Players:  IMO their salaries are ridiculous.  $700,000 a year to play a game with 5-6 month's off each year.  10 of the top paid players are pitchers and IF they stay healthy they will pitch may 35 games and throw about 3,000 pitches per year.  Twins pitcher's far less.
• Max Scherzer, who will make more than $43 million.
• Mike Trout is second, at more than $37 million
• Anthony Rendon, third at more than $36.5 million
• The New York Yankees' Gerrit Cole and the Mets' Jacob deGrom round out the five highest paid players for 2022. They each will make $36 million.
• Our own Correa at $35.1
• Pitchers who average 33-35 games a year:  Of the 28 highest paid players in baseball this season, 10 are pitchers, who also make up five of the 10 highest paid players in baseball.

For a game deemed to be America's past time it is overall ridiculous!

 

[TwinsAce]

10 hours ago, Otto von Ballpark said:

There is a $10 Netflix plan, but it is limited to 480p resolution (standard definition). It's probably the equivalent of a phone-only streaming service, since the picture quality suffers so much on larger screens.

The potential cost savings in cord-cutting was always about unbundling -- you wouldn't need to spend $100 on cable if all you wanted to watch (or all you had time to watch) in a given month was on just a few networks.

FYI - Netflix standard (Full HD 1080p) is $9.99/month.  The basic, which you are referring to, is $7.99/month.  

[TwinsDr2021]

11 hours ago, Steve Lein said:

No, I will not pay this.

The most I would pay is $5 for strictly games. But without the Twins, that's a moot point for me.

Bally does not have other content like ESPN to justify such a price. Literally nothing else on their channel I have any interest in watching, that I can't get from another, far better source, for much cheaper (ESPN+ is $9.99/month, after their price hike from $6.99 later this month).

I used to pay 24.99 for the  SlingTV package that had FSN...and 40+ other channels that I watched far more in total than the games on FSN.

I find the price to be ludicrous and at this point don't even understand how the channel is turning a profit with how few people can even watch it. Then again, maybe that's why the price is what it is.

Also, I seem to recall a year or so ago, they put out a survey to see how much people were willing to pay, suggesting this price point, and the feedback I recall was overwhelmingly negative. They obviously ignored it.

 

 

I have lived without the Twins on TV for that last couple of years (HULU) and I will continue to do so, Won't pay anything more to watch them. If I want to catch part of a game I will head to my low brew pub have a beer or two with my wife and watch for an hour or so or head to planet fitness and walk on the threadmill for a hour. What baseball might learn is that looking at the box scores and talking about baseball is just as fun as watching some of the product on the field.

[Otto von Ballpark]

32 minutes ago, TwinsAce said:

FYI - Netflix standard (Full HD 1080p) is $9.99/month.  The basic, which you are referring to, is $7.99/month.  

Those were past rates that you were "grandfathered" into.

From the current Netflix Plans and Pricing page:

These prices apply to new members and will gradually take effect for all current members. Current members will receive an email notification 30 days before their price changes, unless they change their plan.

	Basic	Standard	Premium
Monthly cost* (United States Dollar)	$9.99	$15.49	$19.99

[Otto von Ballpark]

10 hours ago, Steve Lein said:

I'd very much rather watch full games, but I've become very content with highlight packages and places like our wonderful website here to save that money these days.

You have me, literally one of the biggest Twins fans you can run into (who has spent a good amount of time in his life now paying so much attention to them that he writes about them in his spare time) watching more minor league games than major ones, because the price to watch them is what he's willing to pay for his baseball fix (MiLB.tv is great, BTW).

So I disagree, the prices we're being forced to pay for unwanted content is what is not sustainable.

I understand that concerns about pricing and priorities will be subjective. FWIW, I don't think either of us are representative of the "average" fan/consumer, so it's probably pointless to project ourselves too much. (I'd also caution against reading too much into polls or online comments about the issue, unless you also want to endorse Rocco's firing after every Twins loss  )

All we really know is that Bally Sports Plus is literally an option/price that's never been available to consumers before. It's not for everybody, but in terms of general consumer choice and accessibility, it represents progress over what is currently available (and likely over what was available in the past too, given declining live TV package trends).

[Linus]

10 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

I’ll gladly pay if the Twins are involved. Better than DTV’s awful $90 sub I currently use to ONLY watch BSN. 

This is me as well.