Originally posted on Awful Announcing  |  Last updated 1/7/13
Back in November, we brought you the news of the Los Angeles Dodgers and their potential $6 billion, 25 year TV deal with Fox. But here we are in 2013, and the deal has still not been finalized. As time continues to roll on, the Dodgers may be going in a different direction from Fox, and could actually ink a deal with Time Warner instead. Fox lost their exclusive negotiating rights with the Dodgers five weeks ago, and since then, Time Warner has stepped in to the discussions as well. The reason for the Dodgers opening up negotiations has to do with the versatility that Time Warner can provide the club. Guggenheim Partners, new principal owners of the team among others, also own Dick Clark Productions. A deal with Time Warner could also help that asset out with distribution, whereas a deal with Fox would only benefit the Dodgers. The proposed Fox deal is also interesting because of the way it was set up. Under MLB's revenue sharing agreement, 34% of a team's annual rights fee must be thrown into the pool. In the $6 billion agreement the Dodgers and Fox were discussing, you'd think that the Dodgers would have to pay in $2 billion over the 25 years... until looking at the way things were set up. The Dodgers/Fox deal only had an annual rights fee of $84 million per season, increasing by 4% each year. The deal also contained $100 million per year in dividends that would be paid to the team, and that money is where the discrepancy comes into play.  The main issue at play is ownership in a potential RSN with Fox or Time Warner. With the Dodgers planning on launching their own RSN, the league believes the team must have an ownership stake in it for the $100 million dividend to not be subject to revenue sharing. Without Dodgers ownership in the RSN, the dividend would be subject to revenue sharing, costing the team an additional $34 million per season in addition to the 34% of the rights fees they're contributing. Most of the RSNs that have popped up in recent months and years (including CSN Bay Area, CSN Houston, CSN Philadelphia, SNY, YES, NESN, MASN, etc) have at least partial ownership by the teams involved. However, there are some (the Root Sports RSNs in Pittsburgh, Denver, and Seattle to name three) that have no team ownership. Predictably, the teams that don't have any ownership in their RSNs are bringing in much less revenue per year. If the Dodgers are forced to take an ownership role in their new RSN in order to get that $100 million dividend free from revenue sharing restrictions, it will be a huge coup for them, and will essentially confirm that their new TV deal is the new high watermark in sports. However, if the team doesn't want to take an ownership role, and that dividend is subject to revenue sharing, the league as a whole may be better off with an extra $34 million thrown into the pool yearly. Whatever the decision ends up being, it will be a key ruling for other teams who are seeing their rights agreements expire in the next couple of years. If the Dodgers don't need to have ownership in the RSN to get that dividend, ownership may not matter as much.  And for that matter, if the team *is* forced to have a partial stake in the RSN to have their dividends exempt from revenue sharing, why wouldn't every team that has rights agreements expiring try to start up a new RSN that they have a stake in? Whatever the outcome of the Dodgers TV negotiations ends up being, things are going to definitively change in the future. [LA Times]
GET THE YARDBARKER APP:
Ios_download En_app_rgb_wo_45
MORE FROM YARDBARKER

Joe Mauer: Concussions blurred vision, affected hitting

LeBron James says Kevin Love-Celtics trade rumor is false

Michael Jordan gifts Kobe Bryant full set of Air Jordans

Bethune-Cookman football player killed at party

Former UFC heavyweight Kevin Randleman dead at 44

WATCH: Chelsea scores three goals in less than 20 minutes

LIKE WHAT YOU SEE?
GET THE DAILY NEWSLETTER:

Broncos safety Shiloh Keo arrested for DUI

Mountain West admits error, says Boise St. shot was good

WATCH: John Calipari loses his mind, gets ejected

Former Clemson star Tajh Boyd to speak at John Kasich rally

Peyton Manning's alleged not-so-wholesome image

Hawks not shopping Al Horford at NBA trade deadline

Michael Jordan gives Kobe Bryant complete set of Air Jordans

Drake has Kentucky edition of custom ‘OVO’ Air Jordan 8s

QUIZ: Name every NBA All-Star Game MVP

Watch rare footage of Stephen Curry from 2001-02 emerges

Check out this custom camouflage Oregon helmet

Ejected John Calipari tweets “they don’t need me and I love it”

Popovich would 'buy ticket' to watch Warriors play

Jamal Murray destroyed South Carolina defender with dunk

WATCH: Lon Kruger gets Oklahoma hoops squad hype for Kansas test

Texas signee glad he didn’t pick Texas A&M after alleged racism

Dallas Stars have passed the early tests in February

Could Matt Forte become the revival for Patriots run game?

Are the Celtics legimate contenders in the East?

MLB News
Delivered to your inbox
You'll also receive Yardbarker's daily Top 10, featuring the best sports stories from around the web. Customize your newsletter to get articles on your favorite sports and teams. And the best part? It's free!

By clicking "Sign Me Up", you have read and agreed to the Fox Sports Digital Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. You can opt out at any time. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy.
the YARDBARKER app
Get it now!
Ios_download En_app_rgb_wo_45

Ranking the ten best free agent pitcher signings

Who had the best NBA All-Star Game of the last 40 years?

The winners and losers of the 2016 MLB offseason

On Kobe Bryant and taking greatness for granted

Bucks need to choose between wins, development

Fantasy booking WrestleMania 32

Unrestricted free agents each team must consider re-signing

QUIZ: Name the winners of the NBA Slam Dunk Contest

Thank you Daniel Bryan

The timeless greatness of Jaromir Jagr

Today's Best Stuff
For Publishers
Company Info
Help
Follow Yardbarker