Originally written 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

Report: Roger Goodell buyout would cost roughly $150 million

NFL suspends Denver's T.J. Ward for season opener

Report: ‘Highly unlikely’ Patriots attempt to recoup draft picks

Poll: Most players oppose Goodell's disciplinary power

Russell Wilson downplays struggling preseason offense

Dodgers call up top prospect Corey Seager

LIKE WHAT YOU SEE?
GET THE DAILY NEWSLETTER:

Redskins teammate says RG3 would be good fit with Eagles

Kraft calls Brady 'a classy person of the highest integrity'

Report: Owners didn't want NFL to appeal Brady ruling

Legal expert: Pats have case to recoup draft picks, $1M fine

Greg Hardy reportedly plans to appeal suspension

NFLPA issues statement on Brady ruling, criticizes Goodell

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

The Gospel Of Harbaugh prepares for its ultimate test of faith

Meet the Utah Utes, the pluckiest program in college football

Iman Shumpert will name daughter Iman Shumpert Jr.

Dallas company celebrates Romo with DirecTV 'crownies'

Top 10 storylines for Week 4 of the NFL preseason

Matt Williams is still hopelessly married to the idea of the closer’s role

Five unique CFB games to watch this weekend

Be careful what you wish for, Jay Gruden

Ryan taking leap of faith with Bills

Top 10 storylines for Week 1 of college football season

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