Connect with us

Business

Q&A: For the Angels, Bally Sports is Plan A. What could Plan B be?

Published

on

Q&A: For the Angels, Bally Sports is Plan A. What could Plan B be?

Three days after the Angels concluded the worst season in franchise history, their fans faced a new and urgent concern: Would they be able to watch their team on television next season?

The answer appears to be yes, and probably in the same way they did this season. On Wednesday, however, the parent company of Bally Sports indicated that it was prepared to step away from broadcasting games of the Angels and all but one other team.

A federal bankruptcy court has the final say, so nothing is definitive for now, and the Angels and Major League Baseball declined to comment. Here are questions and answers about what we do know.

What is happening in court, and what is happening with the Angels?

Bally filed for bankruptcy 19 months ago. Its latest plan to get out of bankruptcy could involve walking away from contracts for all teams besides the Atlanta Braves. It does not preclude other teams from negotiating new contracts that would save Bally millions in rights fees.

Advertisement

For the Angels, that is Plan A. The team is in discussion with Bally to restructure its current deal. The Angels would surrender some guaranteed revenue in order to avoid the financial uncertainty of a streaming-first future.

If the Angels do not reach a restructured deal with Bally, would I be able to watch the Angels on television next year?

Almost certainly. MLB could deliver the games as it now does for the San Diego Padres, Arizona Diamondbacks and Colorado Rockies: offering a streaming option while cutting deals with cable and satellite companies. As an example, the Padres’ monthly streaming price this year was $19.99.

Could the Angels explore other options?

They could. The Ducks, for instance, are offering a free streaming option as well as 65 free, over-the-air games on Channel 11 or Channel 13. The Ducks are one of several NBA and NHL teams sacrificing revenue — at least in the short term — in exchange for the ability to reach any fan in their local market.

Advertisement

Where does MLB stand?

Unlike the NBA and NHL, MLB has urged its teams not to take a new Bally’s deal at a significant discount.

MLB long has hoped to launch a national streaming package, provided the league could secure streaming rights for a critical mass of its 30 teams.

The Bally strategy could push MLB in that direction. The plan unveiled Wednesday would free 11 teams from any ties to Bally.

With three other MLB teams recently dropped by another broadcast company, that could give the league the opportunity to market streaming rights to roughly half its teams at once.

Advertisement

One party that might be interested in those rights: ESPN, for its ESPN+ service. ESPN reportedly is thinking about whether to renew or renegotiate its national MLB package — highlighted by Sunday Night Baseball, the Home Run Derby and wild-card games — and streaming rights could be a lure to retain ESPN.

If the Angels and other teams return to Bally or go elsewhere, that could complicate the MLB plans, depending on the terms of those deals. Generally, regional sports networks offer streaming rights only to subscribers. Last season, five MLB teams — not including the Angels — had granted Bally the rights to stream their games to non-subscribers.

Would the Dodgers be part of a national streaming package?

Almost certainly not. The Dodgers’ record $8.35-billion contract with SportsNet LA extends through 2038.

The Dodgers and other large-market teams that own local cable channels — including the New York Yankees (YES), the Boston Red Sox (NESN) and Chicago Cubs (Marquee) — stand to make much more money on their own. It is unlikely that small-market clubs would agree to pay the billions it would take to buy out the big-bucks teams, even if those teams agreed to entertain a buyout offer.

Advertisement

What is the Angels’ current television deal?

In 2011, what was then called Fox Sports had lost the Lakers to Time Warner Cable, and the Dodgers’ television rights were about to hit the market. Angels owner Arte Moreno brilliantly leveraged that situation, opting out of a Fox Sports contract worth $500 million and signing a new one worth $3 billion.

That contract, inherited by Bally, remains in effect at the moment. The Angels were owed $112 million in rights fees from Bally in 2023, according to Moreno. The team generated an estimated $407 million in total revenue that year, according to Sportico.

The uncertainty over what might happen to about 28% of the team’s revenue could dampen the amount Moreno might approve in player spending over the coming winter.

What has commissioner Rob Manfred said about teams that have lost their regional sports network?

Advertisement

“We think that reach is a really important change,” Manfred said at the All-Star Game in July.

“San Diego is kind of the leader in the clubhouse there, approaching 40,000 subscribers, which is a really good number. Having said that, from a revenue perspective, it is not generating what the RSNs did. The RSNs were a great business. Lots of people paid for programming they didn’t necessarily want, and it’s hard to replicate that kind of revenue.”

In 2023, the league guaranteed that any team losing its local television deal would retain at least 80% of the revenue from that deal, with MLB making up any shortfall. Is that guarantee still in effect?

No.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Business

Hall of Fame won't get Freddie Freeman's grand slam ball, but Dodgers donate World Series memorabilia

Published

on

Hall of Fame won't get Freddie Freeman's grand slam ball, but Dodgers donate World Series memorabilia

The most valuable piece of memorabilia from the Dodgers’ World Series championship run is easily identified. It’s the baseball struck by Freddie Freeman that landed in the right-field pavilion in the 10th inning of Game 1, the first walk-off grand slam in fall classic history.

Auction experts estimate it would fetch more than $2 million, the value burnished by the Dodgers winning the five-game series over the New York Yankees and Freeman being named the most valuable player. The ball was scooped up by a 10-year-old diehard Dodgers fan, and he’s been floating on cloud nine ever since.

Yet many other items also have value, and there is no shortage of fans that would love nothing more than to own something authentic to forever remind them of the Dodgers’ first full-season championship since 1988.

But first, the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum got a haul, coming away with enough Dodgers artifacts to outfit what promises to be a cool display in Cooperstown. David Kohler, president of SCP Auctions, said the collection would be worth “$100,000-plus” at auction and “will make a great display at the Hall of Fame.”

Advertisement

Following the 7-6 series-clinching victory in Game 5 Wednesday night at Yankee Stadium, the Dodgers donated the following:

  • Spikes worn by Freeman in Game 1 and 2.
  • Glove worn by Walker Buehler, who got the save in Game 5 two days after winning Game 3.
  • Cap worn by manager Dave Roberts.
  • Clayton Kershaw’s champagne-soaked championship cap.
  • Batting gloves worn by Mookie Betts, who hit .290 with 16 runs batted in in the postseason.
  • Jersey worn by Anthony Banda, who turned in scoreless relief appearances in each of the four World Series wins.
  • Cap and chest protector worn by Will Smith, who caught the final strikeout of the World Series.
  • A ball used during the ninth inning of Game 5.
  • Max Muncy’s bat and batting gloves when he set a record by reaching base in 12 straight postseason games.
  • Batting helmet worn by National League Championship Series Most Valuable Player Tommy Edman.

Mark Langill, the Dodgers staff historian since 1994, also will corral enough artifacts to create displays throughout the stadium. Langill works fast: The jersey Freeman wore when he hit the iconic Game 1 grand slam was already framed and hanging in a Dodger Stadium hallway during Game 2 the next day.

Players own everything in their locker, so the team or the Hall of Fame must get their permission to take clothing or gear. Langill said for the most part players and coaches are happy to donate something that will be displayed for fans to enjoy.

“There is a happy medium,” he said. “You have to respect what the players want.”

Langill is averse to displays loaded up with several baseballs, bats, caps and jerseys.

“You don’t want it to look like a sporting goods store,” he said.

Advertisement

Most everything from the clubhouse after a World Series win has value on the auction market. Players in all sports often sell championship memorabilia, usually after they retire.

Occasionally they even plan ahead. Hall of Famer Gaylord Perry pitched a complete game for his 300th victory in 1982, and he changed his jersey after every inning, creating nine authentic artifacts he could peddle.

These days, Major League Baseball positions employees in each dugout to immediately authenticate everything from milestone baseballs to gear worn by players. When Walker Buehler struck out Alex Verdugo to end the World Series, Smith shoved the ball into his back pocket.

An MLB authenticator tracked him down during the on-field celebration, and Smith handed him the ball. Once the hologram was affixed, the authenticator handed it back to Smith, who said, “I’m gonna give it to Walker.” The authenticator replied, “Absolutely. Congratulations!”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Carol Lombardini, studio negotiator during Hollywood strikes, to step down

Published

on

Carol Lombardini, studio negotiator during Hollywood strikes, to step down

Carol Lombardini, who represented the major studios at the bargaining table during last year’s writers’ and actors’ strikes, is set to step down as president and chief negotiator of the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers in 2025.

A spokesperson for the AMPTP confirmed Lombardini’s forthcoming exit Thursday night in an email, adding that she had long planned to retire next year. After 15 years at the helm, Lombardini, 69 according to public records, will transition into an advisory role as the organization conducts a search for her successor.

“We are incredibly grateful to Carol for her many years of leadership at the AMPTP and wish her the very best in her retirement,” the spokesperson said in a statement.

“She has been a steady and invaluable advocate at the bargaining table, strengthening relationships with our union partners every step of the way.”

Advertisement

Lombardini was appointed president of the AMPTP in 2009 after working for the group in a legal capacity since its inception in 1982. She recently came into the spotlight during the dual Hollywood strikes of 2023, bargaining on behalf of Disney, Warner Bros. Discovery, Netflix, Amazon and other entertainment companies.

“I think I’ve participated in more than 300 deals,” Lombardini told The Times in 2009.

“This is probably one of the most heavily unionized industries in the U.S. When you step foot on a set in Hollywood, you’re automatically dealing with 25 unions. It’s very challenging because you have to know what’s in each contract.”

Lombardini’s retirement announcement is not expected to affect ongoing contract negotiations between the AMPTP and the Animation Guild. Negotiations for that contract have historically been led by Lombardini’s deputy, Tracy Cahill.

Before becoming the first female leader of the AMPTP, Lombardini worked for decades under her predecessor and mentor, Nick Counter, who retired from his post and died in 2009.

Advertisement

She was a lightning rod for criticism by Hollywood workers, particularly during last year’s walkouts. A parody account portraying Lombardini as a cartoonish corporate shill went viral on X during the work stoppages of 2023.

The chief negotiator for the top studios and streamers is often regarded as the nemesis of Hollywood labor, but Lombardini had a different take upon stepping into the role more than a decade ago.

“As the chief negotiator, you are the target of negative attention from the other side,” she told The Times.

“But the irony of the situation is that, in reality, I’m labor’s closest ally because if I can’t convince my bargaining committee to do something they are asking for, they are not going to get it.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Column: These Apple researchers just showed that AI bots can't think, and possibly never will

Published

on

Column: These Apple researchers just showed that AI bots can't think, and possibly never will

See if you can solve this arithmetic problem:

Oliver picks 44 kiwis on Friday. Then he picks 58 kiwis on Saturday. On Sunday, he picks double the number of kiwis he did on Friday, but five of them were a bit smaller than average. How many kiwis does Oliver have?

If you answered “190,” congratulations: You did as well as the average grade school kid by getting it right. (Friday’s 44 plus Saturday’s 58 plus Sunday’s 44 multiplied by 2, or 88, equals 190.)

You also did better than more than 20 state-of-the-art artificial intelligence models tested by an AI research team at Apple. The AI bots, they found, consistently got it wrong.

The fact that Apple did this has gotten a lot of attention, but nobody should be surprised at the results.

— AI critic Gary Marcus

Advertisement

The Apple team found “catastrophic performance drops” by those models when they tried to parse simple mathematical problems written in essay form. In this example, the systems tasked with the question often didn’t understand that the size of the kiwis have nothing to do with the number of kiwis Oliver has. Some, consequently, subtracted the five undersized kiwis from the total and answered “185.”

Human schoolchildren, the researchers posited, are much better at detecting the difference between relevant information and inconsequential curveballs.

The Apple findings were published earlier this month in a technical paper that has attracted widespread attention in AI labs and the lay press, not only because the results are well-documented, but also because the researchers work for the nation’s leading high-tech consumer company — and one that has just rolled out a suite of purported AI features for iPhone users.

Advertisement

“The fact that Apple did this has gotten a lot of attention, but nobody should be surprised at the results,” says Gary Marcus, a critic of how AI systems have been marketed as reliably, well, “intelligent.”

Indeed, Apple’s conclusion matches earlier studies that have found that large language models, or LLMs, don’t actually “think” so much as match language patterns in materials they’ve been fed as part of their “training.” When it comes to abstract reasoning — “a key aspect of human intelligence,” in the words of Melanie Mitchell, an expert in cognition and intelligence at the Santa Fe Institute — the models fall short.

“Even very young children are adept at learning abstract rules from just a few examples,” Mitchell and colleagues wrote last year after subjecting GPT bots to a series of analogy puzzles. Their conclusion was that “a large gap in basic abstract reasoning still remains between humans and state-of-the-art AI systems.”

That’s important because LLMs such as GPT underlie the AI products that have captured the public’s attention. But the LLMs tested by the Apple team were consistently misled by the language patterns they were trained on.

The Apple researchers set out to answer the question, “Do these models truly understand mathematical concepts?” as one of the lead authors, Mehrdad Farajtabar, put it in a thread on X. Their answer is no. They also pondered whether the shortcomings they identified can be easily fixed, and their answer is also no: “Can scaling data, models, or compute fundamentally solve this?” Farajtabar asked in his thread. “We don’t think so!”

Advertisement

The Apple research, along with other findings about the limitations of AI bots’ cogitative limitations, is a much-needed corrective to the sales pitches coming from companies hawking their AI models and systems, including OpenAI and Google’s DeepMind lab.

The promoters generally depict their products as dependable and their output as trustworthy. In fact, their output is consistently suspect, posing a clear danger when they’re used in contexts where the need for rigorous accuracy is absolute, say in healthcare applications.

That’s not always the case. “There are some problems which you can make a bunch of money on without having a perfect solution,” Marcus told me. Recommendation engines powered by AI — those that steer buyers on Amazon to products they might also like, for example. If those systems get a recommendation wrong, it’s no big deal; a customer might spend a few dollars on a book he or she didn’t like.

“But a calculator that’s right only 85% of the time is garbage,” Marcus says. “You wouldn’t use it.”

The potential for damagingly inaccurate outputs is heightened by AI bots’ natural language capabilities, with which they offer even absurdly inaccurate answers with convincingly cocksure elan. Often they double down on their errors when challenged.

Advertisement

These errors are typically described by AI researchers as “hallucinations.” The term may make the mistakes seem almost innocuous, but in some applications, even a minuscule error rate can have severe ramifications.

That’s what academic researchers concluded in a recently published analysis of Whisper, an AI-powered speech-to-text tool developed by OpenAI, which can be used to transcribe medical discussions or jailhouse conversations monitored by correction officials.

The researchers found that about 1.4% of Whisper-transcribed audio segments in their sample contained hallucinations, including the addition to transcribed conversation of wholly fabricated statements including portrayals of “physical violence or death … [or] sexual innuendo,” and demographic stereotyping.

That may sound like a minor flaw, but the researchers observed that the errors could be incorporated in official records such as transcriptions of court testimony or prison phone calls — which could lead to official decisions based on “phrases or claims that a defendant never said.”

Updates to Whisper in late 2023 improved its performance, the researchers said, but the updated Whisper “still regularly and reproducibly hallucinated.”

Advertisement

That hasn’t deterred AI promoters from unwarranted boasting about their products. In an Oct. 29 tweet, Elon Musk invited followers to submit “x-ray, PET, MRI or other medical images to Grok [the AI application for his X social media platform] for analysis.” Grok, he wrote, “is already quite accurate and will become extremely good.”

It should go without saying that, even if Musk is telling the truth (not an absolutely certain conclusion), any system used by healthcare providers to analyze medical images needs to be a lot better than “extremely good,” however one might define that standard.

That brings us to the Apple study. It’s proper to note that the researchers aren’t critics of AI as such but believers that its limitations need to be understood. Farajtabar was formerly a senior research scientist at DeepMind, where another author interned under him; other co-authors hold advanced degrees and professional experience in computer science and machine learning.

The team plied their subject AI models with questions drawn from a popular collection of more than 8,000 grade school arithmetic problems testing schoolchildren’s understanding of addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. When the problems incorporated clauses that might seem relevant but weren’t, the models’ performance plummeted.

That was true of all the models, including versions of the GPT bots developed by OpenAI, Meta’s Llama, Microsoft’s Phi-3, Google’s Gemma and several models developed by the French lab Mistral AI.

Advertisement

Some did better than others, but all showed a decline in performance as the problems became more complex. One problem involved a basket of school supplies including erasers, notebooks and writing paper. That requires a solver to multiply the number of each item by its price and add them together to determine how much the entire basket costs.

When the bots were also told that “due to inflation, prices were 10% cheaper last year,” the bots reduced the cost by 10%. That produces a wrong answer, since the question asked what the basket would cost now, not last year.

Why did this happen? The answer is that LLMs are developed, or trained, by feeding them huge quantities of written material scraped from published works or the internet — not by trying to teach them mathematical principles. LLMs function by gleaning patterns in the data and trying to match a pattern to the question at hand.

But they become “overfitted to their training data,” Farajtabar explained via X. “They memorized what is out there on the web and do pattern matching and answer according to the examples they have seen. It’s still a [weak] type of reasoning but according to other definitions it’s not a genuine reasoning capability.” (the brackets are his.)

That’s likely to impose boundaries on what AI can be used for. In mission-critical applications, humans will almost always have to be “in the loop,” as AI developers say—vetting answers for obvious or dangerous inaccuracies or providing guidance to keep the bots from misinterpreting their data, misstating what they know, or filling gaps in their knowledge with fabrications.

Advertisement

To some extent, that’s comforting, for it means that AI systems can’t accomplish much without having human partners at hand. But it also means that we humans need to be aware the tendency of AI promoters to overstate their products’ capabilities and conceal their limitations. The issue is not so much what AI can do, but how users can be gulled into thinking what it can do.

“These systems are always going to make mistakes because hallucinations are inherent,” Marcus says. “The ways in which they approach reasoning are an approximation and not the real thing. And none of this is going away until we have some new technology.”

Continue Reading

Trending