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

Business

Nike to Cut 1,400 Jobs as Part of Its Turnaround Plan

Published

on

Nike to Cut 1,400 Jobs as Part of Its Turnaround Plan

Nike is cutting about 1,400 jobs in its operations division, mostly from its technology department, the company said Thursday.

In a note to employees, Venkatesh Alagirisamy, the chief operating officer of Nike, said that management was nearly done reorganizing the business for its turnaround plan, and that the goal was to operate with “more speed, simplicity and precision.”

“This is not a new direction,” Mr. Alagirisamy told employees. “It is the next phase of the work already underway.”

Nike, the world’s largest sportswear company, is trying to recover after missteps led to a prolonged sales slump, in which the brand leaned into lifestyle products and away from performance shoes and apparel. Elliott Hill, the chief executive, has worked to realign the company around sports and speed up product development to create more breakthrough innovations.

In March, Nike told investors that it expected sales to fall this year, with growth in North America offset by poor performance in Asia, where the brand is struggling to rejuvenate sales in China. Executives said at the time that more volatility brought on by the war in the Middle East and rising oil prices might continue to affect its business.

Advertisement

The reorganization has involved cuts across many parts of the organization, including at its headquarters in Beaverton, Ore. Nike slashed some corporate staff last year and eliminated nearly 800 jobs at distribution centers in January.

“You never want to have to go through any sort of layoffs, but to re-center the company, we’re doing some of that,” Mr. Hill said in an interview earlier this year.

Mr. Alagirisamy told employees that Nike was reshaping its technology team and centering employees at its headquarters and a tech center in Bengaluru, India. The layoffs will affect workers across North America, Europe and Asia.

The cuts will also affect staffing in Nike’s factories for Air, the company’s proprietary cushioning system. Employees who work on the supply chain for raw materials will also experience changes as staff is integrated into footwear and apparel teams.

Nike’s Converse brand, which has struggled for years to revive sales, will move some of its engineering resources closer to the factories they support, the company said.

Advertisement

Mr. Alagirisamy said the moves were necessary to optimize Nike’s supply chain, deploy technology faster and bolster relationships with suppliers.

Continue Reading

Business

Senate committee kills bill mandating insurance coverage for wildfire safe homes

Published

on

Senate committee kills bill mandating insurance coverage for wildfire safe homes

A bill that would have required insurers to offer coverage to homeowners who take steps to reduce wildfire risk on their property died in the Legislature.

The Senate Insurance Committee on Monday voted down the measure, SB 1076, one of the most ambitious bills spurred by the devastating January 2025 wildfires.

The vote came despite fire victims and others rallying at the state Capitol in support of the measure, authored by state Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez (D-Pasadena), whose district includes the Eaton fire zone.

The Insurance Coverage for Fire-Safe Homes Act originally would have required insurers to offer and renew coverage for any home that meets wildfire-safety standards adopted by the insurance commissioner starting Jan. 1, 2028.

Advertisement

It also threatened insurers with a five-year ban from the sale of home or auto insurance if they did not comply, though it allowed for exceptions.

However, faced with strong opposition from the insurance industry, Pérez had agreed to amend the bill so it would have established community-wide pilot projects across the state to better understand the most effective way to limit property and insurance losses from wildfires.

Insurers would have had to offer four years of coverage to homeowners in successful pilot projects.

Denni Ritter, a vice president of the American Property Casualty Insurance Assn., told the committee that her trade group opposed the bill.

“While we appreciate the intent behind those conversations, those concepts do not remove our opposition, because they retain the same core flaw — substituting underwriting judgment and solvency safeguards with a statutory mandate to accept risk,” she said.

Advertisement

In voting against the bill Sen. Laura Richardson, (D-San Pedro), said: “Last I heard, in the United States, we don’t require any company to do anything. That’s the difference between capitalism and communism, frankly.”

The remarks against the measure prompted committee Chair Sen. Steve Padilla, (D-Chula Vista), to chastise committee members in opposition.

“I’m a little perturbed, and I’m a little disappointed, because you have someone who is trying to work with industry, who is trying to get facts and data,” he said.

Monday’s vote was the fourth time a bill that would have required insurers to offer coverage to so-called “fire hardened” homes failed in the Legislature since 2020, according to an analysis by insurance committee staff.

Fire hardening includes measures such as cutting back brush, installing fire resistant roofs and closing eaves to resist fire embers.

Advertisement

Pérez’s legislation was thought to have a better chance of passage because it followed the most catastrophic wildfires in U.S. history, which damaged or destroyed more than 18,000 structures and killed 31 people.

The bill was co-sponsored by the Los Angeles advocacy group Consumer Watchdog and Every Fire Survivor’s Network, a community group founded in Altadena after the fires formerly called the Eaton Fire Survivors Network.

But it also had broad support from groups such as the California Apartment Association, the California Nurses Association and California Environmental Voters.

Leading up to the fires, many insurers, citing heightened fire risk, had dropped policyholders in fire-prone neighorhoods. That forced them onto the California FAIR Plan, the state’s insurer of last resort, which offers limited but costly policies.

A Times analysis found that that in the Palisades and Eaton fire zones, the FAIR Plan’s rolls from 2020 to 2024 nearly doubled from 14,272 to 28,440. Mandating coverage has been seen as a way of reducing FAIR Plan enrollment.

Advertisement

“I’m disappointed this bill died in committee. Fire survivors deserved better,” Pérez said in a statement .

Also failing Monday in the committee was SB 982, a bill authored by Sen. Scott Wiener, (D-San Francisco). It would have authorized California’s attorney general to sue fossil fuel companies to recover losses from climate-induced disasters. It was opposed by the oil and gas industry.

Passing the committee were two other Pérez bills. SB 877 requires insurers to provide more transparency in the claims process. SB 878 imposes a penalty on insurers who don’t make claims payments on time.

Another bill, SB 1301, authored by insurance commissioner candidate Sen. Ben Allen, (D-Pacific Palisades), also passed. It protects policyholders from unexplained and abrupt policy non-renewals.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

How We Cover the White House Correspondents’ Dinner

Published

on

How We Cover the White House Correspondents’ Dinner

Times Insider explains who we are and what we do, and delivers behind-the-scenes insights into how our journalism comes together.

Politicians in Washington and the reporters who cover them have an often adversarial relationship.

But on the last Saturday in April, they gather for an irreverent celebration of press freedom and the First Amendment at the Washington Hilton Hotel: The White House Correspondents’ Association dinner.

Hosted by the association, an organization that helps ensure access for media outlets covering the presidency, the dinner attracts Hollywood stars; politicians from both parties; and representatives of more than 100 networks, newspapers, magazines and wire services.

While The Times will have two reporters in the ballroom covering the event, the company no longer buys seats at the party, said Richard W. Stevenson, the Washington bureau chief. The decision goes back almost two decades; the last dinner The Times attended as an organization was in 2007.

Advertisement

“We made a judgment back then that the event had become too celebrity-focused and was undercutting our need to demonstrate to readers that we always seek to maintain a proper distance from the people we cover, many of whom attend as guests,” he said.

It’s a decision, he added, that “we have stuck by through both Republican and Democratic administrations, although we support the work of the White House Correspondents’ Association.”

Susan Wessling, The Times’s Standards editor, said the policy is a product of the organization’s desire to maintain editorial independence.

“We don’t want to leave readers with any questions about our independence and credibility by seeming to be overly friendly with people whose words and actions we need to report on,” she said.

The celebrity mentalist Oz Pearlman is headlining the evening, in lieu of the usual comedy set by the likes of Stephen Colbert and Hasan Minhaj, but all eyes will be on President Trump, who will make his first appearance at the dinner as president.

Advertisement

Mr. Trump has boycotted the event since 2011, when he was the butt of punchlines delivered by President Barack Obama and the talk show host Seth Meyers mocking his hair, his reality TV show and his preoccupation with the “birther” movement.

Last month, though, Mr. Trump, who has a contentious relationship with the media, announced his intention to attend this year’s dinner, where he will speak to a room full of the same reporters he often derides as “enemies of the people.”

Times reporters will be there to document the highs, the lows and the reactions in the room. A reporter for the Styles desk has also been assigned to cover the robust roster of after-parties around Washington.

Some off-duty reporters from The Times will also be present at this late-night circuit, though everyone remains cognizant of their roles, said Patrick Healy, The Times’s assistant managing editor for Standards and Trust.

“If they’re reporting, there’s a notebook or recorder out as usual,” he said. “If they’re not, they’re pros who know they’re always identifiable as Times journalists.”

Advertisement

For most of The Times’s reporters and editors, though, the evening will be experienced from home.

“The rest of us will be able to follow the coverage,” Mr. Stevenson said, “without having to don our tuxes or gowns.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending