No, there’s nothing missing from the picture above. Well… apart from the bits that are cut off. Aaaaand the fact that it’s not at all interactive.
Look, it’s just a screen cap of part of the infographic released by Bloomberg yesterday that breaks down each MLB club’s value and their various revenue streams, and allows you to compare and contrast them. It’s pretty nifty!
So much so, in fact, that other outlets started reporting it. Sportsnet, for example. But a funny thing happened on the way to Sportsnet regurgitating Bloomberg’s breakdown of the Jays’ revenue streams…
You see, the thing that really stood out to me about the Jays’ section of the piece was that they ranked just 22nd in terms of revenue from media rights. Think about that for a second. None of the the other teams in the top ten in terms of the value of their relationship with their regional sports network (the Jays ranked fifth) ranked lower than that in terms of media rights revenue, and the Cubs and Astros– both deep in the throes of rebuilds– were the only others among those ten to rank outside the top 15.
Perhaps those two elements of the business aren’t necessarily related-enough to read too much into it without deeper knowledge of the relationship, but regardless, the low media rights revenue generated by the club– given that those rights are exclusively owned by a network owned by the same parent company as the club itself– seems kinda striking. And significant.
And yet, though it’s possible the omission is innocuous, while the Sportsnet piece on Bloomberg’s release explains the revenue stream breakdown, it doesn’t actually mention media rights by name. Instead, we’re told that Bloomberg “looked at revenue from ticket sales, sponsorships and real estate among other things [italics mine],” before it’s also written that concessions, parking, and revenue sharing dollars are also included in the breakdown. Literally the only component of the revenue breakdown not specifically noted is the media rights revenue. Think about that for a second.
The $65-million figure Bloomberg has come up with for that category, by the way, is equal to Oakland’s and Cincinnati’s, and well below the revenue received by Cleveland, for example. Think about that for a second. And while you’re at it, think about the number of TV viewers reached by the “regional” sports network the Jays are on, as opposed to those– or practically any– other ones.
Now, obviously being able to pay below-market media rights rates is precisely a major part of the reason Rogers bought the club in the first place, and it’s not like we didn’t already sorta know this stuff. I just found it funny that the Sportsnet piece would so completely avoid the subject, so I’ve decided to un-avoid it for them in whatever small way that I can.
While I’m at it, the club’s 25th-ranking in terms of dollars from sponsorships, much of which you’d think is also internal to Rogers, is probably pretty scandalous, too. That is, if you trust the figures Bloomberg has come up with. I’m not at all confident that you entirely should, but why should I let that stop me from once again questioning Rogers’ commitment to the club, amiright?