MLB and ESPN were like an old married couple—35 years together and plenty of history. But then, out of nowhere, one of them just stops trying; no warning, no soft landing, just a brutal financial gut punch. ESPN reduced its MLB contract from $550 million to $200 million because it no longer believed baseball was worth the cost. This cold breakup makes ghosting look courteous. The outcome was a startling change in sports media, with a network focusing more on the NBA, a league caught off guard, and a clear message that MLB was no longer the golden child. However, was the call the right one?

The writing was on the wall for MLB; however, no one anticipated it would be this overt. Although the league had previously survived transformations, the 60 percent wage drop was a statement instead of merely a negotiating ploy. When Rob Manfred sat down for discussions, anticipating business as usual, that assertion became evident. Instead, he got an offer that was not just lower—it was an insult. “Hey, you know that $550 million we are paying you? Yeah, we can only give you $200 million,” ESPN’s Jimmy Pitaro said to him. In addition, ESPN had no issue committing a staggering $2.6 billion a year to the NBA.

Just a few years ago, MLB was pulling $700 million per year from ESPN. Now, the network had thought basketball was the future, leaving baseball to fend for itself. And yet, the numbers did not justify the move, as Clay Travis highlighted, “Major League Baseball actually outrates the NBA in virtually every local market where they compete.” The Braves dominate Atlanta’s ratings, while the Red Sox outdraw the Celtics in Boston. However, ESPN was not looking at regional dominance—it was chasing national headlines. MLB was not undervalued on the basis of performance; it was dismissed because ESPN bet on a flashier long-period investment.

Where Does MLB Go from Here?

MLB is looking at streaming behemoths like Amazon, NBC, and Netflix to land its next media deal after ESPN pulled out. Amazon could increase its engagement in Friday night MLB games, where it now spends $85 million annually. One of the main contenders is NBC, which is keen to regain its supremacy in sports. MLB might match or even exceed the $550 million ESPN previously paid if it distributes its rights over multiple outlets; however, doing so would be losing a single, central location for casual spectators.

However, this goes beyond MLB’s future. ESPN’s current financial situation is dire. They had to make cuts elsewhere because of rising sports expenses, containing a $500 million rise in NBA rights. In 2024, Sunday Night Baseball reached a five-year high of 1.51 million viewers, highlighting MLB’s continued popularity across the country. With ESPN losing vital properties, like MLB and possibly its $550 million UFC deal, there are serious concerns related to the network’s future. Sports rights are quickly transforming as pay TV declines—ESPN’s viewership fell from 100 million homes in 2011 to 53.6 million in 2024.

ESPN chose the NBA over MLB, and baseball responded by walking away. Now, the league is embracing streaming, but will it work? Will splitting its rights across platforms actually benefit baseball in the long run, or does losing ESPN hurt its national presence? One thing is clear—MLB refused to accept second-class treatment. But was it the right call? Let’s hear your take.