RealGM

Warner Bros. Discovery has filed a lawsuit against the NBA for moving forward with a $1.8 billion per year media rights deal with Amazon despite WBD holding match rights as the incumbent party as part of their existing contract.

WBD contends they had the contractual right to match either NBC or Amazon's deal with the company choosing to match the "C" package that the NBA contends is for streaming only and that was not technically matched.

“Given the NBA’s unjustified rejection of our matching of a third-party offer, we have taken legal action to enforce our rights,” WBD said in a statement. “We strongly believe this is not just our contractual right, but also in the best interest of fans who want to keep watching our industry-leading NBA content with the choice and flexibility we offer them through our widely distributed WBD video-first distribution platforms – including TNT and Max.”

The NBA signed a combined 11-year, $77 billion media rights deal with Disney, NBC and Amazon.

Via RealGM Staff Report

That's the NBA's loophole? That the Amazon package is streaming only?

I don't see that flying in the courts, but we'll see.

the_process wrote:That's the NBA's loophole? That the Amazon package is streaming only?

I don't see that flying in the courts, but we'll see.

Yeah, the NBA is being kind of shady here.

oaktownwarriors87 wrote:

the_process wrote:That's the NBA's loophole? That the Amazon package is streaming only?

I don't see that flying in the courts, but we'll see.

Yeah, the NBA is being kind of shady here.

I think they are trying to reach younger audiences and streaming would do that. Plus WBD is in debt and could have issues paying their contract.

With all that being said, I don't think the NBA is in the right here and the matching a contract most likely didn't say "streaming only" cannot be matched. There was also talks that even if WBD would have matched NBC the NBA would have tried to say it wasn't really matching it, so definitely agree they are being shady here.

Luckily there's a year left in the current contract and should be able to get a ruling on this before it ends. I personally would like to have TNT over Amazon. Maybe WBD could end up using their Max streaming service along side with TNT to counter the claim of streaming only nonsense argument.

I'd hate to agree with the NBA, but if the clause they cited was the actual wording:

"In the event that an incumbent matches a third party offer that provides for the exercise of game rights via any specific form of combined audio and video distribution, such incumbent shall have the right and obligation to exercise such game rights only via the specified form of combined audio and video distribution (e.g. if the specific form of combined audio and video distribution is internet distribution, a matching incumbent may not exercise such games rights via television distribution)."

It seems they would be technically correct that WBD isn't matching Amazon's streaming-only offer, because WBD's offer was to broadcast the games on TNT & simul-cast on MAX.

If the offer was only for streaming, and then you match the money but say you want to put it out on multiple platforms of your own choosing, that's not a matching offer.

wichsens wrote:I'd hate to agree with the NBA, but if the clause they cited was the actual wording:

"In the event that an incumbent matches a third party offer that provides for the exercise of game rights via any specific form of combined audio and video distribution, such incumbent shall have the right and obligation to exercise such game rights only via the specified form of combined audio and video distribution (e.g. if the specific form of combined audio and video distribution is internet distribution, a matching incumbent may not exercise such games rights via television distribution)."

It seems they would be technically correct that WBD isn't matching Amazon's streaming-only offer, because WBD's offer was to broadcast the games on TNT & simul-cast on MAX.

If the offer was only for streaming, and then you match the money but say you want to put it out on multiple platforms of your own choosing, that's not a matching offer.

Interesting. I wonder what WBs angle on this is. I guess there could be other clauses or provisions.

Hope WBD loses the suit. It's their own fault for not taking care of business during their exclusive window and saying stupid BS like they didn't need the NBA. Well, if you are going to talk the talk then be ready to walk the walk. Don't come crying foul when NBA calls your bluff and shows they clearly don't need your cheap ass either.

oaktownwarriors87 wrote:

wichsens wrote:I'd hate to agree with the NBA, but if the clause they cited was the actual wording:

"In the event that an incumbent matches a third party offer that provides for the exercise of game rights via any specific form of combined audio and video distribution, such incumbent shall have the right and obligation to exercise such game rights only via the specified form of combined audio and video distribution (e.g. if the specific form of combined audio and video distribution is internet distribution, a matching incumbent may not exercise such games rights via television distribution)."

It seems they would be technically correct that WBD isn't matching Amazon's streaming-only offer, because WBD's offer was to broadcast the games on TNT & simul-cast on MAX.

If the offer was only for streaming, and then you match the money but say you want to put it out on multiple platforms of your own choosing, that's not a matching offer.

Interesting. I wonder what WBs angle on this is. I guess there could be other clauses or provisions.

WBD's angle is: "wah wah boo hoo. we sat on our asses and didn't negotiate a deal and now we regret it. Also... we owe WAY more money than we are worth and no one wants to deal with us because of it."

oaktownwarriors87 wrote:

wichsens wrote:I'd hate to agree with the NBA, but if the clause they cited was the actual wording:

"In the event that an incumbent matches a third party offer that provides for the exercise of game rights via any specific form of combined audio and video distribution, such incumbent shall have the right and obligation to exercise such game rights only via the specified form of combined audio and video distribution (e.g. if the specific form of combined audio and video distribution is internet distribution, a matching incumbent may not exercise such games rights via television distribution)."

It seems they would be technically correct that WBD isn't matching Amazon's streaming-only offer, because WBD's offer was to broadcast the games on TNT & simul-cast on MAX.

If the offer was only for streaming, and then you match the money but say you want to put it out on multiple platforms of your own choosing, that's not a matching offer.

Interesting. I wonder what WBs angle on this is. I guess there could be other clauses or provisions.

Espn article mentioned the contract between WBD and NBA says specifically that they have matching rights for any third party, including streaming services. WBD was smart enough to include this clause 10 years ago knowing they'd be competing with streaming services. They actually have a legitimate case. NBA just doesn't want to deal with them. Simple as that. Likely WBD will get a big payout as NBA realizes the reach of Amazon.

Its not a matching offer. Matching $ is not the only factor that matters. Amazon's offer reaches a larger international audience; whereas, WBD is more domestic. Additionally, as someone stated, the financial health of Amazon far exceeds that of WBD's (looming bankruptcy etc). Who knows, there is a possibility that other offers might have been contingent on Amazon being on board as well. Too many questions that we will never know the answers to until its all said and done.

wichsens wrote:I'd hate to agree with the NBA, but if the clause they cited was the actual wording:

"In the event that an incumbent matches a third party offer that provides for the exercise of game rights via any specific form of combined audio and video distribution, such incumbent shall have the right and obligation to exercise such game rights only via the specified form of combined audio and video distribution (e.g. if the specific form of combined audio and video distribution is internet distribution, a matching incumbent may not exercise such games rights via television distribution)."

It seems they would be technically correct that WBD isn't matching Amazon's streaming-only offer, because WBD's offer was to broadcast the games on TNT & simul-cast on MAX.

If the offer was only for streaming, and then you match the money but say you want to put it out on multiple platforms of your own choosing, that's not a matching offer.

WBD has a streaming service, yeah? So they use that if need be. I understand that the NBA would rather deal with Amazon. But they're the ones who allowed the matching clause in the WBD contract last time.