The Fox Group's purchase of the Dodgers "is the latest
in a string of notable programming buys by entertainment
conglomerates that are changing the face of the business,"
according to Sallie Hoffmeister of the L.A. TIMES. Across
the "spectrum of entertainment, companies have been paying
what on the surface appear to be irrational prices for
signature products that can break through the clutter of
consumer choices created by new satellite, digital and
internet technologies" (L.A. TIMES, 3/20). In DC, Heath &
Farhi write that the Dodgers may be Murdoch's and MLB's
"ticket to the largely unexploited international market and
its billions of potential viewers. Murdoch owns satellite
TV systems reaching baseball-hungry markets in Latin
America, Japan and Asia." Former MLB Commissioner Peter
Ueberroth: "Within another three years, all teams will be
owned by major corporate entities, most of whom will be
associated with some media company." Rick Burton, Dir of
the Warsaw Sports Marketing Center at the Univ. of OR:
"Sports is a global battlefield ... and the next
evolutionary step is the international network. Murdoch
someday is going to be able to offer any game, any where,
any time of day" (WASHINGTON POST, 3/20). In N.Y., Steve
Zipay writes the "wave of new media and entertainment
emperor/owners continues to change the shoreline of
professional sports" (NEWSDAY, 3/20). On "Market Wrap,"
Jerry Cobb said that media companies acquiring sports teams
is "becoming increasingly common, because the economics of
sports and the needs of broadcasters are creating a marriage
of convenience." Cowen's Gary Farber: "The cable industry
spends approximately $6 billion a year on programming alone.
By buying sports properties, it's essentially buying the
programming, but rather than leasing it, they're going to
own it." Farber: "It's an entree to so many under-leveraged
businesses. Besides just the actual real-estate involved,
there's the brand that it creates, brand awareness, there's
substantial merchandising opportunities and corporate
sponsorship" (CNBC, 3/19). In N.Y., Jon Elsen writes on the
growing trend and adds, "So far, buying sports has worked
out well for the media giants" (N.Y. POST, 3/20). Former
Dodgers Owner Peter O'Malley, on approaching the various
media conglomerates' interest in MLB: "If I was baseball,
I'd sit them down all day to discuss it -- ask them,
encourage them. What needs to be done? Communications.
Kids' programs. International telecasts" (L.A. TIMES, 3/20).
CONFLICT: With Murdoch holding national broadcast
rights to MLB as well as cable TV rights to 22 of MLBs
teams, some raise the question of potential conflict of
interest. But Acting MLB Commissioner Bud Selig said, "We
live in a new world. Obviously every sale will be looked at
in regard to conflicts of interest. I thing there are a
number of examples of baseball owners being partners in
other ventures. The thing that does remain the same is that
you can't have ownership interest in more than one club."
In N.Y., Bill Madden: "In other words, baseball is resigned
to the fact that, by going corporate as it has, there is no
avoiding entangling alliances involving its owners" (N.Y.
DAILY NEWS, 3/20). In DC, Thomas Boswell quotes NFL
Commissioner Paul Tagliabue on media ownership of sports
teams: "The ownership of an NFL team by a media conglomerate
or a media owner would present a conflict of interest in
competitive situations. You're better off dealing with the
networks directly. We always want our outlets to have but
one interest. That might be compromised." Boswell says
that MLB made its decision on Murdoch based on "only two
considerations," the $311M franchise fee and the fear of an
antitrust lawsuit (WASHINGTON POST, 3/20). In Philadelphia,
Stephen Seplow writes under the header, "Murdoch Deal: Did
Someone Say 'Conflict Of Interest?'" (INQUIRER, 3/20).
