AUGUST 24: Baxter Holmes of ESPN provides more details on the NBA’s motion for a dismissal, writing that the league is arguing Warner Bros. Discovery attempted to improperly rewrite the terms of Amazon’s offer and then accept those terms.
“(Turner Broadcasting System) chose not to match NBCUniversal’s offer, which would have enabled TBS to continue distributing games via its TNT linear cable network,” the league wrote in its filing. “Instead, TBS purported to match the less-expensive Amazon offer, but only after revising it to include traditional distribution rights and making numerous other substantive changes.
“… TBS made substantive revisions to eight of the Amazon offer’s 27 sections (including revisions to 22 different subsections), changed 11 defined terms that are collectively used roughly 100 separate times, struck nearly 300 words, and added over 270 new words, substantially altering the parties’ rights and obligations in the process.
“… Far from accepting each term of Amazon’s offer, TBS’s revisions constituted a counteroffer that the NBA was free to reject.”
The NBA is asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice, which means it couldn’t be refiled in the future, according to Holmes. More information on the league’s arguments can be found within the full ESPN story.
AUGUST 23: The NBA filed a response to Warner Bros. Discovery’s lawsuit in New York’s Supreme Court on Friday, according to Brian Steinberg of Variety, who reports that the league has sought to dismiss the suit.
Warner Bros. Discovery is the parent company of TNT Sports, the NBA’s longtime broadcast partner which didn’t reach an agreement with the league during the latest round of media rights negotiations, losing out to Disney (ESPN/ABC), NBC, and Amazon Prime Video. TNT sought to exercise its matching rights on Amazon’s offer but was rejected by the NBA.
In documents filed on Friday, the league reiterated its belief that WBD/TNT failed to match the terms of Amazon’s offer. According to Steinberg, the NBA specified several ways in which TNT’s offer differed from Amazon’s, including:
- Amazon’s deal is for distribution via streaming only, whereas WBD’s bid would include games on both the TNT cable network and the Max streaming service.
- Amazon agreed to establish a rights fee escrow account into which it will “deposit and maintain three seasons of rights fee payments on a rolling basis and from which rights fees would automatically be disbursed to the NBA on the agreed-upon payment schedule.” WBD, meanwhile, offered to provide the league with letters of credit as an alternative form of security and to only make them available if the company “failed to make a rights fee payment on a timely basis.” In other words, Amazon’s proposal provides more certainty that payments will be made on time, without the risk of delays.
- Amazon has promised to promote NBA games during its widest-reaching sports broadcasts, including Thursday Night Football (NFL). WBD “substituted an obligation to promote the NBA in any major sporting league” distributed on TNT or Max — WBD defines “major sporting league” as including NASCAR and various college sporting events, making it a less valuable commitment than Amazon’s in the NBA’s view, Steinberg explains.
As Mike Vorkunov of The Athletic previously outlined, August 23 was the deadline for the NBA to file its initial response to the lawsuit. Warner Bros. Discovery now has until September 20 to file its opposition, then the league will have until October 2 to respond again.
According to Steinberg, the NBA said in Friday’s filing that it intends to move for dismissal at an October 4 hearing in New York City.
Previous reporting has noted that neither the NBA nor WBD likely wants an extended legal battle in which private conversations could be made public during the discovery process, so a settlement of some sort remains a possibility.
Would love to see Amazon take it in the rear on this.
The NBA is going to lose this. They are failing to account for the fact that Warner Bros previous contract includes the right to match. By changing the terms of the new contract to eliminate the rights matching possibility they are in violation of their previous contract. Warner Bros exercised a right in its contract and paid for that right during the last contract. This is a breach of contract by the NBA. Lawyers get paid by the hour, and this conduct makes that obvious. They know they are going to lose, but are going to make tens of millions in legal fees in the process.
You couldn’t be more incorrect
Nice comment. Good thing for me, and the rest of the world, reality doesn’t require your validation.
If you researched the issue even a little bit you’d understand why what you typed is incorrect. Obviously you’re not a lawyer and your interpretation of the issue(s) is grossly inaccurate but I’ll let you figure that out after the dispute is resolved.
and if you are a lawyer, your interpretation of the issue(s) is an embarrassment.
I doubt the nba and amazon will lose this to warner brothers, the contract Amazon signed with the nba is different than the one WB proposed, meaning…the nba had their right to deny that and WB didnt really match that contract
Attorney?
It’s VERY debatable what will ultimately occur. IF, the court decides the case it will change the landscape of future tv/sport contracts. As such, I doubt either side wants to take a chance that that occurs and it’ll probably settle. BUT make no mistake TV contracts will never be the same now. Future agreements will be drafted with little if any matching right terms.
Right now you have that app going up against fubo
I love Fubo to be honest.
After all I have read about this over the last few months, those arguments actually seem kind of weak. For the 1st point, is there any real legal difference between Amazon’s 100% streaming solution vs. TNT’s solution if TNT just simulcasts the TNT games on Max? The argument about total audience size seems like it would’ve been the better argument, but they don’t seem to mention that. The 2nd point also seems like a stretch because it seems like what they really want to say is that Amazon is richer and more stable, but that might not stand up in an argument about matching the deals. Of the three, the 3rd one seems more substantive since there’s probably a way to place value on the advertising per sports league. But, Amazon only broadcast 17 NFL games total so is WB’s offer of a whole bunch of smaller sports league advertising not comparable? I know the NFL is way more valuable per game, but it’s still only 17 games while TNT can add up the exposure from broadcasting multiple sports around the year.
#3
“Amazon has promised…”
Surely, I assume NBA lawyers meant these promises were in contract.
Promissory estoppel and all that.
Good riddance TNT!!!
Hopefully never to broadcast NBA again!
When will it ever end…
I’m bored with these media rights deals…
I am fully aware that the distractions are getting insanely rich for distraction purposes…
None of it matters in the Far North (shrug).
Actually it’s pretty earth shattering for RSN and EVERY future TV contracts.
No, it’s not. Again, you clearly have zero experience with contract law.
This site has veered so far in its commenting cohort from hoops heads pre pandemic to these armchair experts
Who clearly never played
Sports but know all
The fActs
From
Their blogs and YouTube channels
Humble and focus on the game, Toads
Hey! Is the Toad reference necessary? I played until I blew out my knee half way through my senior year and I’ve been commenting here for going on what? six years now I’d guess.
Hey chuckster good to see ya across the multiverse and many platforms
Well played
Played until blew out knee at 33
Sf spaz for life
I never played, but I did blow out my knee at a Holiday Inn.
I have so little faith in the fairness of the legal system that I generally just figure whoever has the most money to spend on lawyers will win. ZERO idea how to call this one under that criteria.
@ El Don. That you Rich Paul?