WGN No More?

[Kid]

Also, I have no idea how credible this guy is, but the idea that Sinclair would have much leverage in this case is a stretch. Getting a carriage deal for a brand new premium channel wont be tied to their local broadcast networks. Its not as though Time Warner didnt have other basic and premium cable channels with existing distribution deals when other providers declined to carry the Dodgers network.

 

Addressing this separately, I'm not sure that is a fair analogy.  I think the idea would be that Sinclair could hold up cable providers throughout the Cubs' market by threatening to withhold broadcast networks unless the providers also agreed to carry the Cubs' network.  Notably, it doesn't look like Sinclair has any networks in Chicago itself (and won't for the time being with the Tribune deal falling apart), but presumably the carriers in Chicago will be pressured into carrying it.

 

The Dodgers' analogy doesn't work because, interestingly, Time Warner Cable was unaffiliated with Time Warner since it was spun off in 2009.  Since the purchase of Time Warner Cable in 2016, that channel has been 50% owned by both Charter and the Los Angeles Lakers, neither of which own other channels.

 

That said, Sinclair would have less leverage in some ways than Time Warner/Spectrum in LA because Sinclair doesn't control any cable providers.  Time Warner/Spectrum have been able to hold out for a very high price with the thinking being that all people who want the channel will just sign up for their service (if available).  Sinclair wouldn't have that option and would need to price it low enough that at least some provider in Chicago will bite in order to pressure the rest.