After Warner Bros. Discovery lost their rights to stream NBA games, they filed a lawsuit against the sports league. Based on the language within the companies’ agreement, Warner Bros. believes it has grounds for the rights back. Or, monetary compensation. But, is their complaint valid or are they just bad sports?
In late July, the National Basketball Association signed a streaming deal with Amazon, NBCUniversal, and Disney. Further, this agreement was worth a whopping $77 million.
The finalization of this contract ended a 40-year relationship between the league and Warner Bros. Discovery…
AND IT LOOKS LIKE THE BREAK-UP IS GOING TO BE MESSY.
The media conglomerate filed a lawsuit against the NBA claiming a violation of “matching rights.”
Matching rights give the current right holder to propose a comparable offer when a competing bid is made.
The TNT Sports department of Warner Bros. made a public statement regarding the legal action.
“Given the NBA’s unjustified rejection of our matching of a third-party offer, we have taken legal action to enforce our rights. 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.”
However, the National Basketball Association breaking matching rights is not clear in this case. That is because Warner Bros. Discovery is only making comparisons with just one of the new partners…
Do “Matching Rights” Apply to Warner Bros. & NBA Lawsuit?
The basketball game package that was previously available through Warner Bros. will now be streamed on Amazon. This fact is significant because it will heavily impact what happens with the NBA lawsuit.
The league decided to end their business relationship with WBD since they didn’t match the offer from NBCUniversal…
Not the Amazon package deal. Therefore, the claim of breaching matching rights is invalid.
Nevertheless, this is not a clear-cut situation we are leaving for the judge to decide. We’ll just have to see how this one plays out…
Be Great,
GCTV Staff
Disclaimer: This content is intended to be used for educational and informational purposes only. Individual results may vary. You should perform your own due diligence and seek the advice from a professional to verify any information on our website or materials that you are relying upon if you choose to make an investment or business decision. Investment, real estate, and business involve great risk and there is no guarantee of performance or results.We are not attorneys, investment advisers, accountants, tax professionals or financial advisers and any of the content presented should not be taken as professional advice. We recommend seeking the advice of a financial professional before you invest, and we accept no liability whatsoever for any loss or damage you may incur.
