Filing in MASN case questions Orioles’ ‘long-term viability’ in Baltimore, but mayor ‘confident’ of club’s commitment

Brandon Scott sat with Orioles Chairman and CEO John Angelos last month and said he believes, as Angelos has insisted, that the baseball team has no plans to leave town. But in a document filed ahead of a crucial appeal for the Orioles in a long-running financial dispute with the Washington Nationals regarding the Mid-Atlantic Sports Network, known as MASN, the...

Brandon Scott sat with Orioles Chairman and CEO John Angelos last month and said he believes, as Angelos has insisted, that the baseball team has no plans to leave town.

“There are many worries that I have,” said the Democratic mayor of Baltimore. “The Orioles are not one.”

But in a document filed ahead of a crucial appeal for the Orioles in a long-running financial dispute with the Washington Nationals regarding the Mid-Atlantic Sports Network, known as MASN, the city floated the possibility that the team’s future in Baltimore could be jeopardized.

“The City is deeply interested in and affected by the outcome of this appeal because this Court’s decision is likely to have a direct impact on the long-term viability of the Baltimore Orioles to remain in Baltimore City,” stated the document, an amicus brief dated Dec. 22 and received Jan. 12 in the New York Court of Appeals.

Angelos, the older son of incapacitated 93-year-old Orioles owner Peter Angelos, has sought repeatedly to assure fans that the club isn’t going anywhere. And while the team’s lease of the state-owned Oriole Park at Camden Yards ends Dec. 31, the team and Democratic Gov. Wes Moore voiced commitment last week to the city in a joint statement.

Given the extreme rarity of Major League Baseball teams relocating, public financial incentives to stay, and the city and team’s tradition, it would seem unlikely the club would leave, even if it loses the MASN dispute, which could cost the team at least $100 million.

Among those skeptical that a losing appeal could prompt an Orioles migration are the Nationals themselves. In a response filed Jan. 20 in the case, the Nationals called the city’s amicus brief “not only speculative but far-fetched and contrary to all known facts.”

The Nationals went on to say the Orioles are “a successful MLB Club by any measure” and opposed the argument that the appeal’s outcome could pose an “existential threat to the Orioles.”

The saga of the complicated MASN dispute between the Orioles and Nationals hinges on how much the Nationals are owed for television rights between 2012 and 2016. MASN — which is majority-owned by the Orioles — paid the Nationals $198 million for that five-year span. The Nationals argued it should have been $475 million.

An arbitration panel of three MLB executives ruled in 2014 the Nationals should have received $298 million ($100 million more than the club got). The Orioles appealed that decision, and it was thrown out by a New York Supreme Court judge.

A second panel of league executives decided in 2019 the Nationals should have received $297 million — again, about $100 million more. The Orioles appealed again, but so far lower courts have upheld the panel’s decision.

Now, oral arguments will take place March 14 at the highest court in New York, the Court of Appeals, with a decision to come some months later.

Arguments will center upon “whether courts have the power, after vacating an arbitration award based on ‘evident partiality’ related to the forum, to order rehearing in a forum other than that provided for in the parties’ arbitration agreement,” according to a case issue statement from the court.

A ruling in favor of the Orioles would likely send the dispute to an independent arbitration forum — one not affiliated with MLB. A ruling for the Nationals could require the Baltimore team to pay the Washington team approximately $100 million and, potentially, even more in rights fees in the future.

The city filed its brief in support of the Orioles, noting it has “spent millions of dollars to support the Orioles and subsidize their ability to remain in Baltimore.”

It applauded the Orioles for “buoying the City’s morale and providing a welcome reprieve from its challenges.”

“In addition to binding an otherwise disparate populace together,” the brief stated, “the team offers an important counternarrative to visitors and tourists whose only familiarity with Baltimore City derives from the scenes of poverty and violence depicted in ‘The Wire.’”

The HBO drama, set in Baltimore, ran from 2002 to 2008.

The crux of the city’s argument called for the Orioles to receive a “fair arbitration process.” It noted “the impact of their absence would be difficult to contemplate.”

“To jeopardize the bond between the Orioles and Baltimore through an unfair or biased process would be nothing short of devastating to the City,” it said.

Stephen Salsbury, deputy solicitor with the Baltimore City Department of Law, said in a statement that the city was “pleased” to file the brief and that the Orioles did not request it.

“The City was aware of the litigation and chose to file its brief to underscore not only the team’s enduring impact on Baltimore, but to also highlight the investment that the City has made in the Orioles,” the statement read, in part.

In a statement Wednesday, Scott said he’s “fully confident in the Orioles’ steadfast commitment to Baltimore City.”

“I directed the City Solicitor to file an amicus brief to offer additional information in support of the Orioles’ litigation. We are looking forward to the Orioles’ being successful in the courtroom and on the field,” Scott stated.

The Orioles did not respond to a request for comment.

Mark Conrad, who directs the sports business concentration at Fordham University’s Gabelli School of Business, said he doesn’t expect the amicus brief to be persuasive, given that it stresses “economic, political and community-based justifications,” rather than legal argument.

He also pointed to the political advantage that elected leaders can receive from going to bat for a beloved team.

“The Orioles are part of the ethos and culture of the city and [for] any politician to have an opponent say, ‘You didn’t do enough,’ is going to hurt them,” he said.

Brad Snyder, a Georgetown Law professor who teaches sports law and a former Baltimore Sun sports writer, likened the city’s argument to a “parade of horribles.” It might be true that if the Orioles lose their appeal, it could affect their financial viability and, if that’s the case, maybe the team would consider moving elsewhere.

“It’s a ‘slippery slope’ argument that lawyers make to warn judges to think twice before ruling in the other side’s favor,” he said.

Snyder noted the timing of the city’s brief, given that the Orioles’ lease with the state expires at the end of the year. The Orioles last week declined an option to extend their lease by five years.

But Snyder also highlighted how rare it would be for an MLB team to move. Unlike other pro sports leagues, MLB enjoys an antitrust exemption that makes it more difficult for teams to unilaterally decide to relocate.

Only one MLB team in the past half-century has moved cities: the Montreal Expos to Washington in 2005. And that was a unique case itself, as MLB owned the team. The last time a club not owned by MLB relocated was the Washington Senators, who became the Texas Rangers in 1971.

“The antitrust exemption is a huge impediment to the Orioles leaving Baltimore,” Snyder said. “There is a reason no major league team, except the Expos, has left in the last 50 years.”

MLB hopes to grow from 30 to 32 teams, which means cities ripe for a team could get one via expansion rather than import.

And the Orioles have financial reasons to remain; the state approved $600 million in improvements to Camden Yards, provided the team agrees to a long-term lease.

Still, some fans have worried that the team could move to baseball-eager Nashville, an idea suggested by Louis Angelos, the younger son of Peter Angelos, in his just-settled lawsuit against his brother and mother. Louis Angelos noted in court documents that his brother has a home in Tennessee.

But the Orioles have indicated no interest in relocating to the Music City and Nashville’s Democratic Mayor John Cooper has had no conversations with the Orioles, per a senior official in his office.

Former MLB player Dave Stewart is leading the charge to bring a team to Nashville, but he said his group is more focused on an expansion club. He’s had no discussions with the Orioles, either.

“We, personally, don’t have any interest in bringing the Orioles to Nashville,” he said.

For the fretful, that’s reassuring news, even as the odds that the Orioles fly away remain slim.

()