Love it or hate it, Major League Baseball is about to have 10 playoff teams in 2012. The deal to add the fifth seeds from each league into the playoff mix this season, as opposed to next, was something that was collectively bargained for as part of the new CBA. The question was only whether it would happen this season or next. The owners wanted it. Selig wanted it. The players were concerned about the schedule and travel, which was valid given that the 2012 schedule had already been finalized. The issue had been how to deal with any potential regular season tie-breaker games, squeeze in the new Wild Card games the day after the regular season ends, and still allow time for rainouts during the League Division Series and League Championship Series while fitting it all into a three-week window from Oct 3 to the start of the World Series on Oct. 24. Those concerns by the players were addressed as part of the discussions, although the risk is still there if Mother Nature (read: rain) wrecks the party.

There are (and will continue to be) debates about whether adding in the extra Wild Cards will be good or bad for the game. Certainly, Game 163—those potential tiebreakers in the regular season—may be diminished. But this much is certain: there will be millions of dollars reaped from the additional playoff teams being added. And, if stars align, the haul could amount to hundreds of millions. Here’s why.

While they have not yet been fully negotiated, the broadcast rights to air the two sudden death games will be announced later this year. Along with that, there will be the additional revenues amassed by the fifth-seeded clubs at the gate and the ability to slingshot the “see your playoff team” marketing element for season ticket sales the following season, which parlays into added sponsorship opportunities, etc.

For the league, the arrival of the expanded playoffs this year as opposed to next is an added chip to use as national television rights deals come up for renewal. MLB’s deals with FOX, ESPN, and TBS are set to expire at the end of 2013, so negotiations to renew will begin sometime shortly after the 2012 season or shortly after the 2013 season begins. If the added play-in games increase interest and/or ratings and viewership, that will help the league tack even more on top of what is sure to be an eye-popping set of deals.

Currently, MLB takes in approximately $660 million annually in national media rights revenue. The current Angels and Rangers deals reportedly pull in $150 million annually. The NFL, which just renewed its relationships with FOX, NBC, and CBS, landed a whopping set of contract extensions that total approximately $28 billion over nine years. Baseball is not going to get anywhere near what the NFL is pulling in, but if it enjoys anything close to the 63 percent growth rate of the NFL deals, baseball could possibly see its $660 million annually jump to as much as $1-$1.5 billion annually. The added Wild Card teams factor into that.

Consider this. If the added Wild Cards had been in place last season, the Red Sox and Braves, while still in an epic slide to end the season, would have made the playoffs. The Red Sox, especially, are a ratings win for the networks. But beyond stories and name brands, the additional teams going in add a broader regional palette with which to reach audiences. The league is going to use that to its advantage with the new media rights deals.

Some observers have expressed concerns that the game will be diluted due to the additional teams making the playoffs. However, even after going from eight playoff teams to 10, MLB will see the lowest percentage of teams make the postseason of the Big-4 sports. The following table shows the number of teams that make the postseason for the NFL, MLB, NBA, and NHL, along with the percentage of total teams:


Total Teams

# in Playoffs

% of total

















If MLB can sell the drama of the one-game play-in, and that drama extends into the LDS, LCS, and World Series, the potential is there for hundreds of millions of dollars to come MLB’s way thanks to the additional playoff teams. One thing is certain: this year will mean more in terms of pushing the revenue needle up for the league than most seasons prior.

Thank you for reading

This is a free article. If you enjoyed it, consider subscribing to Baseball Prospectus. Subscriptions support ongoing public baseball research and analysis in an increasingly proprietary environment.

Subscribe now
You need to be logged in to comment. Login or Subscribe
It seems to me that if additional revenue is the goal, it would've been much simpler to make the divisional series in each league a best of seven.

You're adding at least four games that way (instead of two) and perhaps 10 or more.

Also, I don't see where the fifth seeded team is going to gain additional revenue from the gate. They would play one game at the fourth seed's park and only one of the teams moves on. Any additional gain in revenue by the fifth seed comes at the expense of the loss in revenue by the fourth seed.

This expansion of the playoffs is disappointing in so many ways.
Another way to look at it is that there are still only 8 playoff teams. However, 4 teams have to play a sudden-death game to make the last 2 spots. An added bonus is that the chances of the 2 "wild-card teams" winning it all is cut in half.

Play-in games are the best, but happen relatively infrequently. Having 2 every year is AWESOME!!!
Play-in games are exciting, no doubt about that. But, take a look at the AL in 2001. Would it have been fair to a team with 102 wins (Oakland) to have to play a team with 85 wins (Minnesota?) What's the point in a 162 game season if a team that beats another by 17 games has to play them in a winner take all game?
When it is all said and done, I just don't think 3 extra hours of baseball in each league is going to make that much of a difference.
It seems to me "hundreds of millions" is an extraordinary assumption, which the article does nothing to back up. Yes, the extra playoff game should add revenue, in a simplistic model. Then again, maybe diminishing the value of late-season games reduces revenue. Maybe forcing the play-in teams to use their best starter for that game, rather than game 1 of the LDS will lower ratings for those series.

Comparing the number of playoff teams in each sport is a weird suggestion, considering the MLB's model is still so different, and the NFL in particular differentiates by playing one game instead of a series. The logical interpretation of this article is that if the MLB expanded to 16 playoff teams, featuring 7-game series, they'd stand to make billions!

The $ amounts used, again, is just weird. You allow that the MLB won't get NFL money, but then assume the low end of what baseball can expect is $1B annually - a 50% increase, because the NFL got a 63% increase. Again, those situations are incredibly different, and the way it was presented here is so oversimplified as to be pointless. Not to mention, of course, that the basis of the article is that baseball stands to make millions (or hundreds of millions, if "stars align", whatever that means), and an increased TV deal seems likely regardless of the addition of another game.

I would've liked to see an article examining the risks and potential benefits of adding a play-in game, especially when there will be only one year to assess its popularity before a new TV deal is negotiated. Instead, I got an article with a bunch of numbers mashed together, pointless comparisons, and lacking in any logical consistency.
Will it really reduce the number of "Game 163". Statistically, aren't you just as likely to have two teams tied for 4th place in a league as you are for two teams tied for 5th place? Maybe even more, since I would assume that the win curve is bell shaped.

Unless they are going to have tiebreakers (League WL, head to head, etc.) determine wild cards (like the NFL does), I think you will still have those issues.
No, what I think he meant was that their meaning will be diminished, not that the amount of them would be diminished.