The NBA has responded to a lawsuit filed by Warner Bros. Discovery, seeking to dismiss claims that it breached a media rights contract. The core of the dispute revolves around Warner Bros. Discovery's allegation that the NBA unjustifiably rejected their offer to match a new media rights deal. The league's recent 11-year deal, valued at nearly $76 billion, involves partnerships with Disney, NBC, and Amazon Prime Video, covering the 2025-26 through 2035-36 seasons and marking the end of a nearly 40-year relationship with Turner.
Legal Maneuverings
The NBA's legal team submitted a detailed 28-page motion alongside supporting documents, requesting dismissal of the lawsuit with prejudice. According to the NBA, Warner Bros. Discovery's attempt to match Amazon's offer was marred by significant alterations. The league highlighted that Warner Bros. Discovery amended eight of Amazon's 27 contract sections, redefined 11 terms, struck nearly 300 words, and introduced over 270 new ones. These changes, according to the NBA, rendered the purported match a counteroffer, which the league was entitled to reject.
Amazon's initial proposal included a stipulation for an upfront payment of approximately $5.4 billion, to be held in an escrow account. Warner Bros. Discovery, however, suggested replacing the escrow requirement with syndicated letters of credit, a substantial deviation from the original terms.
Rejection and Discrepancies
The timeline of events reveals that the NBA presented Amazon's offer to Warner Bros. Discovery on July 17, with Warner Bros. Discovery responding on July 22, claiming a successful match. However, the NBA formally rejected this response on July 24, citing numerous discrepancies in the so-called matching attempt.
Bill Koenig, President of NBA Global Content and Media Distribution, emphasized, "The response made by TBS does not qualify as a match." This sentiment was echoed in the NBA's formal statements, asserting that "far from accepting each term of Amazon's offer, TBS's revisions constituted a counteroffer that the NBA was free to reject."
Amazon's Strategic Position
As part of its new media rights arrangement, Amazon Prime Video will broadcast NBA games on Friday nights, select Saturday afternoons, and Thursday night doubleheaders following "Thursday Night Football." The deal also grants Amazon exclusive coverage of critical NBA Cup stages and the NBA League Pass package, further solidifying its position in the sports streaming market.
In contrast, NBCUniversal's offer, which encompassed traditional distribution rights through its TNT linear cable network, was seen as a higher-cost proposal that Warner Bros. Discovery chose not to match. According to the NBA, "TBS chose not to match NBCUniversal's offer, which would have enabled TBS to continue distributing games via its TNT linear cable network. 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."
The league's stance is clear: "If TBS wanted linear TV distribution rights, it could have matched a separate more expensive third-party offer from NBC, but TBS elected not to do so, attempting instead to save billions of dollars by combining Amazon's lower price with the linear television rights granted to NBC."
Warner Bros. Discovery has until September 20 to file its response to the NBA's motion, and the sports world will be watching closely as the legal proceedings unfold.
In their defense, TNT Sports stated, "Not only is it our contractual right, but it is in the best interest of the fans who want to continue to enjoy our industry-leading NBA content with the choice and flexibility we offer them through our widely distributed platforms including TNT and Max."
This high-stakes battle underscores the ever-evolving landscape of media rights in sports, where traditional broadcasters and new-age streamers vie for control over premium content, and large sums are at stake. As the NBA forges ahead with its fresh set of partners, the outcome of this legal tussle could set a significant precedent for future negotiations in the sports media industry.