Spring training isn’t usually a time for complicated math, but this year’s broadcast math is leaving Cubs and White Sox fans with fewer chances to pull up a chair at the digital ballpark. The stars of the show aren’t the players; they’re the regional sports networks that decide what gear you can turn on your screen to watch live spring games. And right now, those gears are grinding with less juice than fans expected.
What’s happening, in plain terms, is simple on the surface and messy in practice: the Cubs’ Marquee Sports Network and the White Sox’ Chicago Sports Network aren’t offering a full slate of spring exhibitions. The Cubs will show 11 of 32 slated spring games, while the Sox will carry nine of 33. Put another way, together they’re broadcasting less than a third of the spring schedule—a number that stings for fans who crave live action, even when the games don’t count toward the regular season standings.
The frustration isn’t just about a few missed broadcasts. It’s about a failed promise, a sense that fans paid to watch games should have easier access to them. Social feeds and inboxes fill with pleas: just throw a camera on the field and go live. The sentiment is practical and a little nostalgic—people want the immediacy of live sports, not late-night “Cubs Classics” or archived Windy City Bulls reruns.
Why is it happening? The answer is financial stress, wrapped in the broader disruption of the modern TV landscape. Regional sports networks have been hit by cord-cutting and the streaming wave, which has strained revenue models that once counted on a steady stream of cable subscribers and predictable ad dollars. The Cubs’ Marquee network, for instance, has downsized leadership and digital staff in recent years as part of an industry-wide recalibration. The Sox’ CHSN isn’t immune to the same pressures, despite an expanded spring role for the team-owned network.
What makes this moment particularly revealing is who isn’t being asked to sacrifice. The Dodgers’ SportsNet LA is airing roughly 30 of 32 games, and the Yankees’ Yes Network plus the Gotham app still provide almost a full slate for their fans. Those teams sit in the “premium RSN” tier, where the math of live broadcasts and advertising dollars still pencils out. In contrast, Cubs and Sox fans in Chicago are watching a smaller portion of the schedule, with even road games sometimes treated as standard fare rather than special broadcasts.
There are some bright spots, though. The Padres, now producing and distributing its games through MLB directly, is delivering a team-record 21 spring games to fans—completely free. The Cardinals, who are following a similar MLB-backed model, will stream 16 spring games for free, half of which are available over the air. These choices show a growing willingness among teams to experiment with distribution that bypasses traditional RSN gatekeeping, at least for the spring window.
What’s notable here is the strategic tension between ownership, viewership, and brand value. Teams invest in networks to monetize games and cultivate fan loyalty. When the economics of spring broadcasts don’t line up, they reallocate resources toward content that promises more guaranteed returns. The risk, though, is reputational and relational: fans notice when their teams go quiet on the live game front, and that loss of trust can linger long after a spring training schedule ends.
A potential path forward lies in using spring broadcasts as a showcase for accessibility and fan engagement. The Padres and Cardinals’ more open approach suggests there’s appetite for free or easily accessible content—especially for a sport trying to grow its audience in an era of streaming fatigue and competing entertainment options. If other teams follow suit, we might see a broader shift toward hybrid models that balance the financial realities of RSNs with the cultural expectation of live sports being readily viewable.
In my view, what makes this moment interesting is not just the numbers, but what they signal about baseball’s broader media strategy. Teams are testing how far they can push viewers toward paid bundles while also experimenting with free or low-friction access during high-interest periods like spring training. The key question isn’t merely how many games are broadcast, but how fans are invited to engage, whether on a couch, in a cafe, or while scrolling through a mobile feed. If the industry can converge on a model that preserves revenue without locking out casual fans, baseball’s long-term health stands a better chance.
Bottom line: spring training broadcasts are a microcosm of a larger media shift. Some teams lean into the old RSN paywall, others go lighter and broader with MLB-backed or OTA options. For Cubs and White Sox fans, the current picture is a reminder that access and affordability aren’t guaranteed by proximity to the field—they depend on strategic choices made behind the scenes about how to monetize the next few months of games. The hopeful takeaway is that fans’ willingness to seek alternatives and support more open options could nudge the industry toward a more fan-centric balance in the near future.
