[add-sub-mul-div]

If I'm understanding that right then the games are available to watch legally, it's a problem self-inflicted by the customers who choose not to get the service they're available on. Because it's not their preferred service.

[JohnMakin]

Are you aware that in many areas of Los Angeles, and I'm sure other areas too, you often only have a single choice of cable/phone/internet provider? So no, you couldn't be further off.

[vel0city]

Cable companies have monopolies. For a lot of people, they couldn't even choose to pay for the cable operator who owned the station. For a long time only 30% of the market could even get the channel if they wanted to. Now it's only slightly better because theoretically one can stream it on DirecTV's stupid expensive streaming service or get it on one satellite provider but not any of the others.

[toast0]

Yes, the games are available to watch legally, and you have choices. You can choose to watch the game in person (seats are available or they wouldn't have a local blackout), or travel out of the area where you'll be able to watch it on TV.

[nullwarp]

Spoken truly like someone who's never wanted to follow their favorite sports team in their life.

[xnyan]

> Because it's not their preferred service.

Right. What's your point? Virtually all media is available for free via consequence-free piracy, but generally at the cost of quality and convenience. I don't see that ever changing. Legitimate venders can provide a better quality product. That's how you sell, you become the preferred service by offering a better version at a price the customer is both willing and able to pay.

Customers don't have a problem, they can always get a form of the media they want if they are willing to pay in price or convenience.