The Southern Ontario/WNY Radio-TV Forum » Why Monday's Leafs/Sharks Game Wasn't Available on Cable

RadioActive · October 19, 2026 8:40 pm

Forget about free TV or Hockey Night in Canada on the CBC.

Now you can't even watch Monday's Leafs/Sharks game on Sportsnet, which effectively owns the team via Rogers.

Instead, the greed mongers at Big Red have shunted the contest over to Sportsnet+. That "plus" is the extra money you'll have to shell out to subscribe to yet another streaming service. And it can add up.

"If you're a Rogers Xfinity TV customer with Sportsnet, Sportsnet+ is included in your subscription at no extra cost. Anyone with a different provider who's subscribed to Sportsnet can add Sportsnet+ for an extra $12.99 per month.

For fans without cable television, a Sportsnet+ subscription costs $34.99 per month, or $269.99 per year."

This was the first Leaf game only available on the Rogers-owned streamer. But there are another 12 more to come over the course of the season.

In the words of Emerson, Lake & Palmer, "Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends."

It doesn't pay to have Rogers in charge.

But you will.

Why Monday's Leafs/Sharks Game Was Streaming Only

bmaudioworks · October 19, 2026 8:53 pm

Old news... this has been discussed here before. I knew what it would be and who would be crapped on just by your clickbait headline. Just stop creating clickbait or otherwise forward-referencing headlines. This is a message board, not the MSM.

RadioActive · October 19, 2026 8:56 pm

I didn't consider it clickbait and that honestly wasn't my intention. There are no ads here so nothing to gain by doing that. Personally, I'd forgotten that this was tonight, and guessed others might have, too.

mic'em · October 20, 2026 6:20 am

Apparently they won 3-1. Whoop de frickin do.

RadioActive · October 20, 2026 6:28 pm

The Toronto Star's curmudgeonly columnist Vinay Menon weighs in with his take on the new look - or maybe hard to look at - Leafs.

"This franchise, which has not won the Cup in my lifetime, should make it easier for diehards to keep cheering."

Stop being so greedy, Rogers — watching the Leafs on TV should be free

RadioActive · October 21, 2026 5:59 am

And the backlash continues, as the growing anger builds about the new pay-per-game standard being set by Rogers.

Some fans say they simply will not pay for the 'extortion.' But others have found a new way to stick it to Big Red, as outlined in the Toronto Sun.

“I watched the San Jose feed on my IPTV,” was one reply to our post on X. “Rogers are extortionists.”

And further to that chorus:

“I absolutely love that I have a IPTV subscription that completely screws Rogers. God I love sticking it to Canadian programming."

“Forcing people back to Piracy, if that’s what they want.”

Frustrated Canadian hockey fans irate over new streaming costs: ‘First game I missed in a decade’

RadioActive · October 29, 2026 4:01 pm

They really needed a poll to come to this conclusion? I could have told them for free.

Loss of Hockey Night in Canada a major blow to tradition, say majority of fans: poll

mace · October 30, 2026 9:01 am

RadioActive wrote:
They really needed a poll to come to this conclusion? I could have told them for free.

Loss of Hockey Night in Canada a major blow to tradition, say majority of fans: poll

I would fall into the 69% category who have zero interest in watching women's hockey. I have no doubt there is a market for it, but I choose not to be a part of it. Same with basketball. Very little interest in the NBA. Zero in the WNBA.

Shorty Wave · October 31, 2026 9:12 am

RadioActive wrote:
They really needed a poll to come to this conclusion? I could have told them for free.

Loss of Hockey Night in Canada a major blow to tradition, say majority of fans: poll

This has been getting a lot of media coverage of late and I now know why! I went to watch the Monday night Leafs game on AppleTV, which we subscribed to last year partially for the hockey, and I was informed that I now have to cough up $12.99 more. I also checked prime, which my wife gets, and they had a similar message for the Wednesday night games.

I gave it some thought and decided that I wasn’t going to fork out any more money to watch the Leafs, as I already pay Rogers for their Sportsnet channels, including SN One. Enough is enough. I hope there’s enough punters out there feeling the same way, as Rogers has become way too greedy.

I actually found something else to do that evening which I had been procrastinating over doing, so maybe not such a bad evening after all! But seriously, Rogers has gone too far this time and I hope it bites them in the butt.

paterson1 · October 31, 2026 9:51 am

To me it sounds like Apple TV and Prime are the greedy ones. Rogers sold part of their package to them. You already pay for Apple and Prime and now they want more money, $12.99 per month each, just to get Leaf hockey one night per week? Both should be promoting the fact if you purchase their service they now have Leaf hockey every Monday, or in Prime's case every Wednesday. Great way to get new subscribers. But to charge more to existing customers isn't right. That's greedy, and a great way to lose existing subscribers.

Last edited by paterson1 (October 31, 2026 9:56 am)

Ale Ont · October 31, 2026 1:10 pm

I don't think Apple has NHL rights.

Shorty Wave · November 1, 2026 9:21 am

paterson1 wrote:
To me it sounds like Apple TV and Prime are the greedy ones. Rogers sold part of their package to them. You already pay for Apple and Prime and now they want more money, $12.99 per month each, just to get Leaf hockey one night per week? Both should be promoting the fact if you purchase their service they now have Leaf hockey every Monday, or in Prime's case every Wednesday. Great way to get new subscribers. But to charge more to existing customers isn't right. That's greedy, and a great way to lose existing subscribers.

They basically are rerouting subscribers to Sportsnet Plus for this, so you get a break on their $34.99 monthly rate for their Standard tier. Imagine that, paying $34.99 for something you got with your regular Sportsnet cable package last season. I really hope people don’t go for it.

Scarboroughbluffsradiof99 · November 1, 2026 10:45 am

Bell should of had the nhl rights, but rogers snapped them up.
Now, greedy rogers is not even making nhl available on sportsnet, which comes with most of our basic cable and satilite packages.

Ale Ont · November 1, 2026 1:23 pm

Bell would have done the same thing....and Bell does not offer Sportsnet+.

Scarboroughbluffsradiof99 · November 1, 2026 1:28 pm

Ale Ont wrote:
Bell would have done the same thing....and Bell does not offer Sportsnet+.

Well, if bell were smart, they would also put NHL on ctv.
CTV has a wider ota reach than citytv for remote communities who don't have strong wi-fi signals and for us who don't want to pay for a streamer.
How would you like it if you lived in say, remote northern ontario and your hockey game kepped skipping?
I think now, most in these communities have cable or satilite, and city is on both bell and shaw direct and so is ctv, so knowing that, rogers should atleast put some satturday night games on citytv, and weekday games on sportnet's cable channell.

RadioActive · November 1, 2026 3:38 pm

Scarboroughbluffsradiof99 wrote:
Ale Ont wrote:
Bell would have done the same thing....and Bell does not offer Sportsnet+.
Well, if bell were smart, they would also put NHL on ctv.

Sadly, it's not up to Bell. Rogers owns all the rights to the main attraction in this market, the Leafs, and they would have no reason to share it with Bell. I can't help but wonder if the Buds were ever in the Stanley Cup Finals, the pressure to put it on free TV would be so intense, Rogers may not have any choice but to acquiese.

But since that's never going to happen in our lifetime, I guess it's a moot point!

Scarboroughbluffsradiof99 · November 1, 2026 4:27 pm

RadioActive wrote:
Scarboroughbluffsradiof99 wrote:
Ale Ont wrote:
Bell would have done the same thing....and Bell does not offer Sportsnet+.
Well, if bell were smart, they would also put NHL on ctv.
Sadly, it's not up to Bell. Rogers owns all the rights to the main attraction in this market, the Leafs, and they would have no reason to share it with Bell. I can't help but wonder if the Buds were ever in the Stanley Cup Finals, the pressure to put it on free TV would be so intense, Rogers may not have any choice but to acquiese.

But since that's never going to happen in our lifetime, I guess it's a moot point!

I know rogers is greedy and owns the rights, but why are games on TSN 1050 which is owned by bell?
Did bell get to keep radio rights?
Rogers should give up its nhl rights, give them to bell which has more reach in more markets, rogers just shut down its sportsnet stations in calgary and vancouver, TSN has radio stations in ottawa, montreal, and other markets that were not closed down such as 1 still left in Vancouver.
CTV's nearly national, and tsn's on the basic package.

RadioAaron · November 1, 2026 4:56 pm

Scarboroughbluffsradiof99 wrote:
RadioActive wrote:
Scarboroughbluffsradiof99 wrote:

Well, if bell were smart, they would also put NHL on ctv.
Sadly, it's not up to Bell. Rogers owns all the rights to the main attraction in this market, the Leafs, and they would have no reason to share it with Bell. I can't help but wonder if the Buds were ever in the Stanley Cup Finals, the pressure to put it on free TV would be so intense, Rogers may not have any choice but to acquiese.

But since that's never going to happen in our lifetime, I guess it's a moot point!
I know rogers is greedy and owns the rights, but why are games on TSN 1050 which is owned by bell?
Did bell get to keep radio rights?
Rogers should give up its nhl rights, give them to bell which has more reach in more markets, rogers just shut down its sportsnet stations in calgary and vancouver, TSN has radio stations in ottawa, montreal, and other markets that were not closed down such as 1 still left in Vancouver.
CTV's nearly national, and tsn's on the basic package.

Part of the agreement between Rogers and Bell was for Bell to maintain its existing broadcast rights for at least 20 years.

torontostan · November 1, 2026 5:15 pm

Scarboroughbluffsradiof99 wrote:
I know rogers is greedy and owns the rights, but why are games on TSN 1050 which is owned by bell?
Did bell get to keep radio rights?
Rogers should give up its nhl rights, give them to bell which has more reach in more markets, rogers just shut down its sportsnet stations in calgary and vancouver, TSN has radio stations in ottawa, montreal, and other markets that were not closed down such as 1 still left in Vancouver.
CTV's nearly national, and tsn's on the basic package.

Every single point in this is nonsensical. You're intertwining local radio and national TV rights as comparable (it's widely known that they're not even part of the same negotiations), and fail to see the differences between them. Then you've suggested a company "give up" it's multi-billion dollar money maker and hand it to their closest competitor. Why doesn't Loblaws just gift No Frills to Metro?
PS, why can you suddenly type just fine? One warning from RA and suddenly you stop trolling us.

torontostan · November 1, 2026 5:20 pm

RadioAaron wrote:
Part of the agreement between Rogers and Bell was for Bell to maintain its existing broadcast rights for at least 20 years.

That's not entirely true.... TSN retains the right to negotiate and pay fair market price, but they're not entitled to maintain their package as-is. Hence why Rogers and Bell announced an extension of their Raptors agreement until 2036, as opposed to 2046

Scarboroughbluffsradiof99 · November 1, 2026 5:20 pm

torontostan wrote:
Scarboroughbluffsradiof99 wrote:
I know rogers is greedy and owns the rights, but why are games on TSN 1050 which is owned by bell?
Did bell get to keep radio rights?
Rogers should give up its nhl rights, give them to bell which has more reach in more markets, rogers just shut down its sportsnet stations in calgary and vancouver, TSN has radio stations in ottawa, montreal, and other markets that were not closed down such as 1 still left in Vancouver.
CTV's nearly national, and tsn's on the basic package.
Every single point in this is nonsensical. You're intertwining local radio and national TV rights as comparable (it's widely known that they're not even part of the same negotiations), and fail to see the differences between them. Then you've suggested a company "give up" it's multi-billion dollar money maker and hand it to their closest competitor. Why doesn't Loblaws just gift No Frills to Metro?
PS, why can you suddenly type just fine? One warning from RA and suddenly you stop trolling us.

I've slowed down and learned from other readers how to listen to Jaws and read with the aro keys.
Loblaws, that greedy company should also sell noFrills to my favourite company, metro.
Turn all noFrills locations into the superior Food basics.

RadioAaron · November 1, 2026 5:23 pm

torontostan wrote:
RadioAaron wrote:
Part of the agreement between Rogers and Bell was for Bell to maintain its existing broadcast rights for at least 20 years.
That's not entirely true.... TSN retains the right to negotiate and pay fair market price, but they're not entitled to maintain their package as-is. Hence why Rogers and Bell announced an extension of their Raptors agreement until 2036, as opposed to 2046

I know, I was oversimplifying to hopefully be understood.

ED1 · November 1, 2026 6:47 pm

I’m wondering if any of the radio rights holders have seen an uptick in listeners for games that are airing exclusively on Sportsnet+ or Amazon Prime.

Scarboroughbluffsradiof99 · November 1, 2026 7:37 pm

ED1 wrote:
I’m wondering if any of the radio rights holders have seen an uptick in listeners for games that are airing exclusively on Sportsnet+ or Amazon Prime.

I'm 1 of the radio listeners.
I can get more of the commentary that tv misses, and I'm not paying for sportsnet plus when sportsnet comes in my cable package.

ED1 · November 1, 2026 9:44 pm

Scarboroughbluffsradiof99 wrote:
ED1 wrote:
I’m wondering if any of the radio rights holders have seen an uptick in listeners for games that are airing exclusively on Sportsnet+ or Amazon Prime.
I'm 1 of the radio listeners.
I can get more of the commentary that tv misses, and I'm not paying for sportsnet plus when sportsnet comes in my cable package.

I always tune in to 880 CHED via iHeart whenever the Oilers are playing (sorry) and I'm in the car. This time around I was listening at home. Didn't feel like I was missing out because the play by play and commentary were great. Hopefully those who don't want to go to a pirate IPTV stream will go to the radio instead.

Shorty Wave · Yesterday 7:47 am

Ale Ont wrote:
I don't think Apple has NHL rights.

You’re right Ale Ont, it’s baseball they streamed, I watched some Jays game on their service. I wonder if Rogers is going to try and squeeze us for baseball next season?!

Scarboroughbluffsradiof99 · Yesterday 6:21 pm

ED1 wrote:
Scarboroughbluffsradiof99 wrote:
ED1 wrote:
I’m wondering if any of the radio rights holders have seen an uptick in listeners for games that are airing exclusively on Sportsnet+ or Amazon Prime.
I'm 1 of the radio listeners.
I can get more of the commentary that tv misses, and I'm not paying for sportsnet plus when sportsnet comes in my cable package.
I always tune in to 880 CHED via iHeart whenever the Oilers are playing (sorry) and I'm in the car. This time around I was listening at home. Didn't feel like I was missing out because the play by play and commentary were great. Hopefully those who don't want to go to a pirate IPTV stream will go to the radio instead.

Iheart's great for hockey.
If rogers steels the radio rights, we would have to swich to the inferier seekr insted and the only teem that will have itsown station is the leefs if rogers steels the rights from both bell and corus.
Maybe that's greedy rogers's next move in the future.
I should'nt give them any ideas.