Sure, it's quite simple. Big market teams make a good chunk of their income from local TV deals. Without that income they are not profitable. However, the Mets (like the Yankees) are different. Technically the Mets get zero income from their local TV deal. SNY keeps it all. So the Mets are not profitable. That doesn't mean the Wilpons are not profitable, but their profit comes from their equity stake in SNY, not from their equity stake in the Mets.
Per Wikipedia, the value of the Mets was estimated in 2013 to be $2.1B. Of that, the majority ($1.2B) of the value was estimated to pertain to the SNY equity stake. In other words, the Mets without SNY were worth $900M.
So, the Mets are NOT literally worthless without SNY. It's quite possible that the Wilpons will sell the Mets and keep SNY, although the sale price will be heavily discounted. Three factors to be considered:
- SNY's rights to broadcast the Mets has an expiration date. 2032 I think. A buyer may be willing to accept losses in the meantime.
- If you are a prospective Mets purchaser, and your motivation is financial, income is not your concern. Capital appreciation is. No purchaser of an MLB franchise has been disappointed so far. Maybe the bubble will burst someday, but it hasn't yet. Because...
- There is no greater status symbol than owning an MLB franchise. The club is restricted to 30 members. That's out of a world population of 7.8 billion. Pretty exclusive, no? SOMEBODY is always willing to pay this price, and view annual losses as their very expensive membership dues.