There isn't a sector I can think of that is more ripe for disruption than sports broadcasting.
I think it's pretty undeniable to say that sports streaming is a dumpster fire right now. Sports fans are made to feel like Cirque du Soleil performers balancing seven different streaming services at once, each of which shows about 10% of the games they care about, and quite frankly they're just SOL trying to track down the remaining 30%. You need a magnifying glass and a trench coat to figure out how and where to watch a casual Sunday afternoon football game. It's really no wonder so many people choose to just pirate the games instead.
The reason for this is simple: as has been well-documented, live sports, and specifically the NFL, are the only thing keeping cable TV's head above water. This is the reason TV networks are willing to pay over $100 billion to maintain the cable TV broadcasting rights for NFL games. The networks know that the minute they lose the NFL, they lose the entire cable TV arm of their business.
And considering they monetary size of contracts we're talking about here, I expect the NFL won't have any significant desire to dive head-first into a new business model or delivery platform. The opportunity cost of losing those lucrative cable TV contracts is just too high. It's crystal clear that online streaming is the future of the entire TV industry, and I would be extremely surprised if cable TV as we know it still existed 20 years from now. But until then, the NFL is more than happy to be a luxury retirement home for these aging cable networks to make CBS feel happy about itself while it dies. There's just too much money involved to change course.
Sure, plenty of networks and streaming services are dipping their toes into this digital water. Amazon Prime now has exclusive streaming rights for Thursday Night Football. Apple TV+ is trying to make itself the home of Friday night baseball. Peacock and Paramount+ will be streaming various Big 10 games as part of the conference's new media rights agreement announced earlier this month. But a bunch of different services "dipping their toes in the water" isn't what consumers want. A bunch of different services "dipping their toes in the water" just decentralizes broadcasting even more and makes it even harder for sports fans to track down where to watch their favorite team.
Take NFL+ as an example. It's exciting to see the NFL begin exploring an in-house streaming service, but the service only shows local market games, and those games can only be watched on a phone or tablet. It's a horrible fan experience when every streaming option comes with a list of "buts" as long as On the Road.
In my head, the textbook definition of a sector ripe for disruption is, "A sector where so much money is involved that the primary competitors are reluctant to make any big bets on innovation in fear of disrupting their current business models." That's what happened with Blockbuster. That's what happened with Sears. That's what happened with CDs. And that's what will someday happen with sports streaming. There's simply too much interest from fans and too much money on the table for someone someday to eventually crack this riddle and centralize full leagues under one roof and one plan just like Spotify did for music and Netflix did for scripted television and Amazon did for retail. I think the biggest variable in the question isn't if this will happen but when it will happen. The right company needs to come along at a time when the sports leagues finally hit a crisis point and realize they have to fully pivot or else go down with the sinking cable TV ship, and it's unclear exactly when that crisis is going to hit. A lot of startups will die trying to answer that question.
But it's so clearly the future. I just can't wait to be there.
Comments