Modern Sports Viewing: From Cord-Cutting to Subscription Overload
Like about 120 million other people, I watched the fight on Netflix last night—a matchup between 58-year-old Mike Tyson and YouTuber-turned-amateur boxer Jake Paul, who is more than 30 years Tyson’s junior. The bout pitted the seasoned veteran against a social media sensation, drawing a massive audience despite its somewhat predictable outcome. Las Vegas oddsmakers had Paul as the favorite, and once again, Father Time proved to be undefeated. Still, this fight will be the water-cooler topic of the week, not just because it attracted so many viewers that it temporarily crashed Netflix, but because it marked yet another significant shift from traditional cable television to streaming.
In the not-so-distant past, an event of this magnitude would have been broadcast on a pay-per-view basis, with viewers shelling out hefty sums to watch from home and sports bars paying even more for the rights to show it. This time, however, Netflix subscribers got access to the fight at no extra cost—”free” as part of their $15 monthly subscription. And if you think Netflix is stopping at boxing, think again. The streaming giant is making serious moves into the world of live sports, already securing a $150 million deal to broadcast two NFL games this Christmas.
Remember when we all started “cutting the cord” to save money and break free from the grip of cable companies? The irony is hard to ignore. Now, just to follow one sport—professional football—fans need Amazon Prime for Thursday games, Netflix for special matchups, ESPN Plus for Monday night, plus traditional networks like NBC, Fox, and CBS, which may require a digital antenna. Not to mention the need for a streaming service like YouTube TV or Fubo to catch all the other games.
And that’s just the NFL. The situation gets even murkier with local sports. Take Colorado’s beloved regional sports network, Altitude TV, for example. The channel’s broadcasting rights are a Rubik’s Cube of deals: some games are on Dish, some are on various streaming platforms, and others might require that digital antenna. If you have Comcast, you’re completely out of luck, thanks to a five-year standoff between the cable giant and the network that covers the Avalanche and Nuggets.
As for the Rockies? Forget it. They have no local broadcast home. Fans are left with two choices: pay for an MLB TV subscription or cough up $20 a month for a standalone streaming service that only covers their games.
It’s all become too much. We’ve come full circle. Just like in the old days of cable, we’re paying for bundles of channels and services we have little to no interest in, all for the privilege of accessing the sports content we actually want. The only difference is that instead of relying on a thick coaxial cable, our TVs are now draining our Wi-Fi bandwidth at an alarming rate. And let’s not forget, you can’t have broadband without an internet provider—likely the same cable company whose cord you thought you cut. If not them, it’s probably the phone company whose landline you ditched long ago.
No matter which mega-corporation is supplying your internet, sports fans are longing for a simpler, more streamlined future. Imagine being able to choose exactly which games or events you want to watch, paying only for what you select, without being forced to subsidize HGTV or the Food Network.
In an ideal world, TV bills would be calculated based on what you actually consume—a true “pay-per-view” system. Maybe it’s $1.99 to watch a standard game, a bit more for a playoff showdown, or a buck for the latest episode of Yellowstone. A few dozen selections per month would roughly equal the $80-$100 we’re already paying for streaming bundles. The difference would be that viewers would have ultimate control, unshackled from the tyranny of multiple overlapping subscriptions.
Perhaps it’s time to reinvent TV by bringing back the very thing we thought we left behind: real pay-per-view, where you only pay for what you watch, when you watch it.
