| So, who are the biggest winners and losers from this deal? (We are talking about sports, after all.)
I initially thought about gambling companies and their live-betting feature.
Games on YouTubeTV, for example, are noticeably delayed compared to cable TV broadcasts. If this new service has latency issues, will people be less likely to place live wagers? (Although, some view the streamers as a big opportunity.)
I turned to the experts — Peter, Nathan, and Ashley — to get their take on how things could shake out.
Winners
Peter: Media business nerds like myself. We’ve been wondering for a decade what it would take for someone to pull sports out of the pay-tv bundle. Now we get to find out what happens next.
Nathan: Consumers. We can debate how much of a market there is for this new streamer, but choice is generally a great thing — especially when the default is the ever-worsening world of cable TV.
Ashley: Fox. It’s a smaller company than ESPN and Warner Bros. Discovery and wouldn’t make sense for its own streamer. This gives it a chance to bundle with the bigger dogs to reach streaming viewers it probably couldn’t have otherwise.
Losers
Peter: NFL fans. Following America’s most popular sport already requires fans to navigate four broadcast channels, a couple of cable channels, and Amazon prime video. This new package, which will include about half of the nationally televised games, adds yet another thing to keep track of.
Nathan: Cable news. If this is the start of the long journey of sports splitting off from the cable bundle, TV news has to start figuring out its post-cable future. The clock is ticking!
Ashley: Comcast and Paramount. They were left out and may now face pressure to figure out their own strategies for sports streaming. |