Netflix wants to make one thing very clear: it is not interested in season-long sports packages.
Co-CEO Ted Sarandos reiterated the streamer’s events-based strategy during an appearance on Fox Business Network on Tuesday morning, telling anchor Maria Bartiromo, “We’re not bidding on whole season of sports, including the NFL.”
Netflix has long said it is uninterested in full-season sports rights, instead preferring one-off marquee events that the company claims add incremental value to its bundle of shows, movies, games, and podcasts. However, federal scrutiny into sports fragmentation has brought the topic of live sports on streaming services to the forefront. Bartiromo, perhaps predictably given Fox Corporation’s hand in the political pressure campaign, confronted Sarandos about fans’ frustration as games move off linear television and onto streaming.
“Remember, most folks are paying for television through pay-television packages that are much more expensive than Netflix,” Sarandos said, reminding Bartiromo that even though broadcast networks can hypothetically be accessed for free, most viewers still pay for them through cable, satellite, or virtual bundles.
“As viewers move a little bit from linear more and more into streaming and on-demand, if the games aren’t there, it seems kind of ridiculous. You don’t run in the opposite direction of the American consumer,” the Netflix co-CEO continued.
Bartiromo then asked Sarandos about the regulatory pressure on sports leagues regarding the limited antitrust exemption granted under the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961, and whether that exemption should apply when games are sold to streamers.
“This is something that is great for the consumer because it gives an inexpensive, very affordable way to watch sports, and television, and movies, and kids programming, and podcasts, and play games. All those things for $8.99 is an amazing proposition for consumers,” Sarandos answered. “It’s great for the leagues that they have an active competitive base of folks bidding for those games, so that’s valuable. I think it’s an important part to the American success story of the economy, is that you can lean into it and be competitive, and you have to deliver.”
“So you’re saying this is all just part of the competitive landscape? That’s your answer to the regulatory concern?” Bartiromo pressed. “Because people will say, ‘Look, there’s a concern there’s going to be a handful of tech leadership companies controlling premium entertainment right now.'”
“I’d say people probably said the same thing when pay-television, which most people are probably watching this show on right now, came in and took the place of TV over the antenna. This is kind of a natural evolution of technology and consumer demand,” Sarandos said.
Netflix, for its part, has stayed true to its limited strategy. It has a few NFL games here, a few MLB games there, and some boxing matches in between. It has not been a player for full-season packages. The thing is, that’s what frustrates sports fans the most. If Netflix had a weekly NFL game, it’d be much easier to justify the $8.99 per month subscription price. Instead, because Netflix has only a few sporting events spread throughout the calendar year, each time one comes around, it feels like a move towards the pay-per-view model, not an affordable alternative to the cable bundle.
For the leagues and streamers, it’s the best of both worlds. The leagues can earn some incremental revenue by selling small amounts of inventory to streamers, while streamers can capitalize on subscriptions from sports fans who can’t miss a game. The only person losing is the fan, who continues to foot a more expensive bill for live sports.
About Drew Lerner
Drew Lerner is a staff writer for Awful Announcing and an aspiring cable subscriber. He previously covered sports media for Sports Media Watch. Future beat writer for the Oasis reunion tour.