Recent approval of the deal between ESPN and the NFL that will see the league gain a 10% equity stake in the network in exchange for control over key NFL Media assets, including NFL Network and linear distribution rights for NFL RedZone, is not being met well by at least one elected official.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) took to social media on Monday evening to slam the deal.
“Bad news for anyone who watches the NFL: The Trump administration just approved a massive consolidation of sports streaming,” the post read. “It’s a big mistake that will mean higher costs, and fewer choices to watch games.”
The approval process for this deal certainly raises some eyebrows. After the deal was announced in August 2025, reports indicated that regulatory approval would take at least one, and possibly two years. One Disney executive even described late 2026 as the “best case” scenario to get the deal approved.
And unlike numerous other media transactions in the Trump era — think, Skydance’s purchase of Paramount or the ongoing battle for Warner Bros. Discovery — the administration stayed quiet on NFL-ESPN.
Warren has long been an antitrust hawk, attempting to block mergers in industries ranging from media to finance to tech. Recently, she’s come out against any proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery, either by Netflix or Paramount.
There are certainly valid antitrust concerns inherent to the NFL-ESPN tie-up, the most pressing of which would likely center on potential favorable treatment ESPN could receive during the bidding process for broadcast rights. ESPN would figure to have a leg up over other networks and streamers competing for rights considering the NFL owns a stake in the Disney-run network. The partnership could be seen as anti-competitive for that reason.
Warren isn’t necessarily alluding to the market for NFL rights, however. Her concerns seem to be focused on consumer choice and potential price hikes. Increased cost for games is certainly possible, especially in the long-run. But in the near-term, consumers will actually have access to more games for less money.
Under the terms of the deal, ESPN-owned networks will now air 28 games per season, up from 25. Seven of those games will air on NFL Network, which will be included in the price of an ESPN subscription. Whereas before, consumers would’ve had to pay $30 per month for ESPN Unlimited and $7 per month for NFL+ (to access NFL Network), now consumers will receive all of the games on both networks for $30. That is, of course, assuming ESPN doesn’t raise its prices. The network has said it does not plan to do so.
Along those lines, Warren’s assertion that there will be “fewer choices to watch games” doesn’t really make sense in the context of how most fans consume NFL games. For the most part, fans aren’t picking and choosing what games to watch based on what network the game is on. Fans are tuning into games regardless of where they are airing.
One sore spot for fans in recent years has been just how fragmented the NFL broadcast landscape has become. Whereas it used to be possible to watch the vast majority of games simply by subscribing to a cable or satellite bundle, now fans need numerous streaming services to access the league. Along those lines, a bit of consolidation will likely be welcomed by fans. Now, instead of needing to make sure you have access to both ESPN and NFL Network, anyone with an ESPN subscription (or a pay TV package that includes the channel) will also have access to NFL Network.
So while there are legitimate antitrust concerns about the deal, and some reasonable skepticism about why the agreement was approved much sooner than anticipated, Warren’s specific concerns don’t seem like immediate threats.
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.