ESPN is facing down the barrel of a self-made paradox: the company’s upcoming full-service streaming platform, creatively named “ESPN,” might accelerate cord-cutting while potentially making streaming more expensive for consumers. ESPN isn’t doing this out of spite or stupidity, though. Cable still throws off billions in revenue for a select few networks ($10.5 billion for ESPN in 2024). But the industry faces its last gasps. Since 2011, ESPN has lost 37 million subscribers, per State of the Screens, while the number of U.S. TV viewers who don’t subscribe to pay-TV will soon surpass the number who do. Remaining in the pay-TV bundle without a digital succession plan offers about as much viability as Bob Iger’s failed torch-passing. ESPN’s streaming launch serves as a bellwether for the business that could either consolidate sports streaming or fragment it further. Either way, its success or failure will directly impact you, dear consumer.
ESPN+, the brand’s first real foray into streaming in 2018, boasts 25 million subscribers. However, most subscribers access the service through the Disney Bundle (Disney+, Hulu, ESPN+), and many remain inactive. Still, for those that do engage with the streamer’s second-tier offerings, where linear ESPN’s primary live sports aren’t available, the platform proves that demand exists.
ESPN+ showed that hungry fans will watch sports anywhere, but “left consumers wanting more in terms of live premium content,” Ryan Schreiber, founder and CEO of streaming aggregator Streamline, told Observer. In that way, ESPN+ served as a “soft launch” that revealed that “loyalty is shaped less by heritage than by habitual usability,” Lyric Mandell, Director of Media and Public Relations at MOXY Company, said. The platform helped the company understand audience behavior in an entirely new viewing environment that they controlled. Disney gathered comprehensive data on personalization preferences, consumption habits and price sensitivity.
Owning the direct-to-consumer relationship this way, instead of letting Comcast or Spectrum control it, provides invaluable data and user behavior insights.
Sports streaming is getting “more expensive and messier.”
ESPN priced its service at $29.99 per month. Disney priced it high enough that cable providers don’t revolt over immediate cannibalization. But does the price prove too costly for price-conscious cord-cutters and cord-nevers? After all, this holds the distinction of being the most expensive monthly subscription among all the other prominent streamers.
Schreiber thinks the bundle offer—in which $29.99 will include Disney+, Hulu and ESPN for new sign-ups in the first 12 months—will help convince consumers to hop aboard. That is admittedly a nice value.
Mandell notes that sports content pricing represents “scarcity value in an age of digital abundance.” ESPN owns only so many major live sports broadcast rights and controls many marquee titles: Monday Night Football, some NBA, some NHL, some MLB (for one more season), UFC, various NCAA rights, etc. Any sports fan seeking access to major events likely needs ESPN. But the company doesn’t own all the sports rights.
ESPN isn’t the sole broadcaster for the NFL, NBA, MLB, March Madness or the College Football Playoffs. Not by a long shot. ESPN alone will never host a Super Bowl (though corporate sibling network ABC will). To watch all sports from America’s Big Four leagues requires a waterfall of different subscriptions and payments. As Schreiber noted, “it’s all getting more expensive and messier.”
Disney’s long game
ESPN executives aim to transform the brand into the go-to digital hub for all sports content, including competitors’. Think of how Roku, Apple and Amazon devices serve as the mechanism through which you subscribe to and engage with other apps. Becoming the tech backbone of the sports broadcast industry represents a wonderful ambition. This approach would simplify the user experience for you and me watching at home, which offers immense value. But the strategy may not be entirely realistic.
“It feels pretty unlikely. I think we are just headed for more fragmentation,” Schreiber said. Mandell echoes this sentiment, noting that “platform convergence” of this scale requires negotiations of “not just rights, but semiotic space.” Other brands will demand their identities remain preserved and data firewalls maintained. Technical fluidity favors Netflix over Disney, and juggling that many agendas would challenge any corporate umbrella.
Disney’s higher-ups know that this aggregation pipedream is unlikely to come to fruition. But converting the company’s brand power into digital engagement is crucial for its future as it evolves from pure storytelling to ecosystem building.
ESPN serves as Disney’s “most immediate conduit to live cultural relevance,” Mandell said. The company doesn’t just want you to watch games and then sever your connection. It wants you to watch the NFL, play fantasy football, bet on the Washington Commanders through ESPN Bet, ingest analysis from its NFL reporters, buy merchandise, and live and breathe all on its own platform for as long as it can keep you. This transcends just sports entertainment. Disney pursues the goal of developing habitual lifestyle patterns.
So, what does success look like for ESPN’s streaming future? Schreiber estimates that streaming ESPN can get 100 million subscribers in its first three years. In the medium term, or five years out, we’ll want to get a strong grasp of platform stickiness and integration into daily routines. Success will no longer depend solely on how many customers sign up, but on how long ESPN retains them and how long they remain on-platform.
At the 10-year mark, “ESPN should aim to become a meta-platform, shaping the norms and logics of how live sports are accessed, discussed, and monetized,” Mandell said. This would represent a “symbolic dominance” that stretches beyond just revenue and subscriber figures. This is akin to Netflix’s position as the default streaming entertainment service.
A new course for sports media
Live sports are the primary reason remaining pay-TV subscribers haven’t cut the cord. But the launch of ESPN and Fox’s upcoming streamer, Fox One, suggests that traditional pay-TV faces a more definitive end. However, whether streaming can truly replace the experience of TV is another question entirely.
“Live sports continues to dominate television – from brands and advertisers to what audiences are showing up to consume on a live basis,” Raquel Braun, co-founder of media consulting agency Mulier Fortis, told Observer. “Therefore, one of the keys will be how frictionless of an experience can ESPN provide to sports fans – whether they’re current cable subscribers who want to access content via ESPN’s new service, ESPN+ users who want a more robust experience, or new customers who are looking for the best and deepest bench of sports content they can find in one place.”
By the same token, can streaming ESPN chart new courses in sports media? Visibility sets the conversational agenda at the national level. “With women’s sports drawing growing audiences but receiving just 15 percent of media coverage, ESPN has a chance to reshape what counts as central in the sports narrative,” Mandell noted.
Make no mistake about it—ESPN’s transition represents a defining moment for sports media. ESPN’s move to streaming and its consequences will matter at the financial, corporate, consumer and cultural levels. The outcome will help decide who wins in the ongoing battle between the frictionless desires of audiences and the reality of market fragmentation. Whether ESPN can bridge this gap as a true epicenter of sports or whether we’re destined to scramble about to watch everything we want while being gouged by high costs remains to be seen.
Stephen A. DISAGREES | First Take
