ESPN, Fox and Warner Bros. Discovery to launch joint sports streaming platform this year

[maui22]

Walt Disney's ESPN, Fox and Warner Bros. Discovery
plan to launch a joint sports streaming service this fall, sources told CNBC on Tuesday.

The platform, which will be owned by a newly formed company with its own leadership team, does not yet have a name or a price. Disney, Fox and Warner Bros. Discovery will each own a one-third stake.

Consumers would be able to subscribe directly via a new app. Subscribers would also have the ability to bundle the product with the companies’ streaming platforms Disney+, Hulu and Max.

The product will be a skinnier bundle of linear networks than a standard cable offering, specifically tailored for sports fans. It will consist of all the broadcast and cable networks owned by Disney, Fox and Warner Bros. Discovery that carry sports, along with ESPN+.

From Disney, that includes ESPN and its sister networks, such as ESPN2, ESPNU, SECN, ACCN, ESPNEWS, as well as the ABC broadcast network. Warner Bros. Discovery’s networks that showcase sports are TNT, TBS and TruTV. Fox will include the Fox broadcast station along with FS1, FS2 and BTN.

The launch of the product will not stop ESPN from offering a full direct-to-consumer streaming product, which Disney is still researching, according to a person familiar with the matter. ESPN has previously said it plans on releasing that product this year or next year.

The competitors expect to form the joint service at a time when the value of sports media rights is spiking, but viewers have moved away from watching on traditional cable.

Disney, in particular, has suffered from a shift away from its ESPN network, and sought new ways to revive the business.

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/06/esp...oint-sports-streaming-platform-this-year.html

Edit: updated because the original article was updated with more details.

 

[kilik64]

$50/month is pretty L O L

 

[ChipnDale79]

$50/month is pretty L O L

we love sports in my house....but not at that price.

 

[etherealcaitiff]

$50 is a lot, but if it means actually being able to watch local teams then a lot of people will use this. If it's still the old "no local market teams" thing, then this is still pointless to 99% of fans.

 

[kilik64]

$50 is a lot, but if it means actually being able to watch local teams then a lot of people will use this. If it's still the old "no local market teams" thing, then this is still pointless to 99% of fans.

Good point, its just a bundle of tv channels essentially so I'd assume it'll work the same regarding local blackout restrictions. Maybe not, but we will find out that our when it launches.

 

[Tar_Heels_Love_WDW]

Feel like this only makes sense if Bally Sports goes under and MLB/NHL local markets can move to over-the-air/ESPN rather than Amazon picking them up for streaming.

If so, you'd have sufficient coverage of NBA, MLB, NHL, NFL (would need a digital antenna to get local CBS/NBC affiliates), college basketball, college football, Formula 1, NASCAR, and some golf.

big absences are still golf channel, tennis channel, and premier league for soccer. And if Bally either stays afloat or Amazon gets the rights, then you're asking people to pay marginally less than YoutubeTV for a streamlined package of sports services that doesn't even include their local MLB/NHL/NBA teams in a lot of markets. Bold call.

 

[Jrb1979]

Feel like this only makes sense if Bally Sports goes under and MLB/NHL local markets can move to over-the-air/ESPN rather than Amazon picking them up for streaming.

If so, you'd have sufficient coverage of NBA, MLB, NHL, NFL (would need a digital antenna to get local CBS/NBC affiliates), college basketball, college football, Formula 1, NASCAR, and some golf.

big absences are still golf channel, tennis channel, and premier league for soccer. And if Bally either stays afloat or Amazon gets the rights, then you're asking people to pay marginally less than YoutubeTV for a streamlined package of sports services that doesn't even include their local MLB/NHL/NBA teams in a lot of markets. Bold call.

That's also barring in mind that Warner renews their NBA contract.

 

[Cfabar1]

ESPN+ is $12ish a month (and if you have an Amex card it can be like $5 a month or free depending on the card)

That's a price point I can digest. And get to watch a fair amount of games I care about...

They may find there's not as many sports fans as they think. The problem with a sports killer app is I like football and you like baseball... I'm not interested in subscribing in baseball season and you could care in the least about paying for football season.... Among other issues....

Also, many of these games can be watched for free with an HD antenna if they are in your local market...

I think there's a significant chance this product never actually makes it out. The chance this app remakes the sports industry is very small...

 

[Jrb1979]

ESPN+ is $12ish a month (and if you have an Amex card it can be like $5 a month or free depending on the card)

That's a price point I can digest. And get to watch a fair amount of games I care about...

They may find there's not as many sports fans as they think. The problem with a sports killer app is I like football and you like baseball... I'm not interested in subscribing in baseball season and you could care in the least about paying for football season.... Among other issues....

Also, many of these games can be watched for free with an HD antenna if they are in your local market...

I think there's a significant chance this product never actually makes it out. The chance this app remakes the sports industry is very small...

Another thing is what happens when one of the companies lose their contracts to CBS or Comcast?

 

[Brian Noble]

$50/month is pretty L O L

I think it is just about right.

Fubo is about $85, and is truly one-stop shopping for sports. This partnership is missing NBC (NFL, Premiere League, and part of the Big Ten), CBS (NFL, some major golf events, another chunk of the Big Ten) and BeIn (a lot of FIFA and other soccer leagues). But, it's otherwise pretty comprehensive.

I'm not sure where the RSNs fit into this, but they are becoming increasingly irrelevant so might not matter.

Live sports is more or less the only thing that people want to watch in real time--and so it's more or less the only place where commercials are going to see a built-in audience. And for a lot of people, all-you-can-eat sports is the last thing keeping them from cutting the cord. It will be interesting to see if this partnership has enough critical mass to convince people it is all they need for their sports habit. I think the biggest problem is that they are missing the AFC NFL inventory, and as much as the other sports drive traffic, NFL is king.

 

[DackAtak]

It really will be interesting to see what happens with the failure of Bally Sports and Amazon getting involved with them. As a Kansas City Royals fan I'm hoping won't have to pay extra after Amazon Prime.

I am surprised ESPN/ABC/Disney is teaming up like this with other companies.

 

[Disney Bobby]

This deal feels like a Hail Mary pass in desperation. And Iger is no Doug Flutie.

 

[DodgerGirl]

What I think Disney should consider is transforming ESPN into a sports app called DisneySports and believe me if DisneySports became real sports fans would go wild over the app. When you look at it from a different vision Fox Sports and TNT are the biggest moneymakers second to ESPN and by merging with Warner Bros Discovery Fox thinks that this deal is gonna help the struggling ESPN. But they have to compete with Youtube TV and Paramount+ and nearly every time I watch Star Trek Strange New Worlds on Paramount+ they promote sports with promotions like "See Super Bowl on Paramount+ or " Watch Wimbledon Tennis Championship" Exclusively On Paramount+ and the one that began and is responsible for the waning of TV sports is Amazon Prime because ever since Amazon started streaming NFL football the popularity of streaming sporting events took off like a rocket and soon other companies did it too. But I wouldn't pay a huge amount of money to watch the Kentucky Derby or the Daytona 500 or even the Indy 500 but another sport that is turning into a moneymaker for streaming sports is WWE Wrestling and I think once this deal is official Fox is gonna remove WWE Wrestling from the channel and move it to streaming like WWE did with Peacock but whether how this deal goes ESPN the channel will go belly up in the next year or so

 

[Nayan]

I would be all in IF, and only IF, this allowed folks to watch their local teams and no blackouts.

As a huge sports fan it's frustrating that in order to watch my local teams I have to either pay for a very expensive ($200) cable package, wait until they show up on a national feed (sometimes being blacked out there as well) or go without. Since cable is bloated with mostly junk channels I would never watch just to see my teams, I go without, instead opting for YouTube TV and subbing to ESPN+ (need my hockey fix!). If they drop the restrictions, I imagine many folks like myself signing up.

 

[Brian Noble]

As a huge sports fan it's frustrating that in order to watch my local teams I have to either pay for a very expensive ($200) cable package, wait until they show up on a national feed (sometimes being blacked out there as well) or go without.

Check Fubo. It's half the price of that cable (a little less--I'm paying about $95), and in my market includes all of the major broadcast networks plus my local sports regional. Throw in the full family of ESPN (incl. ACC/SEC), Fox Sports (incl B10), and BeIn, plus a handful of league-specific channels: NBA, NHL, MLB, and NFL. You can add RedZone in season for about $11.

 

[WinterSolider]

I would be all in IF, and only IF, this allowed folks to watch their local teams and no blackouts.

As a huge sports fan it's frustrating that in order to watch my local teams I have to either pay for a very expensive ($200) cable package, wait until they show up on a national feed (sometimes being blacked out there as well) or go without. Since cable is bloated with mostly junk channels I would never watch just to see my teams, I go without, instead opting for YouTube TV and subbing to ESPN+ (need my hockey fix!). If they drop the restrictions, I imagine many folks like myself signing up.

Where is cable $200?

I would pay about $200 for cable plus internet, but internet alone is $100 so cable for me is really like $100.

 

[Brian Noble]

I suspect @Nayan is comparing a like-for-like package in terms of sports content. Some of those channels only come at the highest tiers.

But, even for "regular cable", Fubo lists just about what cable does, but cable has more junk fees which raise it about 15-20%.

 

[Nayan]

Fubo doesn't have TBS or TNT, both which carry sports we watch and it's a higher price than YTTV.

The $200 (at least close to it) comes from Spectrums Rate Card for my area. The box and fees, broadcast fee for local stations, RSN fee and taxes come out to just a little more than what I pay for YTTV and that's before even adding the programming package.

 

[Brian Noble]

Ah, that's a good point. I keep forgetting about the Turner stuff, because I don't watch the sports they carry. I never looked at YTTV, because I went to a Pac-12 school and at the time they didn't carry the full lineup of the six regionals.

Of course, that's no longer relevant.