The FCC is now interested in how you watch sports on television. Yesterday, the Federal Communications Commission opened a wide-ranging inquiry into the evolving sports media marketplace, requesting public comment on how games moving to streaming platforms are affecting consumers.
If FCC Chairman Brendan Carr would like to look at my personal bank account, I’d be happy to oblige. My monthly payments to Prime Video, ESPN Unlimited, Peacock, and Netflix prove that watching sports in 2026 is not only becoming more fragmented, but also more expensive. Oh, I almost forgot the added MLB.tv add-on I need to watch my local MLB team this year because Main Street Sports Group couldn’t pay its bills.
It’s sort of cute to see how the FCC tries to balance testing the First Amendment while fighting the good fight for the sports fan. However, what can the FCC even do to curb the path the sports viewing experience has already taken long ago?
When I read the inquiry posted Wednesday afternoon, I chuckled. I knew this was another attempt by a government body that cannot prevent leagues from selling their rights to streaming platforms. That’s why it was amusing to see a reference to the 1939 World’s Fair, when NBC broadcast a college baseball game between Princeton and Columbia at Baker Field in New York, used as historical context.
Just like anything else in government, it’s always looking backward to make sense of the present but rarely looking forward.
Here are the questions the FCC is asking in its inquiry.
Q: How have recent developments in the marketplace affected the ability of broadcasters to obtain media rights to sports programming?
A: Prime Video, Netflix, and YouTube entering the live rights space have drastically changed how traditional broadcasters can afford rights. That’s why traditional broadcast networks like CBS (Paramount+), NBC (Peacock), FOX (FOX One), and ABC (ESPN DTC) have all built their own direct-to-consumer platforms to compete.
Q: How have changes in the marketplace affected viewers’ ability to watch nationally televised live sports, as well as their local team(s) on broadcast TV?
A: Not every sport is the same. Let’s focus on national NBA broadcasts. Before the season began, MarketWatch found fans who want to watch every NBA game online this season — regular season and playoffs — will need to spend roughly $939 across five streaming services. Cable subscribers can still access NBC, ABC, and ESPN, but they’ll miss exclusive matchups on Peacock and Amazon, which stream games weekly.
If you have a local team, you may need to purchase access to your local RSN to watch local broadcasts because not every RSN is carried on cable without an upcharge. Also, that model will change next season with the demise of Main Street Sports Group.
In other words, it’s tougher and more expensive. That’s just one example from one league. Let’s not even get into the added costs and fragmentation with MLB, NHL, and the NFL. Plus, if you’re a fan of F1, MLS, or NASCAR, there are additional hurdles to clear.
Q: What type of rights are included in agreements between leagues or conferences and national video programming distributors? (This is in reference to exclusivity, simulcasts, and replays.)
A: From a consumer standpoint, no one watches a replay of a live sporting event. Technology has already addressed the consumer’s need for information and outcomes in real time almost erasing a need for a replay.
Q: How prevalent are sports media rights deals between local TV broadcasters and local sports teams, and what are their terms and conditions?
A: With the decline of the RSN model, over-the-air agreements are becoming fewer as teams and leagues build and produce their own streaming platforms. See MLB this season.
Q: How have changes in the marketplace impacted costs to consumers?
A: Chairman Carr, give me a ring and I’ll let you peer into my checking account.
I’ll be submitting my answers accordingly.
The bigger question regarding the inquiry is why? The FCC cannot prevent sports leagues from making money from distributors willing to pay for their product. Leagues benefit from fragmentation in sports media. The more platforms audiences gravitate toward, the bigger the checks they receive.
It’s been reported that YouTube will get a four-game NFL slate next season. Do you think the NFL will turn down money from Google because it could affect how fans access the game?
After the 2028 season, MLB is looking to cash in on its RSN mess with a more centralized distribution model. That could include a combination of traditional networks, streaming platforms, and possibly another route not yet invented, which would only further fragment the industry.
The NBA is locked into its deals for the next decade. Is the FCC under the current administration going to tell the NBA it needs to rework those agreements to better cater to consumers?
Do you truly think the FCC is going to tell Roger Goodell he has to pump the brakes on media rights discussions this summer?
Sports is a luxury commodity, and it’s moving toward what was once called pay-per-view. Watching sports is becoming a luxury item for consumers.
I used to love watching my teams on over-the-air television. Then cable arrived, and I had to start paying to watch my favorite teams. That was a change in habit. Then streaming platforms came along, leagues chased the dollar, and the fan became secondary. Fans have already adapted and continue to do so with each new media rights agreement. Another change in habit.
Does it cost more to watch sports? Of course it does. Are fans ever going to stop following their favorite teams? No. But attending games isn’t exactly cheaper than paying a flat fee to watch from your couch.
I respect the effort by the FCC. However, getting involved in the private business decisions of broadcasters is a fight it simply cannot win. Sports organizations and leagues have the absolute freedom to sell their rights to any platform for any price they choose.
So yes, Mr. Chairman, by all means hold the inquiry. Ask the questions. Open the comment window.
But understand this: the marketplace already voted. The contracts are signed. The checks have cleared. The leagues aren’t looking for guidance — they’re looking for the next bidder. The FCC can study the fragmentation of sports television all it wants. The fragmentation isn’t the problem.
It’s the business model. And that model isn’t broken. It’s working exactly as designed. Sports has evolved from a civic pastime to a premium subscription ecosystem. The only real question left isn’t what the FCC will do.
It’s how much more fans are willing to pay before they finally change the channel.
Barrett Media produces daily content on the music, news, and sports media industries. Sign up for our newsletters to stay updated and get the latest information right in your inbox.
John Mamola is Barrett Media’s sports editor and daily sports columnist. He brings over two decades of experience (Chicago, Tampa/St Petersburg) in the broadcast industry with expertise in brand management, sales, promotions, producing, imaging, hosting, talent coaching, talent development, web development, social media strategy and design, video production, creative writing, partnership building, communication/networking with a long track record of growth and success. He is a five-time recognized top 20 program director in a major market via Barrett Medi’s Top 20 series and has been honored internally multiple times as station/brand of the year (Tampa, FL) and employee of the month (Tampa, FL) by iHeartMedia. Connect with John by email at John@BarrettMedia.com.
