For over my two decades in sports radio, I never truly understood how Nielsen ratings work. For all the gains and losses the stations I represented experienced, the system never tells a full story of success. However, it’s the system that nearly every radio station must live by to sell its story to advertisers. What’s your target demo? How’s your time spent listening? Your average quarter-hour cume—how do you explain the rise or fall of that figure?
It’s a math problem without a full answer. Yet in radio, Nielsen is the only teacher at the front of the classroom. There’s no competition to push for improvement, and broadcasters remain stuck in a quagmire. Paying fees because they can’t fully sell their own story or leverage their own first-party data with advertisers.
Television is very different. Networks and streaming platforms can subscribe to competitors if they don’t like the story Nielsen tells. Companies like VideoAmp, Comscore, and iSpot have built business models centered on big data rather than relying primarily on panels. With competition comes change. Nielsen had to adapt, and it did. Since then, live sports and the networks that carry them have seen the benefits. So why can’t radio have competition for ratings data again?
When Nielsen rolled out its Big Data + Panel measurement system for networks, the concept was simple: enhance the measurement model to reflect the modern era of television. With that rollout, change followed. The traditional panel of about 42,000 homes was supplemented with data from sources such as set-top boxes and internet-connected smart TVs. At the time, that meant roughly 45 million homes and 75 million devices.
Sports radio programmers and market managers would salivate at that kind of panel increase. Instead of relying on one or two P1-type listeners to carry a station within a target demo, imagine having a few hundred more in comparison.
Now, television networks and leagues are measured through a methodology that includes both linear and streaming platforms, encompassing every major sports broadcaster.
The new measurement system went into effect on September 1 of last year, just in time for the college football and NFL seasons. The results were not stunning—but they were significant.
The NFL averaged 18.7 million viewers per game during the regular season, the second-highest audience since averages began being tracked in 1988—a 10% year-over-year increase.
The NBA began the 2026–2027 season with viewership up 18% compared to the same period last year. That included a total audience of 115 million people in the United States watching national games during that stretch, a new record.
While MLB didn’t see the same impact during most of its regular season, the postseason delivered gains. The 2025 playoffs averaged 6.33 million viewers in the United States, up 28% year over year and the most-watched postseason since 2017.
The NHL didn’t miss out either. At the Winter Olympic break, regular-season games averaged 491,000 viewers, a 15% increase from the same point the year prior.
March Madness? Up 7% over last year, and averaging a record 10.1 million viewers through the first two rounds of action. The first time the tournament has averaged more than 10 million viewers through two round, and highest since 1993.
The Winter Olympics on NBCUniversal nearly doubled viewership from 2022. MLS saw a 59% increase in viewership for its opening weekend last month. Even the Westminster Dog Show posted a 36% increase compared to the prior year.
The question is whether these numbers should be believed. Are there really 36% more people watching a dog show, or is the sample size simply much larger? Is MLS truly drawing 59% more viewers for opening weekend, or has Nielsen finally adapted to data it ignored for years?
If networks and sports leagues can pressure Nielsen to adapt or risk irrelevance, why can’t radio do the same? Yes, audio measurement is a smaller segment than video when it comes to national ad dollars. And yes, Nielsen has filed lawsuits against potential competitors over the years, often citing patent infringement.
Still, radio has never had a stronger case to demand that Nielsen adapt, improve, or step aside.
If television networks and sports leagues can push for better measurement, sports radio should lead that charge on the audio side.
Look at the results.
Those increases in viewership are driving more ad dollars and creating new revenue opportunities. They’re also allowing leagues not just to request—but to demand—higher rights fees from streaming platforms and broadcast networks alike. On the surface, advertisers could take a wait-and-see approach with these figures. Many, however, are not.
Radio can no longer remain handcuffed by a single company controlling its measurement system while retaining the ability to shut down competition. Why pay fees when the system still fails to capture all listening? Would you pay for a full tank of gas if it only gave you half a tank’s worth of use?
You’d buy a different car—one that gives you the full tank for the road ahead.
Radio doesn’t need to burn the entire system down. But it does need to stop accepting one version of the truth as the only version available.
Because that’s what this ultimately comes down to: truth. Not perfect measurement, not flawless data, but a more complete picture of how audiences consume audio in 2026. Streaming, podcasts, smart speakers, in-car apps—the listener has evolved. The measurement, by and large, has not.
Television didn’t wait. Networks, leagues, and advertisers demanded better. When they didn’t get it, they found companies willing to build it. That pressure forced change. It created competition. And ultimately, it fueled growth.
Radio has that same opportunity right in front of it. It may not come from immediate competition, but from the willingness to say no more. There has never been a stronger argument for change than using the Big Data + Panel model as a catalyst for a better future—especially when it comes from the industry’s lone measurement provider.
Radio must hold Nielsen to the same standards demanded by its television counterparts. Sports radio should be leading the charge, and other formats should follow.
Opportunity only matters if there’s a willingness to act. If broadcasters continue accepting incomplete data, they will continue telling incomplete stories—and leave money, leverage, and credibility on the table.
At some point, the industry must decide: Are we comfortable being graded by a system we don’t fully trust, or are we ready to demand one that reflects our true value?
Because until that happens, radio isn’t just underselling its audience. It’s underselling itself.
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.
My belief is that the increases we are seeing for live sports reflect better measurement, not significantly more people tuning in (although that would be great). Much like the increases in radio ratings from the switch to the 3 minute qualifier, same people tuning in but measured better (or more reflective of how other media is measured). Now the real question is will these increases turn into increased revenue?