For all the talk about cable’s steady decline and the emergence of streamers as a bidder for live sports rights, one platform is consistently overlooked: YouTube.
It makes no sense. In terms of time spent viewing content on television screens, YouTube is far and away the most popular streaming platform. Last month, YouTube captured 12.5% of all time spent watching television. The next highest streamer? Netflix at 7.5%.
Why, then, has YouTube been so overlooked when it comes to being a future destination for live sports? The company has already started to dabble. The upcoming NFL season will be the third in which YouTube owns the league’s out-of-market Sunday Ticket package. YouTube will also exclusively air a Friday night NFL game from Brazil in Week 1 for free, marking the first time the platform has exclusively aired a live game from a major league. And the company just poached longtime Disney/ESPN executive Justin Connolly to be its global head of sports, a move that upset Disney so much that they filed a lawsuit to try and block it.
All of these moves would seemingly signal that YouTube is ready to be a big player in live sports. In a world where leagues are obsessed with reach, YouTube has the most. It’s also free, ubiquitous, and seamless. Any league that struck a deal with YouTube would immediately sport the most fan-friendly broadcast distribution possible. No cable or satellite subscription. No paid streaming platform. Just a device that connects to the internet and the YouTube app. It’s a fan’s dream.
It’s clear that league’s would love to have their games on YouTube, assuming the platform paid a market rate for them. The question is, does it make sense for YouTube to pay for expensive sports rights when they already have such a stranglehold on people’s attention?
Given their recent moves, they seem to think so. But the business model isn’t as clear for YouTube as it is for other streamers. Netflix, for instance, can drive tangible growth by paying millions (or, for some leagues, billions) of dollars annually for live rights. When Netflix exclusively airs the FIFA Women’s World Cup in 2027, it’s all but guaranteed the streamer will see a massive jump in global subscriptions. Last year, when NBC and Peacock broadcast the Paris Olympics, the streaming service saw tangible subscriber growth.
YouTube, on the other hand, doesn’t operate on a subscription model. Its business is largely advertiser-driven, and the platform relies on low or no-cost user generated content to engage its viewers. What incremental value would buying a package of NFL games add for YouTube? Would it attract enough non-YouTube users to the platform for it to make financial sense? That seems unlikely given YouTube’s ubiquity. Would it convert more users into YouTube Premium subscribers? Perhaps, especially if, say, instead of seeing commercials during games fans were given additional studio content or something similar.
Still, it’s hard to imagine a model that would see the platform turn a profit on expensive sports rights. Could YouTube introduce a paid tier? Sure, but that would just make them another Netflix, Hulu, or Peacock.
The grand plan might be entertainment domination. A one stop shop for all things live, on-demand, and user generated. If YouTube’s endgame is being the “hub” for all video content, live sports can help them get there. And given Google’s deep pockets, they won’t have to directly turn a profit off of live sports to make it a good investment.
That’s a long ways away, but could be where all of this is going. For now, one thing seems clear. YouTube is definitely interested in live sports. It’s just a matter of which ones, and how they decide to roll them out.
