Connect with us

Sports

Will the Super Bowl ever be behind a streaming paywall? Here's what it'd take

Published

on

The year is 2045. Fourth week in February. After a grueling 21-week regular season and five rounds of playoffs, the Super Bowl matchup is set: Buffalo Bills versus London Jaguars. The NFL is anticipating 130 million viewers will stream the game on Netflix, which serves as the exclusive home of the Super Bowl following a multibillion-dollar deal the company signed with the league in 2040.

Those who don’t have a subscription to the streaming service can pay $149 for a one-month trial that includes access to the game through one of Netflix’s 10 Megacast Super Bowl feeds. One popular Megacast option will be the Legends Room, where retired players Patrick Mahomes, Josh Allen and C.J. Stroud interact live with viewers while watching the game. Adam Amin, Greg Olsen and Laura Rutledge will call the game on Netflix’s main NFL channel.

Sound far-fetched? Maybe it would have been 10 years ago. While a thought exercise on the NFL making the Super Bowl a pay-per-view event is nothing new, what is new is the era we are living in. Last month’s first-ever exclusive, live-streamed NFL playoff game on Peacock felt like a seismic moment.

Peacock paid $110 million to air the Kansas City Chiefs’ 26-7 win over the Miami Dolphins in the AFC wild-card round, an attempt to add to its tally of 30 million subscribers. Antenna, a research firm that tracks streaming data, estimated that Peacock had 2.8 million sign-ups over a three-day window around the wild-card game, which averaged 23 million viewers. It was the single biggest subscriber acquisition moment ever measured by Antenna.

Is the Super Bowl behind a paywall an inevitability in the next 40 years or so?

Advertisement

“Given the rate of cord-cutting is over 7 percent, or five million homes gone every year, the odds are very good that the Super Bowl will be on a streaming platform in ‘our’ lifetime,” said Michael Nathanson, the co-founder and senior managing director of research firm MoffettNathanson, which provides trends in media, communications and technology to institutional investors.

NFL officials have repeatedly stated that the league is committed to broadcast television and the broad distribution of games. Hans Schroeder, the NFL’s executive vice president of media distribution, told reporters last month, including The Athletic, that “you can’t reach 190 million people throughout the course of the year without having very broad distribution of your content, and that’s always been a bedrock for us. … Every one of our games is on broadcast television, at least in their market, and probably 90 percent of our games are on broadcast as their core platform. For us, it remains really important.”

Sean McManus, the longtime chairman of CBS Sports, who is retiring from his post later this year, noted that such a conversation can’t happen until after this current set of NFL media rights expires. The league’s media rights agreements with CBS, NBC, Fox, ESPN and Amazon are worth about $110 billion and run through the 2033 season.

go-deeper

GO DEEPER

Super Bowl LVIII projections: Chiefs meet 49ers in rematch of 2020 game

“There’s no immediate worry,” McManus said. “(NFL commissioner) Roger Goodell has been very upfront that broad distribution is part of the reason the NFL is successful as it is. Yes, the NFL expanded with some games on Peacock, including a playoff game. … But when you have 56 million people watching the AFC Championship Game (on CBS), that’s a great success story. I can’t speak for Netflix, Amazon or Apple whether it makes business sense for them to pay hundreds of millions for a playoff game, but I do know linear television is extremely important to the success of the NFL.”

Advertisement

Along with McManus, David Levy, the former president of Turner Sports and now the co-CEO of Horizon Sports & Experiences, a sports marketing agency and consultancy, also believes that the Super Bowl will remain on broadcast, free-to-air television for years to come.

“Broadcast and free-to-air is still the largest reach vehicle,” Levy said. “You’re always building your next generation of fans, and they want the place to get the largest reach. Thirty years from now? I can’t answer that because I don’t know who will be the commissioner of the NFL and who would be owning these teams.”

Levy was very positive about the NFL product appearing on streaming services. But he noted an important point: Any streaming service airing the Super Bowl exclusively would need its own production capabilities and enough of a proof of concept with production elements where the NFL would feel confident to put its most important property in their hands. That’s not something Netflix or Apple have at the moment.

“Everyone expects to turn on network television and see a Super Bowl,” said Tracy Wolfson, the NFL sideline reporter who is calling Sunday’s game for CBS. “I think you alienate those that cannot watch it. I wouldn’t be surprised if we see more playoff games there, but I think when it comes to the Super Bowl, it is how many eyeballs and making sure it is available for all to watch.”

Kansas City Chiefs

A Super Bowl behind a streaming paywall seems far-fetched. But 10 years ago, it was hard to imagine a Chiefs-Dolphins playoff game on something called Peacock. (Jamie Squire / Getty Images)

William Mao, a senior vice president of global media rights at Octagon, a sports and entertainment agency, believes we are not likely in the next 20 to 25 years to see a Super Bowl airing exclusively on a streaming service in the U.S. if free-to-air TV penetration (remains larger than any single subscription video-on-demand base. He said his answer would change only when (or if) a paywall streamer has the subscriber reach capacity near to the free-to-air penetration of today.

Advertisement

“So long as the Super Bowl continues to be the most-watched live TV broadcast by a wide margin, it will remain available on free-to-air in some shape or form,” Mao predicted. “The aggregation of 100 million-plus viewers on a single broadcast remains too big of an advertising draw to exclusively paywall, and all signs point to the continued upswing in Super Bowl ratings and ad rates via its current distribution.

“Could there come a point in the future where something else knocks the Super Bowl off the top perch? Sure, never say never. But right now the gap between the first and second most-watched broadcasts in America is over 60 million viewers. So why would the NFL upset its own dominant and extremely lucrative standing?”

Mao pointed out that the Super Bowl is unique because it draws in tons of casual viewers. People watch the game for a variety of reasons, including the commercials and halftime music acts. He wondered if top music performers would continue to perform the halftime show at little cost if the broadcast was behind a paywall and not guaranteed to reach the same-sized audience. There would also be some folks in Congress with an interest if the NFL headed down this road.

This discussion feels much more relevant in 2024 because of the Peacock game. We don’t know how many new subscribers will stick with Peacock long-term, and the game was not 100 percent exclusively streaming because it appeared on free-to-air television in Kansas City and Miami. But the NFL placed one of its premium inventory games behind a paywall.

“The Peacock number was solid, and the broadcast provided an informative reference point for future NFL games that get similarly distributed,” Mao said. “For example, will a 40 percent lesser ad load become the norm for streamer games? But there are still many moves between shifting one of many wild-card games to a streamer versus moving the biggest game of the year. In my view, the Super Bowl should be one of the last things to go exclusively behind a paywall in the NFL’s portfolio.”

Advertisement

It’s not easy to come up with a price point for a Super Bowl behind a paywall. Is there a ceiling for what is far and away the most popular communal TV experience for Americans every year (as well as close to nine million Canadians)? Going back to the hypothetical lede of this article: Say Netflix got 30 million new signups for a Super Bowl experience at $149. That’s nearly $4.5 billion. That doesn’t include advertising revenue. There would be a ton of subscriber churn post-Super Bowl, for sure, but there would also be those who stay with the product and then pay for the annual subscription.

“I don’t think the question is about a single-game price point,” Mao said. “If the Super Bowl were to have an exclusive streaming future, it would first more likely be as part of a set of broader rights.”

When I posed the pricing point question to Nathanson, he said it was hard to figure out a definitive number.

“That’s a good question,” Nathanson said. “How many people paid $6 for a wild-card game pay-per-view on Peacock? It would obviously be multiples (more than that).”

We are unlikely to see the NFL head down this road in the short- or medium-term. But ask yourself if, back in 2014, you imagined that you would ever have to pay to watch an NFL playoff game.

Advertisement
go-deeper

GO DEEPER

Behind the scenes with the NFL on CBS: How stats and graphics get to your TV


• Major sports outlets always send a small army to the Super Bowl site. Las Vegas has amplified that. Here are the coverage plans for CBS Sports, DraftKings/VSiN, ESPN, NBC Sports and NFL Network.

• The challenge for the CBS Sports production team for Super Bowl LVIII, if Taylor Swift makes it to the game to watch Travis Kelce and the Chiefs take on the San Francisco 49ers, is navigating how often you incorporate images of the singer into the broadcast. I talked to previous Super Bowl producers about it.

• In case you missed it, here’s a deep dive on how Greg Olsen should approach the 2024 NFL season.

• If interested in how a beat reporter approaches covering a team in the Super Bowl, I did a 40-minute podcast with Nate Taylor, who covers the Chiefs for The Athletic. Tim Kawakami, The Athletic’s Bay Area columnist who has written on the 49ers for years, will be the guest Tuesday.

Advertisement
go-deeper

GO DEEPER

Why the Chiefs are the NFL’s blueprint and the 49ers are an outlier: Sando’s Pick Six

go-deeper

GO DEEPER

As Super Bowl week begins for Chiefs and 49ers, 10 compelling stories to follow

(Photo of a promotional display for Super Bowl LVIII on CBS outside of the Bellagio hotel in Las Vegas: Ethan Miller / Getty Images)

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Sports

US Olympic hockey hero Jack Hughes opens up about support for women’s team amid backlash over Trump’s joke

Published

on

US Olympic hockey hero Jack Hughes opens up about support for women’s team amid backlash over Trump’s joke

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Team USA Olympic hockey hero Jack Hughes spoke about his support for his country’s women’s hockey team after his team was the subject of backlash for laughing at a joke by President Donald Trump about the women’s team. 

During an interview on ESPN’s “The Pat McAfee Show” Friday, Hughes opened up about his respect for the women’s team after McAfee appeared to reference the controversy by joking that Hughes and his teammates “hate” the women players. 

“We are hanging out with them so much, the women’s team. We were supporting them. Like, we were at their games, they were at our games,” Hughes said. 

 

Advertisement

Jack Hughes of the United States celebrates after a gold medal win during against Canadaat Milano Santagiulia Ice Hockey Arena during the Milano Cortina 2026 Winter Olympic games Feb. 22, 2026, in Milan, Italy.  (Elsa/Getty Images)

Hughes then appeared to address the recent criticism of his team for its response to Trump’s joke.

“Like all these people talking, how many of them watched their gold medal game? Me and Quinn Hughes were at the game. We were at the game until like overtime ended on the glass, and we were jumping up and down so excited for these girls, so excited they won,” Hughes said. 

“And how many of these people watched the gold medal game, watched their semifinals game? Like 10 of the 10 of our players went to their game in the round-robin. Like, we supported them so much, and we’re so proud of them. We’re so happy that they won, and they brought a gold medal back and that, you know, I said it, the men’s and women’s team both brought gold medals back. So, just unbelievable for USA hockey.”

Hughes, who scored the game-winning overtime goal against Canada to win gold, reflected on his interaction with the player on the U.S. women’s team who did the same, Megan Keller.

Advertisement

“Me and her had a great moment in the cafeteria after her gold medal game. We played Slovakia the next night, and it was like a late game. And we were in the pasta line — me and Megan. They were just getting ready to go out again, and I just gave her a massive hug, and I said, ‘I’m so happy for you. I’m so proud of you,’” Hughes said. 

“A couple nights later, saw her again in the [cafeteria], and we took a great picture and, uh, she just gave me a big hug and was so pumped for me as well.” 

Hughes told reporters after the game the first thing he thought about when the puck went in was Keller, who scored the golden goal for the United States women’s team against Canada three days earlier.

US WOMEN’S HOCKEY GOLD MEDALIST SAYS IT’S ‘SAD’ MEN’S TEAM HAD TO APOLOGIZE FOR OLYMPICS CONTROVERSY

The controversy surrounding the men’s team stemmed from a locker room phone call between the players and Trump right after their gold medal win over Canada. 

Advertisement

Trump told the men’s team after inviting them to Tuesday’s State of the Union address that he’d “have” to invite the women’s team, otherwise “I probably would be impeached.” The team laughed in response, prompting immense backlash. 

Several mainstream media outlets penned op-eds condemning the men’s team for laughing at the joke and then visiting the White House to celebrate and Trump’s State of the Union address. 

The United States’ Jack Hughes (86), who scored the winning overtime goal, celebrates after defeating Canada in the men’s ice hockey gold medal game at the 2026 Winter Olympics in Milan, Italy Feb. 22, 2026.  (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

U.S. women’s hockey captain Hilary Knight said on Wednesday’s edition of ESPN’s “SportsCenter” that Trump’s “distasteful joke” has “overshadow[ed]” the women’s success.

“I thought it was sort of a distasteful joke, and, unfortunately, that is overshadowing a lot of the success, the success of just women at the Olympics carrying for Team USA and having amazing gold medal feats,” Knight said.

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“We’re just focusing on celebrating the women in our room, the extraordinary efforts, and continue to celebrate three gold medals in program history as well as the double gold for both men’s and women’s at the same time. And really not detract from that with a distasteful joke.”

Hughes’ mother, Ellen, a former Team USA player and current player development staff member, said the players only cared about “bring[ing] so much unity to a group and to a country.”

Follow Fox News Digital’s sports coverage on X, and subscribe to the Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.

Advertisement

Related Article

Megan Rapinoe ridicules US men’s hockey team, Trump over ‘trash’ remark about women’s team: ‘You’re a clown’

Continue Reading

Sports

USC men routed by Nebraska after building halftime lead

Published

on

USC men routed by Nebraska after building halftime lead

Another winnable game was slipping away, another frustrating performance by USC unraveling in painfully familiar fashion, when Jaden Brownell lifted up from the corner for a wide-open three-pointer, offering a split-second of hope in an otherwise hopeless second half.

But the shot clanked away. A collective sigh from the cardinal-and-gold faithful rippled through Galen Center, only to be swallowed up seconds later when Nebraska’s Pryce Sandfort, who finished with 32 points, knocked down a three-pointer of his own. That’s when USC’s own arena exploded with a deafening Big Red roar, loud enough to make you forget you were in Los Angeles — or that these lifeless Trojans had once looked like a real NCAA tournament team.

There were still more than nine minutes remaining after that in Saturday’s brutal 82-67 loss, though that roar from the Nebraska faithful might as well have been the exclamation point. Whether it becomes the punctuation mark on a frustrating second season for USC under coach Eric Musselman was still to be determined.

The Trojans have lost five consecutive games as of Saturday and sit in a tie for 11th in the Big Ten. They still have two regular-season games remaining to bolster their middling tournament resume, both of which they can ill afford to lose.

A midweek matchup at Washington looms especially large. A loss to the Huskies, who are 14-15, would make climbing back from the bubble brink especially harrowing. A rivalry rematch awaits after that against UCLA.

Advertisement

Nebraska forward Pryce Sandfort (21) drives past USC forward Terrance Williams II (5) during the first half Saturday.

(William Liang / Associated Press)

“I still think we could have a successful season,” forward Terrance Williams II said Saturday . “I had that positive mindset coming into the season. I still have that positive mindset. The season’s not over. … We can change the trajectory of the season very quickly.”

Nothing, though, about Saturday’s second half suggested USC was poised for positive change.

Advertisement

The Trojans positioned themselves in the first half to make a very different statement Saturday. They took advantage of foul trouble from Nebraska point guard Sam Hoiberg and led by five points at halftime. Chad Baker-Mazara had already poured in 14 points, and they barely needed freshman Alijah Arenas, who was left out of the starting lineup and played only nine minutes.
“They had belief,” Musselman said.

Yet after shooting 52% from the field in the first half, the Trojans were suddenly unable to find the target in the second. For the first five minutes of the half, a dunk from Jacob Cofie was USC’s only basket. During another five-minute stretch in the second half, USC couldn’t even manage a dunk.

Its issues only got worse when Baker-Mazara fell hard trying to block a lay-in. He didn’t play the rest of the game, as Musselman said Baker-Mazara told the staff he was unable to go.

“They played great in the second half,” Musselman said, “and we did not play very good.”

The Trojans didn’t fare much better on the glass, either, as Nebraska more than doubled USC’s total rebounds (22 to 10) after halftime.

Advertisement

The defense followed suit, with Nebraska piling up points in the paint at will. Sixteen of the Huskers’ first 20 points in the second half came on either dunks or lay-ins as USC’s defense lacked any semblance of urgency.

“I feel like they came out with more energy to be honest,” Williams said. “The first couple possessions, you could see it. They wanted it more than we did.”

How that’s still the case, after several similarly frustrating second halves this season, is still unclear.

“Second halves, they’re hard,” Brownell said. “We have to accept that and get ready quicker in the locker room, get our mental right and then come in and be ready.”

But with the Trojans on the very brink of the tournament bubble, time is quickly running out on that possibility.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Sports

MLB pitcher Merrill Kelly says California tax rate swayed decision to reject Padres’ free agency offer

Published

on

MLB pitcher Merrill Kelly says California tax rate swayed decision to reject Padres’ free agency offer

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Merrill Kelly will once again be wearing an Arizona Diamondbacks uniform when the 2026 regular season gets underway. 

Kelly, who entered the free agent market after pitching in 10 games with the Texas Rangers in 2025, agreed to a deal to return to the Diamondbacks.

Kelly spent the first seven years of his professional career with the Diamondbacks but revealed that he received an offer from the San Diego Padres this offseason. Kelly said his decision to turn down the Padres during free agency centered on California’s higher income tax rate compared to Arizona’s.

Advertisement

Merrill Kelly (23) of the Texas Rangers pitches during a game against the Miami Marlins at Globe Life Field on Sept. 21, 2025 in Arlington, Texas. (Gunnar Word/Texas Rangers/Getty Images)

Kelly agreed to a two-year contract worth an estimated $40 million with the Diamondbacks, according to ESPN. Although the Padres offered a comparable deal at three years instead of two, California’s 13% tax rate on income above $1 million proved a key difference.

“I don’t think it’s any secret on how much money you get taken out of your pocket when you go to California,” the right-hander told “Foul Territory.”

Kelly also has deep ties to Arizona, where he attended high school and played college baseball at Arizona State. He said finding a way back to Arizona “was always the priority.”

Merrill Kelly (29) of the Arizona Diamondbacks looks on before Game Six of the Championship Series against the Philadelphia Phillies at Citizens Bank Park on Oct. 23, 2023 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  (Rich Schultz/Getty Images)

Advertisement

While Kelly said he is fond of San Diego, he was unwilling to sacrifice a significant portion of his salary to taxes. “I love San Diego,” Kelly said. “It’s just, like I said, they take too much money out of my pocket, man. The taxes over there are a different level.

“We had my numbers guy run the numbers, and it just made more sense to come home.”

Merrill Kelly (23) of the Texas Rangers looks on during a game against the Philadelphia Phillies at Globe Life Field on Aug. 8, 2025 in Arlington, Texas. (Bailey Orr/Texas Rangers/Getty Images)

Arizona’s state income tax rate is roughly 2.5%. Kelly also joked that he prefers the desert landscape to San Diego’s coastal setting.

“It worked out best for us because that was honestly our second choice,” Kelly said. “It was between here and San Diego going into the offseason. San Diego was really the only place that, if we did go somewhere, that was probably high on our list if we weren’t in Arizona. It’s like, ‘All right, let’s just hop over and take a short, six-hour drive to San Diego.’

Advertisement

“But, yeah, the desert is home. I guess we’re not ocean people.”

In a statement to The California Post, the Padres said the team does “not comment on contract negotiations.”

Acquired by the Rangers in July 2025, Kelly went 12-9 while splitting the season between Texas and Arizona.

Follow Fox News Digital’s sports coverage on X, and subscribe to the Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.

Advertisement

Related Article

2026 MLB Free Agent Signings, Trades: Dodgers Sign Pitcher to $6.5M Pact

Continue Reading

Trending