Back in the 1990s, watching sports was just one business. Families had one cable bill, and that gave them access to most of the sports they wanted. It was convenient because everything came through one service. Today, sports are spread across multiple streaming apps. So, is this new shift really helping fans or just increasing cost and confusion? Looks like it’s the latter.

The fans are on the losing side

Deloitte found that only 49% of consumers had cable or satellite TV in 2025, compared with 63% three years earlier. The study also compared the cost.

• People with cable or satellite TV spent about $125 per month on average.
• In comparison, people paying for four streaming services spent about $69 per month.

So it should be beneficial, right? Well, not quite. Bango’s 2026 study found that 46% of Americans had missed a game because they could not find where it was streaming. That’s nearly half the sports fanbase. You might think it’s just the old guys who are feeling the heat, but not really.

The same study found that 45% of people aged 18–24 and 46% of people aged 25–34 felt they had subscribed to too many sports streaming services. Put simply, even younger fans can feel overwhelmed when they need several apps to follow their favorite sports.

Get the EssentiallySports Daily Newsletter. Stay ahead of the game with daily updates, exclusive stories, expert takes, and the biggest moments from the world's most popular sports.

Then you throw in the financial aspect, and you have a real problem at hand.

The Hub Entertainment Research found that 12% of consumers were “serial” churners in 2025. Jargon aside, these people subscribe to a streaming service when they have something they want to watch, cancel it when they are done, and subscribe again later when new content interests them. It’s the need of the hour as streaming services earn exclusive rights to games. The NFL is a classic example of what fragmented streaming looks like.

• Prime Video became the exclusive home of Thursday Night Football, with 15 regular-season games in its package.
• Peacock, Prime Video, Netflix, and ESPN+ have all received exclusive NFL games. This means more subscriptions.
• For example, in 2024, Peacock streamed the Packers-Eagles game from Brazil, while Prime Video showed Thursday Night Football and a Wild Card playoff game.

And so many options are just creating more confusion for fans. Bango’s 2026 study of 2,500 Americans found that 50% wanted one app for all the sports they watch. But of course, that’s not happening, and fans are spending a whopping amount of money.

More exclusive games, more money from fans’ pockets

A 2025 Hub Entertainment Research survey found that 65% of sports fans said using more than one service to watch games was a hassle. Another 53% said finding the sports they wanted was harder than it was the previous year.

Fans now have more ways to watch sports, but they must manage several subscriptions and sometimes pay extra to watch just one exclusive game. This is not to say Cable was an ideal scenario. Far from it.

Cable is expensive. You can watch many sports channels, but you also pay for channels you never watch. Streaming can be cheaper for casual fans. If someone follows only one sport, they can subscribe to the service showing those games instead of paying for a large cable package. For example, ESPN Unlimited costs $29.99 per month.

• The problem is that sports are now split between services. NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, and other games can appear on ESPN, Prime Video, Peacock, Paramount+, Netflix, and YouTube.
• Fans who follow more than one sport need several subscriptions. For example, ESPN Unlimited costs $29.99/month, while a Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN Unlimited bundle costs $35.99/month. Adding NFL+ Premium can take the total to $45.99/month.
• So cutting cable does not always save money. A casual fan may spend less, but a hardcore sports fan who wants to watch many leagues can quickly end up paying more because the games are spread across different services.

No wonder no one likes it. Except for the leagues.

The real reason behind sports fragmentation

Why are leagues willing to split rights between multiple broadcasters? It’s a nifty business decision.

1. Splitting rights brings in more money. Just take the NBA’s example. in 2024, the league signed new 11-year media deals worth about $76 billion with Disney, NBCUniversal, and Amazon.
2. This also helps the NBA reach more people because fans can watch games on both regular television and streaming services.
3. The NFL’s current media agreements are worth roughly $110 billion over their contract periods. By splitting the games among many companies, the NFL gets money from several broadcasters and streaming platforms instead of depending on just one.

Streaming companies want live sports because fans are less likely to skip or watch later

• Fans usually want to watch games live so they do not miss the result. Amazon’s Prime Video is a good example, as Thursday Night Football averaged 11.86 million viewers in 2023 and increased to 15.3 million viewers in 2025.
• Exclusive games can attract new subscribers. Netflix benefited from exclusive NFL games, as its 2024 Christmas Day games between the Chiefs and Steelers averaged 30 million viewers, and the Ravens vs. Texans averaged 31.3 million global viewers.

So even though fans don’t like switching between multiple platforms, leagues don’t really care. It benefits them. It benefits the broadcasters. The fans, however, are left in the lurch.