Imagine it is the start of a new season. You are hopeful that THIS is the year. All off-season, you have been waiting to see how things will shape up. After months of waiting, you discover that you cannot even watch the first game of the year because it requires a new subscription, adding to the countless services you already pay for.

This was the idea behind U.S. District Judge Margaret M. Garnett’s August 2024 decision to block the creation of Venu Sports.[1] In a market filled with subscriptions, fees, and choices, Judge Garnett blocked ESPN, FOX, and Warner Bros. Discovery from creating a joint venture sports-only streaming platform.[2] FuboTV has been attempting to create a similar platform for years, but was always impeded by cost. To stream every game for every sport, ESPN, FOX, and Warner Bros. Discovery would have charged bundling fees, potentially costing FuboTV hundreds of millions of dollars.[3] So, how can a judge block sports-based platforms from creating something out of their own products? In this recent decision, Judge Garnett reasoned that it was an anti-trust violation. She held that granting FuboTV’s preliminary injunction would help consumers benefit from a more “competitive market.”[4]

Venu Sports projected it would charge consumers $42.99 per month for its joint service.[5] That is a very competitive price in the streaming market. Currently, sports-interested consumers often pay streaming platforms full subscriptions fees while using a mere 20% of their streaming offerings. Consumers may be forced to pay upwards of $82.99 per month or more to watch just a few channels for certain months of the year and there still is no guarantee that the team they want to watch will be available in their geographic market.[6]

The sports-based viewing market is widespread. Millions of people tune in to the Super Bowl every year, some for the football, and others just for the commercials.[7] Many people are hopeful that Venu Sports will still launch this year, providing them with access to fourteen sports channels, including “ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, SEC Network, ACC Network, ESPNEWS, ABC, FOX, FS1, FS2, Big Ten Network, TNT, TBS, truTV — as well as ESPN+.”[8] If FuboTV’s injunction is lifted, Venu Sports is likely to be a very successful venture. It would create the first sports broadcasting-only streaming platform and would likely be a staunch competitor for other streaming services and cable networks alike. It will be interesting to see how Venu Sports plans to incorporate platforms like Amazon Prime, Netflix, and others who have agreements with the NFL to stream certain games on certain days.[9] Venu Sports has stated that consumers may bundle its service with certain other preexisting platforms, so this would likely become clearer once the service officially launches.[10]

The first sports-only streaming platform to enter the market is likely to have thousands of loyal fans ready to ditch their current provider and sign up. It is an untapped vein of the streaming market. If Venu Sports can overcome this injunction and enter the market with an offering at $42.99, I will be among the first to sign up.

[1] AP NEWS, https://apnews.com/article/fubo-venu-lawsuit-9f273f7c807c2aef88733a5e6d03fcea

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] YouTube TV, YouTube TV – Watch & DVR Live Sports, Shows & News

[7] FOX NEWS, 10 of the most televised events in U.S. history, from a royal wedding to the OJ Simpson trial | Fox News

[8] AP NEWS, https://apnews.com/article/fubo-venu-lawsuit-9f273f7c807c2aef88733a5e6d03fcea

[9] Front Office Sports, How NFL Streaming Will Work for the 2024–2025 Season

[10] AP NEWS, https://apnews.com/article/fubo-venu-lawsuit-9f273f7c807c2aef88733a5e6d03fcea