NFL: NFC Championship-San Francisco 49ers at Seattle Seahawks

Amazon Strikes $50 Million Dollar Deal to Stream NFL Games

Today the NFL and Amazon has reached a deal to stream 10 Thursday night games similar to the deals that Twitter had last year.

The one-year agreement is valued at around $50 million, according to people familiar with the matter. That price tag represents a fivefold increase over the NFL’s agreement with Twitter Inc. for the same number of games last season.

Amazon’s NFL games will be available only to its Amazon Prime members, who pay $99 a year for free, two-day shipping and access to music, movies and TV shows. Amazon has more than 60 million Prime members worldwide, according to analyst estimates.

“We’re focused on bringing our customers what they want to watch, Prime members want the NFL,” said Amazon Senior Vice President Jeff Blackburn. The large audience that the NFL attracts will also give Amazon a promotional platform for its other content, he added.

Amazon hopes that they can uniquely target fans with sports gear, a way that the company could potentially justify forking over high fees for big-ticket sports. Mr. Blackburn declined to talk specifically about how Amazon might use the NFL to sell merchandise.

Please follow us on Facebook and Twitter for more news, tips, and reviews.

Need cord cutting tech support? Join our new Cord Cutting Tech Support Facebook Group for help.

27 Responses to Amazon Strikes $50 Million Dollar Deal to Stream NFL Games

  1. Obsidian71 April 4, 2017 at 7:11 pm #

    That’s ME!

  2. chjode April 4, 2017 at 7:17 pm #

    Darn, I was hoping this meant for all the games, not just a few select Thursday night games. Still, it’s a start.

    • rob034 April 5, 2017 at 6:15 am #

      Not really a start because you got to pay $99 a year for prime. Last year was better because twitter is free. It seems like the NFL is making deals with companies that wont you give free access to live games.

      • GersonT1000 April 5, 2017 at 8:36 am #

        I’m a Prime member and I still agree with you. The ability to watch these games shouldn’t be limited to people behind some paywall.

  3. Ben M April 4, 2017 at 8:09 pm #

    So they are paying $50 million to stream 10 games that are already available OTA? WHY?

    • StoJa April 4, 2017 at 8:16 pm #

      Because I don’t know about you, but I don’t lug my 50″ TV around town with me. But I do carry my phone…. so…try and piece that logic together for a sec and you’ll have your answer.

      • Ben M April 5, 2017 at 7:50 am #

        Are you often away from home on Thursday night w/o access to a TV but able to watch on your phone? Seems like a very, very, very, small niche crowd that would fit those circumstances.

        If I am away from home on a Thursday night it is because I am doing something that would not allow me to sit for 3.5 hrs watching a game on a 2′ x 4″ or 3″ x 5″ screen.

        • StoJa April 5, 2017 at 8:17 am #

          Really? You know MILLIONS of sports fans work nights and evenings, right? You seem to be grouping a very large number of people into a “very, very, small niche.”

          • Ben M April 5, 2017 at 9:36 am #

            Well the last time I checked my employer is not paying me to watch a football game at work.

          • Consti2tion April 5, 2017 at 10:08 am #

            Can’t come up with a good counter point so goes for the ” Moral ” high ground … Ha.

          • Ben M April 5, 2017 at 10:30 am #

            What moral high ground? Unless you are a sportswriter or sportscaster your employer literally does not pay you to watch football games which means his comment about millions that work at night is not relevant.

            On top of which, as Adam pointed out above, Verizon has exclusive rights to phone streaming which narrows the audience even more.

          • StoJa April 5, 2017 at 7:01 pm #

            Way to make it as literal as possible. How about, maybe Joe Schmoe’s employer doesn’t really care if Joe is watching the game on his phone at work?

          • Ben M April 6, 2017 at 6:09 am #

            Well congrats to Joe Schmoe for working in a job that just needs a warm body rather than one that actually expects him to accomplish anything.

            However, given that Verizon has exclusive rights to stream NFL games on a phone, the Amazon deal doesn’t benefit Joe Schmoe making him SOOL to watch a football game through Amazon on company time.

          • StoJa April 5, 2017 at 7:00 pm #

            Last time I checked only you work for your employer, so how’s that relevant to anybody else?

        • Adam April 5, 2017 at 9:24 am #

          Ah but you guys are forgetting that this deal has ZERO to do with watching games on phones. Verizon has exclusive rights to streaming on phones so this deal in no way lets you watch the game on your phone. The tablets now that’s a different story…

          • Ben M April 5, 2017 at 9:35 am #

            Good point. I had forgotten Verizon had exclusive phone streaming rights. This makes the deal even worse.

    • Craig Werner April 4, 2017 at 8:35 pm #

      Not to mention those of us who cannot get OTA channels but can still shop with Amazon prime. Genius marketing Amazon !

      • Ben M April 5, 2017 at 7:52 am #

        Okay, this I can understand. But it is still a limited # of people who don’t have OTA. I just do not see paying 5 times what Twitter did to reach prime members that do not get OTA.

        • StoJa April 5, 2017 at 8:20 am #

          Well, A) it’s not your money (and don’t even try and give me this crap about ‘well I pay Amazon’) so what do you care, and 2) again, your grasp on demographics is really narrow, whether it’s who has OTA or who has access to a TV on Thursdays.

          • Ben M April 5, 2017 at 8:53 am #

            Well A) if this deal causes my prime membership cost to increase it directly impacts me. B) I understand business and you do not spend money to reach 5-10 % of your customers you spend it to reach 90% which this deal does not do. C) My opinion is that it is a stupid deal and a waste of resources. But that is all it is, my opinion. Exactly like your opinion of the opposite. D) My grasp of demographics is fine. The number of people that benefit from this deal is limited. Good for them in that they benefit but that still does not make this a smart business move by Amazon.

  4. Craig Werner April 4, 2017 at 8:26 pm #

    That makes it easier to view for me instead of having to mirror Twitter from my tablet to my Roku. Being able to view live sports as a cord cutter is getting to be commonplace. These are exciting times!

  5. Ottis DA Da aD April 4, 2017 at 8:47 pm #

    I don’t have or want prime, however I do love Amazon & football but wont be getting prime anytime soon. I’ve been watching Football on sling & if they black out that 1 Thursday night football game that I watch every year, I will be angry.

  6. FREETELEVISION April 4, 2017 at 8:52 pm #

    Watch on all your Mobil devices now. I wonder if I get it paying monthly instead of annual.

  7. JJ April 4, 2017 at 10:16 pm #

    I’m a prime member and I don’t want the NFL. I hope they don’t raise rates to pay for this.

    • Ben M April 5, 2017 at 7:55 am #

      I agree.

  8. bjorn6 April 5, 2017 at 5:54 am #

    Well if we can watch NFL football in 4k it will be a plus.

  9. De April 5, 2017 at 11:38 am #

    I bet this is a test for Amazon, if they see increase sales from offering NFL games they will slowly will increase the cost of Prime. With the limited users they have doesn’t seem like a deal in their favor.