Hate Paying For Sports? A New No Sports Live TV Streaming Services is In The Works

It seems cable channels have an idea sell a streaming service with no sports.

The idea is coming from Viacom Inc, Discovery Communications Inc. and AMC Networks Inc to launch the new service. The idea is to reach potential subscribers who do not want sports and it is rumored to cost $20 a month. It would also mean networks like Viacom would get a bigger cut than they do from current live TV streaming service. Sports-free TV would cost less than $20 a month, according to Bloomberg.

New online entertainment-only TV packages could break deals that major media companies like Disney and 21st Century Fox Inc. have with cable and satellite providers, according to Michael Nathanson, an analyst at MoffettNathanson LLC.

Those deals require that their networks be part of the most popular bundles or that a certain share of subscribers must receive their programming. Likely meaning you at minimal wouldn’t see Disney and Fox on the service also meaning you likely will not find any local channels as all local channels now also own a sports network.

So the question is can a live TV service without live events like sports. Many analysts are pointing out that many subscribers to pay-TV do so for live events. Especially with Sling TV costing $20 a month, and PlayStation Vue costing $30 a month.

In 2016 most of the 100 most watch programs of 2016 was sports related. You have to go all the ways down to #73 to find The Walking Dead before you find a show that is not sports or on broadcast TV.

Yet there is a group of executives who think they can find a market for this service.

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.

Disclaimer: To address the growing use of ad blockers we use affiliate links to sites like Amazon.com and others. Affiliate links help sites like Cord Cutters News, LLC stay open. Affiliate links cost you nothing but help us support our families.

19 Responses to Hate Paying For Sports? A New No Sports Live TV Streaming Services is In The Works

  1. Avatar
    Sunny Rain April 13, 2017 at 12:38 pm #

    This would be awesome. If only they could convince Disney, Fox and NBC to give them the non-sports networks like FX, FreeForm and their broadcast shows on Demand.

    • Avatar
      NashGuy April 13, 2017 at 1:13 pm #

      Well, at that point you’ve got a more expensive full-blown cable replacement service like PS Vue, YouTube TV, etc. But the current Hulu on-demand service would be a nice complement to the kind of sports-free cable service the article talks about. That provides next-day on-demand for NBC, FOX and ABC and lots of prior seasons of shows from FX, FreeForm and other cable channels.

  2. Avatar
    c_hack April 13, 2017 at 12:58 pm #

    Hell yeah. I’m sick of subsidizing sports when I don’t watch them. Give me that option and I’m in!

  3. Avatar
    NashGuy April 13, 2017 at 1:06 pm #

    These cable network groups should band together (sort of like ABC, NBC and Fox did to launch Hulu) and create their own direct-to-consumer streaming cable service. Having no locals and no sports channels would keep the cost way down and make it easy to immediately launch nationally. Have live streams of all their channels with cloud DVR and/or full-scale VOD included. (Like Hulu, ad viewing may be forced but could be eliminated for a few dollars more per month.) They could even divide their networks into two tiers. Get half the channels for $12/mo or all of them for $18/mo. This service would be geared toward OTA TV viewers who aren’t big sports fans. Make the app so that it can integrate local channels from an OTA tuner, like Sling is doing on their AirTV box or how Google’s Live Channels app does on Android TV. And then allow those local OTA channels to be DVR’d by connecting a USB hard drive to the box.

  4. Avatar
    David Batten April 13, 2017 at 4:27 pm #

    Consider me in. Would love to get ride of all the sports channels and as a result, stop paying for something I don’t / will never watch! While you are at it. Cut the Spanish channels from the base package too. Don’t speak Spanish, so have not use for them either.

  5. Avatar
    Nathan April 13, 2017 at 5:14 pm #

    I’m not the target for this as I do love my sports, but I’m glad something like this is coming out because I have noticed a big demand for it. I also think it is likely that when people are able to stop paying for sports, it will show some of these companies (Disney particularly) that they aren’t going to be able to charge crazy amounts for their channels and hopefully will bring more options. Just one more step in the long journey toward the world where we get to pick individual channels and I’m all for taking that journey.

  6. Avatar
    deguello April 13, 2017 at 5:47 pm #

    Yes. I’m very interested.

  7. Avatar
    stumpy579 April 13, 2017 at 8:07 pm #

    Hopefully this will lead to a sports only option. I am truly disgusted that I have to subsidize a boatload of crap I never watch in order to access sports. I am not surprised that greedy Viacom is involved in this idea. Ever since Vue refused to overpay for Viacom’s crap they have been butthurt. They blamed their programming’s declining popularity on Hulu and VOD and pulled most of their programming. If a sports only service arrives it would be a devastating blow to these companies which continue to greatly overvalue their product. Live sports is propping up the pay tv industry and advertisers know it. The main reason most people do not cut the cord completely is access to live sports.

    • Avatar
      Sunny Rain April 13, 2017 at 8:52 pm #

      Sports channels are usually the most expensive. So, people who don’t like sports pay more money for things they never watch. So, a sports-only package would probably be more expensive than a bundled package because there’s no ad money from bundled extras.

      • Avatar
        Bruce Wayne April 13, 2017 at 9:10 pm #

        That makes no sense. With a sports only package, we wouldn’t have to pay for channels like OWN and Esquire et al.

        • Avatar
          Jd Marlow April 14, 2017 at 6:55 am #

          The problem with your argument is most casual fans watch their sports on the networks, which can be got with an antenna. So that and a sports free package would be great. and for more hard core fans, sports only is all yours. But considering Espn alone gets upwards of $8 per subscriber, there may be some sticker shock.

          • Avatar
            Bruce Wayne April 14, 2017 at 2:55 pm #

            I only watch Premier League football and NBA. All I need is NBSCN and NBA TV. ESPN would only be needed during a World Cup year. So yeah, a sports only package would be no more expensive than I’m paying right now for channels that include stuff like Travel Channel, OWN and Freeform.

  8. Avatar
    BrianH1972 April 13, 2017 at 11:39 pm #

    Root Sports…. Root Sports… Anyone? Anyone? Anyone?

  9. Avatar
    REP April 14, 2017 at 1:05 am #

    Instead of No Sports Live TV streaming, how about Only Sports Live TV streaming for those that only watch sports? That should be $10-15/month.

  10. Avatar
    Vincent April 15, 2017 at 4:12 pm #

    It would benefit all to include Fox, NBC and whatever OTA too. Just cut out the “All Sports All The Time” channels and we’re good to go.