The Great Sports Broadcasting Shift: Why Over-the-Air Might Be the Future (But Not Without Trade-offs)
The world of sports broadcasting is undergoing a seismic shift, and it’s one that’s both fascinating and fraught with uncertainty. The collapse of the traditional regional sports network (RSN) model has left a void, and over-the-air (OTA) networks are stepping in to fill it. But is this the future of regional sports broadcasting? Personally, I think it’s a question that demands a nuanced answer.
The Rise of Over-the-Air Networks: A Necessary Evolution?
Let’s start with the obvious: the shutdown of FanDuel-branded RSNs and the bankruptcy of Diamond Sports Group have accelerated this transition. Teams across the NHL and NBA are now turning to local OTA networks, and it’s easy to see why. Cable revenue has dried up, and fans are increasingly frustrated with the high costs of accessing their favorite teams.
What makes this particularly fascinating is the role of companies like Gray Media and E. W. Scripps. Gray, with its 14 “sports and entertainment” networks, has taken a scattershot approach, acquiring rights to everything from Minnesota Duluth hockey to Atlanta Braves baseball. Scripps, on the other hand, has focused on exclusivity, partnering with teams like the Vegas Golden Knights and Tampa Bay Lightning.
From my perspective, these differing strategies highlight a broader tension in the industry: scale versus specialization. Gray’s approach feels like a bet on volume—more teams, more games, more viewers. Scripps, however, is doubling down on deep partnerships, handling everything from production to sponsorships. Which model will win out? It’s too early to say, but one thing that immediately stands out is the risk inherent in both strategies.
The Economics of Over-the-Air: A Double-Edged Sword
Here’s where things get tricky. While viewership has surged for some teams—the Golden Knights, for instance, saw their ratings double—media rights revenue has taken a hit. The Dallas Mavericks reportedly lost $50 million annually by moving to OTA, while the Phoenix Suns and Utah Jazz saw declines closer to $20 million.
What many people don’t realize is that this trade-off isn’t just about money. It’s about accessibility. Over-the-air broadcasts are free to anyone with an antenna, which is a game-changer for fans who can’t afford cable or streaming subscriptions. When the Phoenix Suns moved to OTA, they cited expanded reach as the driving factor. If you take a step back and think about it, this is a profound shift in how sports are consumed—one that prioritizes inclusivity over profit.
But here’s the catch: the economics of OTA aren’t sustainable for everyone. Comcast’s recent dispute with Scripps over distribution fees underscores the challenges. Cable providers are unlikely to let OTA networks replicate the lucrative deals of the RSN era. This raises a deeper question: Can OTA networks survive without the financial crutch of cable revenue?
The Streaming Wild Card: A Threat or an Opportunity?
The elephant in the room is the potential shift to a centralized streaming RSN model, where platforms like Amazon Prime Video could hold local rights. The NBA and MLB are reportedly exploring this, and it’s a move that could boost revenue for small-market teams.
However, in my opinion, this approach risks alienating fans. As Scripps Sports President Brian Lawlor pointed out, streaming platforms exclude viewers who aren’t on those services. Over-the-air broadcasts, by contrast, are universally accessible. This isn’t just a technical detail—it’s a philosophical difference about who sports are for.
What this really suggests is that the future of sports broadcasting isn’t just about money; it’s about values. Do leagues prioritize maximizing revenue, or do they focus on building a broad, inclusive audience? The answer will shape the industry for decades.
The NHL’s Quiet Advantage
A detail that I find especially interesting is the NHL’s position in all of this. Unlike the NBA and MLB, the NHL hasn’t been linked to a streaming RSN model. Its partnership with Scripps and Gray suggests a different path—one that leverages local demand without chasing national streaming deals.
The NHL’s lower popularity compared to other leagues might seem like a disadvantage, but it could actually be a strength. With less pressure to secure massive media rights deals, the NHL can focus on building a loyal, local fanbase. Gray’s success with teams like the Minnesota Duluth hockey program shows that there’s a market for local sports beyond the big leagues.
The Bigger Picture: Accessibility vs. Profit
If there’s one takeaway from all of this, it’s that the future of sports broadcasting is a balancing act. Leagues and networks will need to decide whether they prioritize economics or accessibility. Personally, I think the latter is the smarter long-term play.
Yes, revenue will take a hit. But in an era where fans are increasingly frustrated with the fragmentation of sports content, over-the-air broadcasts offer a refreshing alternative. They’re simple, accessible, and—most importantly—free.
Of course, this isn’t a perfect solution. The financial trade-offs are real, and not every team or league can afford to make them. But as the industry continues to evolve, one thing is clear: the days of cable-dominated sports broadcasting are over. What comes next will depend on whether we choose to build a system that serves everyone, or just those who can afford it.
And that, in my opinion, is the most important question of all.
