If you’ve tried to watch a game lately, you’ve probably noticed live sports media is at the center of a streaming revolution.
As professional sports leagues and major networks consolidate media rights and move toward direct-to-consumer apps, the norms for access and competition—for broadcasters, streamers, and viewers—are changing. That comes with questions about competition, exclusivity, and the future of local TV.
From an antitrust standpoint, the challenge is balancing flexibility with fairness. As leagues and networks consolidate rights and experiment with new distribution models, the legal question is where consolidation and exclusivity stop driving efficiency and start foreclosing rivals. These decisions aren’t just about sports; they could set the template for managing exclusivity and competition in other digital content markets.
For antitrust practitioners, these developments in sports media are a barometer: What happens here in the coming months will help answer fundamental questions about competition, access, and the future of partnerships in an increasingly digital economy. This is especially true as more leagues consider what to do with their rights.
The outcomes may shape how regulators and courts approach exclusivity, vertical integration, and market power in other sectors.
On Nov. 19, Major League Baseball announced a new three-year media rights agreement with ESPN, NBC, and Netflix. Under the deal, ESPN will become the exclusive distributor of MLB.TV, acquiring out-of-market streaming rights and in-market streaming for six teams. NBC and Netflix will air games and certain high-profile events on their platforms, including Sunday Night Baseball, the Wild Card Series, and the Home Run Derby.
Rob Manfred described the agreements as, “a significant evolution” that “reflects a balanced approach to the shifts taking place in the way that fans watch baseball.”
ESPN agreed in August to acquire the NFL’s media assets—including the NFL Network and digital channels—in exchange for a 10% equity stake. The network also launched its standalone streaming service, which is set to bring 47,000 live events per year—from all of ESPN’s linear networks, including the SEC and ACC networks—directly to consumers.
These changes signal a broader trend towards digital-first strategies and underscores how quickly the landscape is changing. As national networks expand digital offerings and secure broader rights, the competitive map is being redrawn.
Control over live games—and the terms of that control—will affect outcomes for viewers and industry participants. For decades, local television stations and regional sports networks relied on live sports to sustain both audiences and advertising dollars. As national networks and streaming platforms secure exclusive rights, those local outlets risk losing the programming that arguably has kept them relevant.
The ongoing restructuring of regional networks, highlighted by the Diamond Sports bankruptcy, underscores how fragile the local-sports model can be when rights shift away from local broadcasters. In this case, Diamond Sports, the largest operator of regional sports networks, filed for bankruptcy after losing key broadcasting rights, prompting MLB to negotiate new deals that moved many games to national and streaming platforms.
As a result, MLB reached agreements that allowed games previously aired on Diamond’s networks to be shown on national outlets and direct-to-consumer services, leaving local stations with diminished access and leverage. When games move to national or streaming-only platforms, local stations lose content and potential leverage. One practical question is whether this will leave local broadcasters unable to participate meaningfully in the market.
These changes haven’t gone unnoticed by policymakers. Members of Congress in September published a letter raising concerns that such agreements could entrench market power, reduce competition, and raise prices for viewers. The letter requests detailed responses on multiple issues including consumer protection, competition safeguards, and journalistic integrity.
This letter follows a Senate hearing earlier in the year where lawmakers expressed frustration with the increasingly fragmented nature of sports viewing, noting that fans now require multiple subscriptions to follow their favorite teams.
Since the congressional letter, scrutiny has only intensified. The House Judiciary Committee requested formal briefings from major sports leagues, signaling a potential overhaul of the Sports Broadcasting Act to address the realities of streaming and digital platforms. The Federal Communications Commission also launched a review of longstanding media ownership limits, with broadcasters urging modernization to help local stations compete against tech giants. These developments underscore the urgency and complexity of the antitrust questions at play.
In addition to oversight hearings, several bills have been introduced in Congress this session addressing sports broadcasting and antitrust exemptions, such as the Stop Sports Blackouts Act of 2025, reflecting ongoing legislative interest even if passage is unlikely.
Concerns about potential vertical foreclosure and exclusivity issues as leagues and platforms negotiate and consolidate rights cut both ways. Integration can lower costs and improve the product, but it can make access to live sports harder for rival platforms. The antitrust question is whether these arrangements expand choice or narrow it.
For now, policymakers seem focused on the overall effect of overlapping exclusives rather than any single deal. A handful of agreements viewed together could reshape what “access” means in a market where live sports remain the last appointment television. Congress has signaled interest in whether fragmentation is driving up costs or changing consumer habits.
Broadcast ownership and local-market rules add another layer. The FCC is reviewing media ownership rules, including certain ownership limits, and the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit vacated the FCC regulation limiting the number of television entities that one entity can own in a local market (the “Top Four Prohibition”).
Supporters of relaxing ownership restrictions say modernization would help local stations compete and invest; opponents warn it could accelerate consolidation and raise costs. Either way, the core issue remains: How to keep the markets open when the most valuable content moves behind digital paywalls.
As the market continues to evolve, industry participants and viewers should watch how new partnerships and distribution models actually affect access to live sports. The next few years will likely reveal whether these changes improve the overall fan experience or just create new challenges.
This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law, Bloomberg Tax, and Bloomberg Government, or its owners.
Author Information
William Lavery is an antitrust trial partner and serves as office managing partner for Clifford Chance’s Washington, DC office.
Ross Jablon is an antitrust associate at Clifford Chance.
Write for Us: Author Guidelines
To contact the editors responsible for this story: