The biggest reason for delay in the US is that the NFL signed a deal with DirecTV that goes from 2014-2022, and they signed it before the size of the streaming market was apparent.
So in baseball, you can get all games streamed for $60 a year. The NBA, you can get all games streamed for $60 a year. But for the NFL, most people can't get all NFL games streamed. You can get a DirecTV subscription, for something like $800 a year, and if you aren't in the DirecTV area you can pay $300 a year to watch NFL games. The cost is just way out of line, because it's priced by the DirecTV people, and their goal is to get you subscribed to DirecTV, not to help you cut the cord.
In a couple years I expect this deal will be renegotiated along lines similar to the other major American sports, and then it will be far easier to cut the cord for sports fans.
You can only do that for MLB, NBA, etc, if you're not in a the local area of the team you want to watch. You get blacked out if you are.
The local sports rights for non-NFL teams are tied up in long, long deals in many markets, and separately for each team. It will take a while to unwind all that.
Correction - MLB.tv is usually $125/year, and it does not include any of your local team's games if you live in the area. If you like following out-of-region teams, it's a great deal. If you want to follow your local team, you have to pony up a similar amount for a separate package that lets you stream local games.
I have just become a first-time cord cutter, if you can even call it that, with YouTube TV's recent opt-in inclusion of the RedZone channel. I still got way more (admittedly obscure) sports with my cable package, but this finally reached enough parity to move on.
The real reason that sports fans should remain with their traditional bundle is the UX. With cable, if I want to flip between a dozen college football games, no prob. The lack of a traditional remote and the channel-changing latency is a big problem with these new services. Also, they don't make it easy to record past the end just to be sure the game doesn't go long (granted they try to "catch up" by later learning it went long, but I hear it's often later and not when you want).
There is one feature I do appreciate, time-synced stats. You don't get spoilers on recorded games you're watching with their stat info in the app, it remains in sync w/ the progress. Granted, I don't see in-game stats as a killer feature anyways.
> The lack of a traditional remote and the channel-changing latency is a big problem with these new services
I may be in the minority here, but I really like the chromecast UX. So much easier to search on my phone - a familiar interface - than fiddle with a remote that I constantly lose, or is out of batteries, or lags with the TV, or makes it hard to scroll, or or or
> The real reason that sports fans should remain with their traditional bundle is the UX. With cable, if I want to flip between a dozen college football games, no prob.
What's most frustrating is being able to glimpse a better future and realizing that it's only business concerns that keep it from you. If you use the ESPN app on AppleTV (and probably other platforms, but I don't have any of them), you can easily swipe up to see what else is going at any one time, change between them, and even set up to four streams at once on your screen. It's awesome! Unless one of the games you care about is on Fox or CBS.
YouTube TV, Hulu Live TV, and the like are not what I would call “cord cutting”. They are using the same business model as cable and you still have a bundle of channels you don’t want.
Am I really a cord cutter with Hulu Live TV just because my TVs get TV streamed over an Ethernet cable (all of my TVs are connected to Ethernet directly or via a set top box) instead of coax?
I got Peacock Premium free with my Xfinity internet connection which has ~175 LIVE English Premier League matches streaming in USA. No need to now subscribe to NBC Sports!
Unfortunately they're trying to get you to subscribe to both Peacock and NBC Sports Gold. Most of the tops 6 teams matches going forward will be shown only occasionally on Peacock.
I agree but that maybe only for this PL season. I think they are gradually moving subscribers to Peacock and assuming they would only exclusively show all live PL games on Peacock service from next season onwards.
So in baseball, you can get all games streamed for $60 a year. The NBA, you can get all games streamed for $60 a year. But for the NFL, most people can't get all NFL games streamed. You can get a DirecTV subscription, for something like $800 a year, and if you aren't in the DirecTV area you can pay $300 a year to watch NFL games. The cost is just way out of line, because it's priced by the DirecTV people, and their goal is to get you subscribed to DirecTV, not to help you cut the cord.
In a couple years I expect this deal will be renegotiated along lines similar to the other major American sports, and then it will be far easier to cut the cord for sports fans.