For many people, cable TV hasn’t been part of the equation since 2016, and there are no plans to ever go back. Paying for a massive package filled with channels that never get watched feels outdated, especially when streaming services cover nearly everything else. Netflix comes bundled with many cell phone plans, and Hulu+ is commercial-free for $18.99 a month. That’s more than enough to cover non-sports entertainment.
Sports, though, remain the sticking point. Live games are the one area where streaming hasn’t fully caught up. That’s why ESPN’s recent announcement introducing direct-to-consumer streaming options is such a big deal. Fans have been asking for years: why should someone who only cares about sports be forced to carry dozens of channels they’ll never use? ESPN is finally acknowledging that frustration.
There’s been no television in my house since early 2021, because the Apple TV box broke and wasn’t replaced. I’ve been streaming Netflix or Hulu on my computer’s second screen and it has worked just fine. These days, plenty of people are doing the same — ditching TVs in favor of laptops, tablets, or phones. Others plug into projectors or HDMI-connected screens when they want a bigger viewing experience.
Live sports, however, are different. For fans who want to keep up with their teams, the costs start piling up quickly. ESPN at $40 a month bundled with Fox, plus Marquee Sports Network for $20 to watch Cubs games, and Chicago Sports Network for another $20 to see the Bulls — that’s nearly $100 a month before even counting internet service, which runs at least $35. Sports alone end up costing nearly triple the internet connection that delivers them.
Even so, fans still consider it. Watching live sports is not the same as catching highlights later. Netflix or Hulu can be paused or binged whenever, but sports happen in the moment. Missing a big play or dramatic finish means missing the shared experience. That’s why nearly $100 a month — before internet — still feels justifiable to many.
And the difference isn’t just about cost; it’s about control. Spending close to $100 on sports streaming services feels better than paying the same amount for a bloated cable bundle full of shows and channels that never get touched. The à la carte model means every dollar goes toward what actually gets watched. It also gives fans flexibility — during the off-season, subscriptions can be paused without having to make a dreaded cancellation call.
But there’s another complication: blackouts. Even after paying for the right services, games often aren’t available because of league rules. A Cubs fan who pays for Marquee, for example, can’t watch live Cubs games outside Chicago’s media market because of broadcast rights restrictions. The same goes for Bulls fans with the Chicago Sports Network.
Paying extra for regional sports networks helps solve the problem locally, but it highlights just how fragmented the system has become. Fans are paying premium prices without the guarantee of full access. Blackouts feel like an outdated relic of the cable era, and with ESPN moving toward direct-to-consumer, there’s hope leagues will eventually rethink those restrictions. Until then, even the most loyal fans paying nearly $100 a month will occasionally be left staring at a game unavailable in your area screen — the very thing they were trying to avoid by subscribing in the first place.
For decades, the cable industry used sports as its anchor. If someone wanted ESPN, they had to pay for the full package. That worked when there were no alternatives, but once Netflix and Hulu arrived, viewers realized they didn’t need the bundle. The only thing holding cable together was sports. ESPN’s announcement cracks that model wide open.
The downside is that à la carte sports streaming isn’t as cheap as many hoped. Stack ESPN+Fox, Marquee, and Chicago Sports Network, and the total already nears $100. Add in league streaming packages, often around $16.99 each, and the bill increases past the cost of YouTube TV, Hulu + Live TV, or Fubo — all priced around $90 per month, not far from what many cable packages start at.
Still, the philosophy matters. It’s not about low cost; it’s about knowing exactly what’s being paid for and having the freedom to build a package based on personal preferences. For sports fans, that shift is significant.
This also raises bigger questions about the future of sports broadcasting. Will leagues eventually consolidate their rights into single platforms? Will fans ever be able to watch all their favorite teams on one app, or will it always require juggling multiple subscriptions? For now, the sports streaming landscape feels fragmented, leaving fans to piece it together however they can.
Here’s the thing: the old system is dead. Cable’s grip on sports fans has loosened, and ESPN’s direct-to-consumer push is the clearest sign yet. For those who cut the cord years ago, this feels like long-awaited validation.
With that… Sports remain the one category of live television people are still willing to pay for. Entertainment can wait, but sports are about the moment — celebrating wins, suffering through losses, and sharing the experience with others in real time. For millions of fans, paying $100 or more each month to keep that connection alive still feels worth it.
If you cannot play for them, then root for them by watching live!