The Cost of Convenience: How Streaming Services Are Bleeding Sports Fans Dry

I remember when watching sports was simple. I’d sit down, grab the remote, and scroll through the family’s Dish or cable guide until something caught my eye — an afternoon baseball game, Thursday night football, the X Games, or even a random sumo match that somehow always pulled me in. Sports were everywhere, and access felt limitless.

Fast forward to today, and being a sports fan feels like a full-time job… with a hefty bill attached.

As someone who follows multiple sports and teams — the Chicago Bears, the Iowa Hawkeyes, a couple of hockey squads, and even indoor football — it’s becoming painfully clear that “cutting the cord” hasn’t saved anyone money. It’s just changed who is holding the scissors.

The Subscription Maze

To watch football, I start with YouTube TV, my modern-day “cable.” It gets me the bulk of Bears and Hawkeyes games — most of which air on FOX — so it’s my main staple. But that’s just the beginning.

Thursday Night Football? That’s locked behind Amazon Prime Video. Some college games? Those pop up on Peacock.

That’s three subscriptions before we even leave the gridiron.

Then comes hockey — ESPN+ has essentially taken over the NHL, so if I want to watch my favorite teams, I’m signing up there too.

As a Cubs fan, I also need Marquee Network just to catch games that used to be available on local stations.

And since I enjoy the Quad Cities Steamwheelers in the IFL and follow some minor league hockey, I end up juggling subscriptions to the IFL’s own streaming service and FloHockey as well.

If you’re keeping count, that’s six different services — all just to keep up with the sports I love.

Of course, I don’t keep them all active at once. Like many fans, I find myself budgeting, prioritizing, and asking, “Which season is worth paying for right now?” YouTube TV stays because it gives my wife her favorite shows and gives me the most games year-round. But everything else rotates in and out, depending on what’s in season or who’s playing.

The Return of the Cable Monster

What’s worse is that even the services I am paying for are now starting to fight with each other — just like the old cable days.

Right now, Disney and YouTube TV are in a dispute over ESPN, leaving fans stuck in the middle while games and shows disappear from the lineup. Sound familiar? It should.

This exact behavior — networks getting greedy, holding content hostage, and pushing providers to raise prices — is what led to the downfall of cable and satellite TV in the first place. Viewers got tired of paying more for less. So we cut the cord.

And now, here we are again.

The Cycle Repeats

Streaming promised convenience and affordability. What it’s delivered is fragmentation and fatigue. Every company wants its own exclusive rights, its own app, and its own $9.99 monthly fee.

For a while, it felt manageable. But as the number of subscriptions grows — and the costs stack up — it’s becoming clear that the streaming bubble is following the same trajectory cable once did.

The question is: will this be the beginning of the end for streaming as we know it?

Maybe. Or maybe we’ll see a new phase where streaming “bundles” start to resemble the cable packages we once fled. Either way, the days of flipping on the TV and catching whatever game was on seem to be long gone.

And honestly, I miss them.

Because no matter how fancy the apps or how crisp the streams get, it’s hard to call it progress when watching your favorite teams means needing a spreadsheet just to track your subscriptions — and a second job to afford them.