ESPN has officially announced that all of its programming will be offered to consumers for $29.99 per month without the requirement of a traditional cable or streaming subscription. They call it... "ESPN." 🔗 www.nytimes.com/athletic/635... - ThreadSky

theathletic.bsky.social • 12 days ago

ESPN has officially announced that all of its programming will be offered to consumers for $29.99 per month without the requirement of a traditional cable or streaming subscription.

They call it... "ESPN."

🔗 https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6350815/2025/05/13/espn-streaming-service-cable/?source=bsky_hq

Comments

sbaker.bsky.social•12 days ago

ryan-haft.com•12 days ago

Wait so if I get ESPN through Spectrum, I get this for free?

spartanplanet.bsky.social•11 days ago

I got YouTube tv because Comcrap wouldn’t carry the Bigten Network. I’ll pass on ESPN, I hate watching Duke and Kansas beat us every year to the non dulcet tones of Dickie V.

liteman.bsky.social•11 days ago

Get rid of all your talent and good shows, then charge $30 per month. 🤣😂😆

noyoudo.bsky.social•12 days ago

They gotta pay for that trash Stephen A contract somehow.

javiatordenver.bsky.social•11 days ago

Isn't that what ESPN+ is? 🤔

deadwoodcs.bsky.social•12 days ago

Personally I think “espn plus max plus”would have been a better name

cheattowin.bsky.social•12 days ago

$20 a month more than it’s worth

josealva.bsky.social•11 days ago

Too high.

pearsont.bsky.social•11 days ago

Now if they would just show live sports and highlights on there, instead of endless chatter, I might subscribe!

tusharj.bsky.social•11 days ago

I refuse to pay a single dollar to a company that employs Stephen A. Smith.

underdog2004.bsky.social•11 days ago

Just don't watch him. I don't, but I will still watch sporting events I like. Otherwise, I'm the one missing out.

ksmetalartist.bsky.social•11 days ago

spaceants.bsky.social•11 days ago

Way too expensive

flempire.bsky.social•12 days ago

Finally no need to have cable.

It’s about time @theathletic.bsky.social it’s 2025 already, this should have been a thing years ago.

filetofsoul312.bsky.social•11 days ago

pedroiar.bsky.social•12 days ago

This is dumb. Youtube TV costs $83, you think your one channel is worth more than a 3rd of that?

nick422.bsky.social•12 days ago

Great job reading the article.

carlosdecolorado.bsky.social•12 days ago

But its literally the same type of content. Sports, sports and more sports. And I love sports but I dont need it for $35/month ha

nick422.bsky.social•12 days ago

Okay then don’t pay it? Or go with the slimmed bundle? But to say that their “one channel” isn’t worth $35 isn’t accurate because it’s nine channels and four streaming entities. For 13 ways to access content you may want, $35 is pretty good.

carlosdecolorado.bsky.social•12 days ago

I can see the appeal but does still seem pricey especially since leagues are spreading distribution around that you also have to pay for...HBO Max, Amazon Prime, TNT, FS1, the list goes on, all have their own costs. Its gotten ridiculous.

1997ms.bsky.social•12 days ago

It's still overpriced even with all that stuff imo. Idk about you guys but my "home town" teams don't have the majority of their games on ESPN, so day-to-day (and especially in the summer) it's value to most people is pretty low.

nick422.bsky.social•12 days ago

I’m a Pirates fan. My home town teams are never on ESPN. I get one MNF game as a Steelers fan and maybe two or three NHL games as a Pens fan. For 13 entities I think it’s a slam dunk if you’re looking at the higher end. To each their own.

eqrants.net•12 days ago

Oh good, more streaming services.

hmstiller.bsky.social•12 days ago

Ah, the money you can save by not caring about the sportsball...

carmelostar.bsky.social•11 days ago

I wanted to cut the cable cord years ago, but then they tried to jack up the price of my internet to the point that an internet/cable bundle wasn't that much more expensive.

charadelaperla.bsky.social•12 days ago

I think is really funny is 2025 and we are going back to 90´s cable for all practical purposes.

rastapackermon.bsky.social•12 days ago

Yeah, not gonna happen

madison5000.bsky.social•12 days ago

They call it…HBO

radiobill.bsky.social•11 days ago

Yes, but imagine how much money and testing went into coming up with that cataclysmic decision

elgatonyc.bsky.social•11 days ago

LMAO!!!!! $30 to listen to Stephen Smith and Pat McAdoofus? They out of their goddamn minds in Bristol.

thedonger.bsky.social•12 days ago

In a move that will certainly alienate current viewers

raggysays.bsky.social•11 days ago

lol why? Nothing changes for them

thedonger.bsky.social•11 days ago

Losing the lower income demographic will hurt their bottom line. Will they still have viewers?...yes. Will their ratings numbers across the board drop?...let's wait and see

raggysays.bsky.social•11 days ago

This argument makes little sense to me. This is a cheaper option to get ESPN than any other currently available. How are bloated, over-priced cable/OTT bundles better for lower income demos?

raggysays.bsky.social•11 days ago

and in any case, any consumers who do prefer a cable/OTT bundle... can still access that way. This is an additive option, aimed at a whole swath of consumers who shun those cable/OTT bundles (i.e. declining viewership) -- does not take anything away from anyone?

jamesonesq.bsky.social•12 days ago

people still watch ESPN for programming other than live sports?

killallkings.bsky.social•11 days ago

Imma still pay FreeFifty...

midori-photo.bsky.social•11 days ago

😂😆🤣😆🤣 Not a fucking chance did pay that!

lapsoirium.bsky.social•11 days ago

Awww how sweet

justdadbod.bsky.social•12 days ago

$30?? Pass

coolagainhooligan.bsky.social•12 days ago

desertjason.bsky.social•11 days ago

I'd probably pay $20 a month for a tier that didn't have the "Embrace Debate" shows.

whatinthebluehell.bsky.social•11 days ago

mrplowthatsmyname.bsky.social•12 days ago

I became a sports fan as a kid because sports were accessible for free on broadcast TV. Especially the hometown teams. The Celtics’, Bruins’, and Red Sox’s home games were only on cable but all of their away games were available for free to all.

A whole generation has grown up without that.

brianwagner.me•12 days ago

Not only that but if you did want to watch the Sox it was like $4/month to add NESN as a single channel. I would add it for the summer and then cancel it as soon as the season ended.

A-la-cart was the bomb!

eqrants.net•12 days ago

Pistons were broadcast on a local OTA channel for like 5 games this year. Not coincidentally the only 5 regular season games I watched.

andrewtheshaw.bsky.social•12 days ago

Trailblazers moved all their game to a regular channel accessible with an antennae. Best thing a team has done in a long time. So many more people are watching them now.

lastcallbaseball.bsky.social•11 days ago

Greed will kill live sports in the medium term. $29?! 😂🤡

basedhits.bsky.social•12 days ago

Only if you get rid of Stephen A Smith.

justanoaccountname.bsky.social•11 days ago

Wrong price point.

timthecommish.bsky.social•11 days ago

US cable companies & networks don’t get that people cut the cord cause of the cost! Charging the same with a different name doesn’t work. We wanted ala carte cable. I get the $30 price point from their perspective but it’s too much.

bigkeeper13.bsky.social•11 days ago

I want quality broadcasts. For a pittance!!!

brandosteele.bsky.social•12 days ago

All for a low low price of about $400 per year. $30 per month and that’s just sports. Now I have to pay for all the rest. By the time this stuff adds up, I should just keep the cable lineup.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply