Netflix’s FIFA Women’s World Cup Agreement Resembles a Pay-to-Play Model: Rueter
For years, American soccer has faced challenges in making elite programs affordable for families, largely due to the existing pay-to-play system.
As this landscape continues to resist change, a new challenge might be arising with the recent agreement between FIFA and Netflix to exclusively broadcast the 2027 and 2031 Women’s World Cups on the streaming service.
In a press release on Friday revealing the partnership, FIFA used a plethora of superlatives, referring to the deal as “landmark,” “unparalleled,” “top-tier,” and “a truly historic day for broadcasting.” This new agreement focuses solely on the Women’s World Cups and introduces English and Spanish-language broadcasts, marking FIFA’s departure from its long-standing arrangement with Fox.
Nonetheless, this move poses a risk of hindering the growth of women’s soccer as a potentially unintended outcome.
Integrating the World Cup — previously the last stronghold of free-to-view soccer — into a subscription-based service might reduce viewership and limit public watch parties that are integral to American sports culture, thereby affecting the sport’s overall accessibility. Furthermore, it could restrict domestic fans’ access to the country’s most competitive soccer teams, irrespective of gender.
FIFA is also placing considerable faith in an unproven live broadcaster. Would it have been as willing to grant Netflix the rights to the men’s World Cup without a proven track record? It would have been prudent for Netflix to demonstrate its capabilities with the Club World Cups next summer. For that event, FIFA signed a deal to air matches on a different platform, DAZN, which will be freely accessible worldwide.
On the surface, the deal appears to offer clear advantages for both entities.
From FIFA’s perspective, it has secured a partner for the upcoming Women’s World Cups in a company renowned for disrupting conventional industries while managing to remain sustainable — or as sustainable as streaming services have proven to be thus far.
For Netflix, this marks a significant leap into the sports arena after previously dipping its toes with events like Mike Tyson vs. Jake Paul and NFL coverage on Christmas Day. We can anticipate an expansion of live sports offerings in the lead-up to the Spanish women’s national team’s title defense in 2027.
Mike Tyson’s defeat by Jake Paul was shown on Netflix (Al Bello/Getty Images)
The new partnership exudes confidence, despite Netflix’s limited history in live soccer broadcasts or covering tournaments rather than singular events. Netflix stated that the agreement “covers all languages and will include both English and Spanish telecasts,” abandoning FIFA’s prior strategy of dividing language rights to cater to distinct markets.
However, viewership trends shift quickly. While Netflix may be new to live sports, it possesses the financial resources and infrastructure required to deliver this extensive month-long event with creativity and precision.
As my colleague Richard Deitsch pointed out on Friday: “Netflix becoming involved in live sports rights will transform sports consumption and create challenges for traditional linear broadcasters given its financial strength.”
What does this mean for soccer in the United States?
Over the next two years, we’ll need to observe how Netflix prepares for its first major international tournament through its content offerings and the performance of other live events on its platform.
The streamer’s recent forays faced significant obstacles. The Paul vs. Tyson event was criticized as an overhyped spectacle lacking a genuinely compelling main event, though some of that is typical for gimmick bouts. The primary concern was an overwhelming number of complaints about buffering and freezing issues, particularly during the most exciting fight of the night between Katie Taylor and Amanda Serrano.
Bloomberg’s Mark Gurman reported that Netflix’s chief technology officer acknowledged the feedback in an internal memo, stating, “We don’t want to disregard the poor experience of some members and recognize we have areas to improve, but still consider this event a tremendous success.”
The event still reached 60 million households, according to Netflix. In Spain, England, Australia, and the United States alone, the 2023 final, which did not feature the U.S. women’s national team, attracted an average audience of 35.2 million. In contrast, the 2019 final amassed a global average of 82.18 million live viewers and a total of 260 million viewers as the USWNT triumphed over the Netherlands. Netflix boasts about 270 million subscribers worldwide, with approximately 80 million in the U.S. and Canada. Nonetheless, there’s no certainty that these existing subscribers will choose to watch the event.
More events that can draw viewership, such as celebrity boxing and a holiday NFL game, will hopefully enable Netflix to resolve any issues and prepare for a successful tournament. In September, Netflix co-CEO Greg Peters expressed intentions “to Netflix-ify (NFL games) a bit,” adding “a little additional content surrounding the games with our talent, that will hopefully make it incredibly fun.”
The prospect of FIFA “Netflix-ifying” the World Cup, such as by starting all 16 group stage matches simultaneously (if the tournament still consists of only 32 teams, anyway) seems far-fetched. However, users might do something distinctly Netflix-like: scrolling through options for 10 minutes before feeling overwhelmed and reverting to their endless rewatch of Arrested Development.
This partnership was likely unavoidable. The business minds at FIFA recognize the need to stay ahead of evolving trends to optimize revenue and outreach, especially as the entertainment industry grapples with changing consumer habits.
There has, however, been one significant exception to this streaming revolution: the American sports bar. As a soccer fan in the U.S., I’ve often experienced the difficulty of finding venues that broadcast the games I wish to watch.
MLS’s decade-long agreement with Apple TV has eliminated local blackouts but has greatly reduced the opportunity to view even its top matches in public settings. The same issue arises when your Premier League or USL Super League match airs on Peacock, your Serie A or Champions League game on Paramount+, or your USMNT or USWNT friendly on Max, or your La Liga or Bundesliga match on ESPN+. NWSL games are even more fragmented, spread across Amazon Prime and the dedicated NWSL+ platform, in addition to CBS, ESPN, and Ion.
Lionel Messi has contributed to drawing audiences to MLS (Carmen Mandato/Getty Images)
Some bars have adapted their viewing capabilities, made easier as bartenders and servers become more familiar with the different platforms’ interfaces. However, many may not feel the necessity to evolve when numerous traditional men’s and women’s sports remain accessible through basic or expanded cable packages.
Ensuring that bars, restaurants, and public spaces can broadcast these games should be a priority for both Netflix and FIFA. Facilitating access for families with limited entertainment budgets to watch a World Cup is equally crucial in their considerations, potentially through generous free trial periods or by providing several matches free of charge.
When games are largely available on streaming services, it can be challenging for cable-dependent businesses to adapt. According to CNBC, DirecTV declined to cover the six-figure licensing fee to stream Netflix’s NFL double-header on Christmas. Consequently, “DirecTV bars” wishing to show the games face the option to pay hundreds of dollars monthly for an EverPass subscription.
It’s understandable that many owners hesitate to incur additional fees just to show games. This may limit opportunities during a World Cup when the women’s game is more competitive than ever. The United States will aim to redeem itself after the 2023 setback and is currently ranked atop the world rankings, having secured Olympic gold. The global stage is filled with formidable contenders, including reigning finalists Spain and England, Olympic runners-up Brazil, as well as competitive teams like Canada, Japan, and Germany.
It is critical to examine this partnership with scrutiny, particularly given FIFA’s past failure to equally support its women’s soccer tournament, having only recently increased prize money and given attention to broadcast rights distinct from the men’s tournament.
Moreover, there’s ironic richness in FIFA’s proactive stance on offering broadcast rights for the 2031 Women’s World Cup before finalizing the host. Although the U.S. and Mexico have expressed joint bid interest, FIFA announced that a decision will not be reached until “the second quarter of 2025,” while the hosting rights for the 2034 men’s World Cup have already been assigned.
This agreement is the latest initiative that places access to the sport firmly within pay-to-view frameworks. For a nation of immigrants increasingly enamored with the sport, this reality presents a sobering perspective accompanying the corporate rhetoric celebrating the deal. For those struggling to afford participation in the sport, what implications arise when viewing its most prestigious tournament comes at a significant subscription cost?
Ironically, FIFA president Gianni Infantino has previously advocated for ending the pay-to-play system in the U.S.
“One of the things that struck me here in America is that children have to pay to play. We must bring this to a halt,” Infantino stated at the 2024 Milken Institute Global Conference in Los Angeles.
The pay-to-watch model introduced by this partnership perpetuates the same barriers Infantino sought to dismantle. Yet perhaps this is what FIFA intended by describing it as “a truly historic day for broadcasting.”
(Casa de S.M. el Rey/Spanish Royal Household via Getty Images)
