Fubo Wants an Injunction to Create Venu-Like Packages; What Would They Look Like if It Could?

The Fubo antitrust lawsuit against Venu Sports is moving into a new phase this week. On Tuesday, Fubo is seeking a preliminary injunction to stop Disney, Fox, and Warner Bros. Discovery from bringing their joint venture platform to market this fall, and whether or not a judge agrees to the request is anyone’s guess, it could prevent Venu from reaching customers for months, or even years if the injunction is granted. One critical part of Fubo’s arguments that Venu is anti-competitive is that the joint venture partners have consistently forced multi-channel video programming distributors (MVPDs) and their digital counterparts to carry less popular cable channels in order to get in-demand networks like ESPN, leaving Fubo and its competitors unable to sell “skinny” channel bundles like Venu is attempting to do. We’ll take a look at what a Fubo channel lineup might look like if it gets its way in court and how much customers might be asked to pay.

Key Details:

• Sports channels are frequently some of the most expensive, but Fubo would likely offer several options built around different networks.
• A slimmed-down Fubo package seems like it would threaten YouTube TV the most.
• It’s worth wondering if Fubo would have created such a package if it could, given the cost and the lower average revenue per user it would generate.

Fubo CEO and co-founder David Gandler had the chance to discuss his company’s lawsuit against Venu on Tuesday, when Fubo released its second-quarter earnings report. He reiterated his position that Venu’s true purpose is to “limit competition,” and said that he understood why customers are increasingly fed up with the climbing cost of streaming live sports.

“Consumers passionate about sports content but frustrated with high prices and inflexible bundles need multiple streaming options with competitive pricing,” Gandler said.

Gandler has made reference to Fubo’s desire to create slimmed-down channel bundles that focused purely on sports before. In an open letter published in April, Gandler called Disney, Fox, and WBD a “cartel” who had “blocked our playbook for years” by forcing Fubo to carry other channels in its packages and not allowing it to sell sports-only plans to viewers; which is exactly what Venu Sports is planning to do now.

The CEO has also said that his company was being overcharged by 30% to 50% as a result of these tactics, and that forced Fubo to pass along those costs to consumers.

“We’re dealing with complexities around packaging. We’re forced to take on content that we don’t want in order to access ‘must have’ programming,” Gandler said in late March.

One of Fubo’s main goals in seeking a preliminary injunction in court this week is to prevent Disney, Fox, and WBD from forbidding Fubo to package their channels in this way. If it succeeds, new Fubo plans with fewer channel selections at lower price points could hit the market very quickly.

What Would Skinny Fubo Packages Look Like?

Venu will offer sports content from 14 channels owned by the three companies involved, including ESPN, FS1, TNT, SEC Network, and more, as well as all sports from ESPN+ and Max. If Fubo were to build similar-looking bundles, it would likely include many of the same networks, although the streamer has not carried the Turner Networks since a carriage dispute knocked them off its airwaves in 2020. However, if the judge rules in the company’s favor, that could perhaps force WBD’s hand to negotiate with the company despite any ill will between them.

Another change that could come is that Fubo could offer various combinations of national and regional sports networks (RSNs) if it were allowed to sell smaller bundles. Making the regional sports network fee optional instead of a requirement would help lower prices instantly for Fubo customers; currently, viewers have to pay as much as $14.99 per month extra if they receive an RSN with Fubo, as the vast majority of U.S. customers do.

A slimmed-down Fubo that carried the Big Ten Network, ESPN, ESPN2, FS1, FS2, NFL Network, NBA TV, NHL Network, and MLB Network along with local broadcast channels would be a good place to start. This bundle would likely have to cost at least $25 per month, as ESPN commands an estimated carriage fee of almost $10 per customer. FS1’s fee per customer is believed to be somewhere north of $1 per subscriber, but it does not approach the $3 per month that WBD charges for TNT, which is believed to be the second-most expensive cable channel on the market, at least while it still carries NBA basketball.

From that point, Fubo could offer specific bundles tailored to individual sports. A plan including ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, and ESPN could be sold for around $20 to $30 per month would be perfect for NFL and college football fans, and Fubo could reach out to Amazon to bundle that package with Prime Video so viewers wouldn’t miss “Thursday Night Football.” Fubo could create similar combinations revolving around baseball, basketball, college sports, and any other options it wanted.

Such bundles would likely sap some sports-obsessed customers away from other live TV streaming services. DIRECTV STREAM is more of an all-around service, but would still lose customers who sign up to watch live sports. Sling TV would be in bigger danger, as it already offers skinnier channel bundles close to what Fubo would be looking to offer. However, Sling’s limited broadcast channel availability makes it a difficult subscription for sports fans outside of major markets.

YouTube TV might be in the most danger from a Fubo able to execute its long-maintained plans. The Google-owned live TV streaming service carries nearly as many national sports channels as Fubo does, including NBA TV and NFL Network in its base plan. YouTube TV also has a very good reputation among sports fans thanks to the multiview feature it offers for sports fans; Fubo also offers a multiview function, but only on Apple TV devices. Slimmed-down sports-focused packages that let viewers watch the content they want most for less than the $72.99 per month that YouTube TV charges would be a notable threat to the biggest live streamer on the market.