Professional sports is big business—and the stakes have never been higher. Sarah Spain, host of the podcast Good Game With Sarah Spain, longtime ESPN personality, and sports journalist, unpacks what those stakes mean for the leagues, teams, companies, and players involved. From the WNBA’s breakthrough to the future of ESPN’s streaming to the looming legal settlement that could transform college athletics, sports business is at a crossroads.
This is an abridged transcript of an interview from Rapid Response, hosted by the former editor-in-chief of Fast Company Bob Safian. From the team behind the Masters of Scale podcast, Rapid Response features candid conversations with today’s top business leaders navigating real-time challenges. Subscribe to Rapid Response wherever you get your podcasts to ensure you never miss an episode.
As women’s pro sports become more successful, do you worry that it’s going to take on some of the toxic qualities of men’s pro sports, more aggressive media conversations, bad behavior off the court or off the field? How much is that a looming question that these women’s leagues have to sort of grapple with or maybe redefine?
Very much. And actually, we saw it last year with Caitlin Clark’s entry into the [WNBA]. It was awesome that more people were watching and more people were interested. It also meant talking heads who didn’t know the game, weren’t watching the games, and certainly didn’t understand the intersectionality of women’s sports, and how it intersects with race, sexuality, homophobia, misogyny, all those things. And they created damaging and toxic conversations that were actually dangerous to players.
There were multiple incidents of players’ addresses being sent, and [notes saying] “I’m going to find you.” Or people showing up in the places the players were and players feeling like they were endangered. Breanna Stewart’s wife actually got threats. So I think the attention is great, the investment is great, but what comes with that is an expectation that we’ll suddenly turn women’s sports into the same as men’s. And there’s a real gift in it not being the same.
There’s a real joy in the space feeling different than men’s. And I named my show Good Game With Sarah Spain, because originally I wanted to name it The Good Place With Sarah Spain. But that’s a TV show, and it would be hard for people to distinguish and find when they looked for it online. But that’s how I feel about going to a women’s professional sporting event. It’s the good place. It is incredibly diverse. It is incredibly kind. Everyone’s rooting for their team, and they’re very competitive, but there’s no fistfights. People aren’t getting hammered and falling down the stands on each other.
I think that with the NWSL [National Women’s Soccer League], for instance, when they had the recent forced purchases of a couple teams due to the toxicity I mentioned, they had a new rule where the majority owner needed to be financially liable as one person. There could be a group of owners, but they required that one owner bear the financial burden, if necessary, and that person had to be a billionaire.
That meant that these large groups of women, who have a lot of money but aren’t billionaires, were shut out. And it inevitably meant that once again, we were returning to ownership groups where it was going to be most likely a middle-aged white guy that owned it.
And that’s fine if that person is really dedicated to women’s sports, and wants to learn the space and understand everything about it. It’s a little tougher if it’s another plaything that they have with four other teams, and they don’t feel as connected to the space. And, again, #notallmen. But what the problem with the previous iteration of the NWSL was how many owners and coaches it turned out were engaging in toxic or abusive behavior, or at the very least, covering up for each other, sending a coach on his way: “Thank you for your service.” Nice long letter: “Thanks for your time here.” While knowing that they were letting them go because of abusive behavior, and letting them get hired somewhere else.
And that’s not to say that women won’t do that and never do that, but there is a belief that you’ve got to have more women at the highest levels to help prevent those kind of situations, and that kind of atmosphere and culture, from taking over again.
You worked at ESPN in various roles for a bunch of years. And I want to ask you about ESPN’s new dedicated streaming service: $30 a month for all the live coverage, ESPN+, in-game betting, so on. What impact do you think that this will have on sports media?
Bob, are you as confused by the name being ESPN as I am?
I am. I was, like, so ESPN+ is on ESPN, but I can also get ESPN? I don’t know, it’s . . .
Right. I just feel like we’re about to enter another HBO Max, Max, HBO, Max, ouroboros kind of situation here. But it feels inevitable. Obviously, during the massive shift away from traditional cable, and the unbundling, where ESPN no longer got $13, or whatever it was, from every human in America who had cable. What a great deal for ESPN, because not all of them were watching ESPN, right? But also, for cable, ESPN was a huge reason that people wanted to buy it. So it was a great partnership for a long time.
That goes away, and it becomes quite clear that ESPN needs to try to keep up with the digital side of things, and needs to have a streaming direct-to-consumer service, because people aren’t just going with cable anymore. I think for a while, folks who appreciate the television side will still get an approximation of what it used to be. But you’re already seeing ESPN2 used to be an incubator for new shows, and creativity, and new talent, and now it’s mostly reruns.
You’re seeing shows like Around the Horn, and others, that are shoulder programming for the live shows, that will start to go away. Because on streaming you don’t need to fill a specific amount of time. You just create whatever amount of content you want to have.
So they’ll start focusing on rights, pre- and post-show Sports Center, and I would say a couple big-property studio shows. But I think those are going to go away more and more. And I think if you also look at ESPN’s decision-making around more influencer-type and former-athlete-type content, as opposed to journalistic content, that is unfortunate reacting to the world’s, I guess, demands, and the speed and desires of the current younger consumer.
But I do worry about how that impacts ESPN’s position in the industry. Because what separates them from everyone else is that they’re the “worldwide leader.” If it’s on ESPN, it’s right, it’s accurate, it’s vetted, it’s journalistically sound.
When you’ve got a Pat McAfee, whose show is produced elsewhere and dropped onto ESPN airwaves, and they wash their hands of the production and creation side of it, and they tell you it’s a little bit different—but the viewer doesn’t know that. So when he goes on and says things that are factually incorrect, does stories that are—for instance, one he’s now being sued for libel—essentially, that aren’t vetted, and aren’t sourced before he takes them in front of millions. That, I think, impacts how people view everything else on the network, even if it’s just subconsciously.
When they turn it on, do they still think everything Adam Schefter says is journalistically sound? Or does the fact that Pat McAfee is on the same network. Or Stephen A. Smith, who will say, “Oh, I can’t talk about Dana White hitting his wife on camera; he’s a close personal friend of mine.”
That’s not how journalism works, right? And so when that starts to blur the lines, does the rest of what’s coming out on that network get harmed by it? And does it then prevent them from being separated from the pack in a way that they used to be?
I don’t know. I’m not in charge. It’s above my pay grade. From my point of view, yes, and that concerns me. But also, I get that everyone’s trying to get the younger consumer, and they seem to like a screaming head influencer or former athlete more than they like someone who knows how to do journalism.
