The Underlying Legitimacy Issues of the Unprecedented NFL-ESPN Partnership
By Jason Bolton September 03, 2025 09:39
When it comes to the relationship between sports coverage networks and the on-pitch/field/court product that they cover, one of the biggest moral dilemmas is to see whether we, the public, are benefiting from real journalism. Is it just a relationship of exposure, or is it a deal in which we’re seeing an incredibly thickly veiled marketing endeavor?
Naturally, the relationship between any supposed coverage entity and the owner/administrator of the covered product will always bring about integrity and legitimacy issues. Can we trust that reporting will provide the big picture? Are we benefiting from all the details that a major story would entail? Is the tone that we’re hearing from this coverage truly reflective of how major a story is?
ESPN has been a monolith of sports tracking for decades, with major shows like First Take becoming a part of the public discourse around the world of sports, especially in the case of American leagues. It just so happens that the entire network, together with its other services, is under Disney’s ownership following the 2017 acquisition of former parent company BAMTech.
However, as the news cycle of August 2025 showcased, there is a new important owner in the mix: the National Football League itself.
Given the major shake-up of the NFL’s media operations, not to mention its ESPN deal, we’re at a crossroads that exacerbates the questions regarding the legitimacy of the coverage, but with a major twist regarding sports betting. In this article, we will summarize this situation and explain why there are very legitimate concerns.
Who Acquired What?
Per Disney's announcement of the 2025 ESPN Deal , a deal was made between the commercial entity that is the NFL and the Walt Disney Corporation itself. The subject was the deal was, in fact, twofold:
-
Disney, through ESPN, acquired the NFL Network, together with the rest of the media assets that the league held, including the RedZone coverage, with fantasy elements being part of the overall transaction.
-
In exchange for selling its in-house media assets, the NFL didn’t pay in direct liquidities, but acquired equity in the ESPN company. Namely, it got 10% of ESPN itself, making it a significant shareholder in one of the, if not the biggest network that covers its product.
The most important thing to note here is the idea that ESPN aims to integrate the NFL Network family of media assets into its direct-to-customer model. While its cable provision model is the best-known way in which ESPN has covered sports, its new App, also called ESPN , is a DTC approach that aims to modernize the network’s product.
Should We Expect Different Coverage?
From what we know regarding technicalities, the main detail about this deal is the fact that the deal will probably see ESPN gain up to three more games to its coverage, starting with the 2026 season. Per the Sports Business Journal's article on the deal , these three games will remain part of NFL Network’s regular season coverage, which will be an integrated part of the ESPN direct-to-customer hub.
As Hans Schoreder, the Executive Vice President of the NFL (and in charge of the media distribution side of the business), said of the ensuing platform, it would be ‘a vibrant, 24/7/365 home for our fans and their viewers and grow it to the next chapter.’
Now, taking the whole package of the NFL’s in-house media coverage and taking it to ESPN brings more exclusivity and a centralized hub for coverage that includes the off-season, pre-season, and the incredibly popular NFL Draft, which has become an immense thing by itself.
The problem that the public would legitimately raise is the idea that the direct ownership status of the NFL with ESPN is the idea that the coverage would become more mellow.
Are There Signs Already?
As you might’ve heard in the last few months, the NFL Players’ Association became embroiled caused by its cover-up of an arbitration ruling that found NFL owners to have colluded. It also covered up another ruling in which the former NFLPA president, J.C. Tretter (a protagonist of the whole scandal), got into trouble (red-handed) because of some podcast remarks about players faking injuries for contract negotiation leverage.
This entire situation caused an entire storm that, very curiously, did not really cause the explosive reactions that some might’ve expected. Senior insiders covering the NFL for ESPN were notoriously silent on the matter, and the League tried its best to avoid covering the story. There was a huge amount of silence, except Don Van Natta's expose of Lloyd Howell , the former executive director of the association.
Former ESPN anchor Dan Patrick raised the issue that the story focused on the NFLPA side rather than a scathing critique of the owners' collusion. As such, there was less demonizing of the owners and more on the receipts and moves of the PA’s leadership.
The conflict of interest is staring us in the face. If the League, whose word weighs heavy on the main coverage of its product, especially when it concerns the stakeholders of the teams that make up the board of governors, or its commercial moves. Direct ownership over the means of coverage and dissemination only ampliifes these questions of legitimacy.
What About ESPN Bet?
ESPN Bet is a very interesting development that only serves as a reminder of what’s at stake with the ascension of online sports betting following the Murphy v. NCAA ruling by the Supreme Court. It shows that the main actors who are benefiting from the market are starting to see dollar signs everywhere, which creates an entire chimera of arguments and concerns.
Criticism of ESPN's deal with PENN Entertainment has already raised many questions about the legitimacy of such a partnership. For those who don’t know the story yet, it was only two short years ago that PENN Entertainment, one of the world’s giants when it comes to the gambling industry, entered a deal with ESPN to acquire the licensing rights of the ESPN name in order to rebrand the previous Barstool Sportsbook.
This deal, costing close to $1.5-2 billion over 10 years, brought massive movement. Not only did ESPN exit its deals with other gambling companies, but it also relaunched its betting-centric show into ESPN Bet Live, followed by an in-person establishment across 2024.
ESPN covers, promotes, and, as we said, covers sportsbook products across its internet presence. Having live shows on a major network that talks about covering spreads (or, as the Europeans say, providing football predictions today) is one thing. A network whose part-owner is the NFL itself (a sport that viewers can bet on) is completely different.
Naturally, this raises the question of whether foul play will ever be an accepted, vetted, or possible outcome on the field to make financial strides because of the direct link between the sportsbook and the League itself.
The answer is quite complicated, but the idea would be that the sportsbook itself is not a direct operation of ESPN, even though it covers and promotes it as part of the billion-dollar deal that we’ve mentioned. However, insiders who have access to both the NFL media and the sportsbook's inner workings are under constant watch.c
Conclusion
To conclude, we are dealing with one of the most interesting and concerning partnerships between professional sports entities and the media itself. It's something in the vein of Saudi Arabia's acquisition of a stake in DAZN, despite being a network that can cover clubs that also fall under the state’s ownership.
This model is certainly eroding the trust that the public has in the sports journalism from major networks, especially given the gambling aspect that strikes at the idea of legitimacy. With the rise of alternative, creator-driven coverage, it’s interesting to see how the market will sort itself.
LATEST
- NEWS
- |
- ARTICLES
- |
- VIDEOS
FAN ARCH PODCAST NETWORK
