ESPN to launch subscription streaming service following BAMTech purchase

The Walt Disney Company on Tuesday announced a $1 billion deal that buys a 33 percent share of BAMTech, a video streaming company whose technology will be used to launch an ESPN streaming service in the near future.

As part of the deal, BAMTech, a creation of Major League Baseball's Advanced Media division, becomes a key partner in Disney's plan to roll out streaming services across its various brands, including ABC and ESPN. If all goes well, Disney has the option to acquire majority ownership rights.

BAMTech specializes in delivering a variety of content through direct-to-consumer products, namely video streaming. Aside from MLB, BAMTech's client list includes HBO NOW, the National Hockey League, the PGA TOUR, WWE Network and more.

In the near term, it appears BAMTech's assets will be applied to an ESPN-branded multi-sport subscription streaming service offering users coverage of live regional, national and international sports events.

"Our investment in BAMTech gives us the technology infrastructure we need to quickly scale and monetize our streaming capabilities at ESPN and across our company," said Disney CEO Robert Iger. "We look forward to working closely with BAMTech as we explore new ways to deliver the unmatched content of The Walt Disney Company across a variety of platforms."

In July, ESPN was rumored to announce a web-based TV streaming package as a sampler to a full-fledged online service, the latter of which would presumably feature content mirroring its cable lineup. The network has been slow to invest in streaming, as doing so might put lucrative cable and satellite deals in jeopardy. Currently, the company fields a free-to-stream app called WatchESPN, though access requires a verified cable account.

ESPN's forthcoming streaming service, while a step up from WatchESPN, will lack marquee shows like SportsCenter and Monday Night Football at launch.

Apple was also said to be in talks with ESPN to add content to an over-the-top service built on so-called "skinny" bundles, or affordable channel packages. The Cupertino tech giant has since put its OTT efforts on hold and is instead redirecting focus to a TV guide for app content.

Latest Exclusives

Latest comparisons

19 Comments

thewhitefalcon 4444 comments · 10 Years

About 8 years ago

Definitely frustrating. I have no doubt the quality of the current services will decline as Disney gets their tenterhooks into it.

Deelron 27 comments · 8 Years

It's dead on arrival without the content that actually draws viewers to ESPN. Also it's a signifigant step down from WatchESPN, as that actually can stream the good content. Either way it stays cable locked.

lkrupp 10521 comments · 19 Years

The à la carte, pick and choose streaming TV service remains an elusive dream. I really don't think we'll see the "$40 streaming package" that is always in the rumor mill any time soon. The content providers are holding strong along with the satellite/cable industry. And besides, even if Apple or someone else comes up with a streaming package it will be trashed by the resident trolls as too expensive and without enough "choice." Meanwhile the individual subscriptions continue to add up at around $10/mo each. Netflix, Hulu, HBO, Showtime, etc. Crackle? Pffft. Meh. The free tiers have nothing but old content that gets interrupted by ads, just like broadcast TV.

DavidAlGregory 214 comments · 8 Years

I am really tired of the Disney subsidy as their channels are bundled into every cable, satellite or skinny bundle of internet streaming. I do not have any kids at home, never watch ABC or ABC Family and watch very few sports. Most of ESPN shows are talking heads gossiping about sports. I'll gladly take a pay per view on a game by game basis- I care not for ESPN's endless pimping of the SEC- which they have a business relationship with. I gave up on MLB, the NBA and the NFL years ago. A world of Disney free TV would be nice.

gatorguy 24609 comments · 13 Years

lkrupp said:

The à la carte, pick and choose streaming TV service remains an elusive dream. I really don't think we'll see the "$40 streaming package" that is always in the rumor mill any time soon. The content providers are holding strong along with the satellite/cable industry. And besides, even if Apple or someone else comes up with a streaming package it will be trashed by the resident trolls as too expensive and without enough "choice." Meanwhile the individual subscriptions continue to add up at around $10/mo each. Netflix, Hulu, HBO, Showtime, etc. Crackle? Pffft. Meh. The free tiers have nothing but old content that gets interrupted by ads, just like broadcast TV.

Pretty much agree. the best "skinny" bundle I could get was the Sling "Blue" package, which does a decent job of covering our particular family's favorite programming. The addition of Syfy was enough for my wife, and the Fox Sports channels got us our local teams. But there's other content I enjoyed (some of the Discovery programming for instance) that comes with only cable subscriptions. i suspect when all the dust settles few of us will actually pay any less for the a'la carte channels than we would for a current cable package if we want access to the content we actually viewed.

Example, TBS has one single program I enjoy, as does TNT. SyFy little to nothing but my wife likes it. The History channel has some but much of that too I don't have much interest in. Still I'd want it. I'd want PBS and the Science Channel too even tho there's not too much even there that I really would like to view. But there is some. Local news of course is problematic without an antenna, tho my local Fox affiliate is now included with Sling. By the time you add up $5-$10 for 20 or so à la carte channels you're going to bump up to that $100 plus anyway. The content providers aren't going to give away programming so we aren't going to see the savings we think we will. On the contrary I expect it to cost even more to see what we want.