27 August 2026
The Code-Share Era: Why Sport's Next Growth Market Is Someone Else's Audience
Bayern Munich and the NHL just signed a partnership with no disclosed money in it. That is exactly what makes it interesting.
Read article →Strategy
What happens when sport stops merely using technology and starts being organized by it?
For the better part of two decades, the most influential business idea in sport was simple enough to fit on a slide in a front office boardroom: data beats instinct. That was the enduring lesson of the Moneyball era. Recruit more intelligently. Price talent more rationally. Find value others cannot see. Strip out emotion, leave in edge.
It is tempting to explain all of this by saying “AI arrived.” But that is too shallow. The real driver is that several economic pressures in sport have converged at once.
The first is the fragmentation of attention. The average fan, especially the younger fan, no longer consumes sport in one predictable place, in one predictable way. They watch live, but also on mobile. They follow clips, creators, stats feeds, alternate casts, betting interfaces, fantasy overlays, messaging apps, and social platforms. The modern rights holder therefore needs more than a broadcast deal. It needs a content engine capable of serving different behaviors in real time. That creates demand for firms like WSC.
The second is the explosion of data-dependent commercial models. Betting is the obvious example, but it is not the only one. Personalized advertising, sponsor measurement, dynamic graphics, fan CRM, direct-to-consumer apps, and interactive watch experiences all rely on data being clean, trusted, and interoperable. That creates demand for companies like Genius and Infinite Athlete.
The third is pressure on legacy media economics. This is where the story becomes especially interesting, because sport is often described as the last great fortress of linear television. That remains broadly true. But fortress does not mean immunity.
S&P Global estimates global sports rights payments will reach $67.34 billion in 2026, up 9.6% from 2025, helped by quadrennial events such as the Winter Olympics and FIFA World Cup. Yet that global rise coexists with growing evidence that key mature markets are becoming more complicated and less straightforwardly inflationary. In the UK, an Ampere Analysis report published by Ofcom said the sports rights market had “somewhat plateaued since 2021” because of slower TV revenue growth, declining pay-TV subscribers, and a lack of new buyer competition. The same report noted that, adjusted for inflation, UK sports rights spend in 2024 was roughly £500 million below its 2021 peak.
That contradiction, global growth alongside local plateauing and consumer strain is exactly the sort of market environment in which infrastructure players thrive. When rights holders cannot rely on simple fee inflation forever, they start looking for new monetization levers: better engagement, more personalized inventory, more sponsor value extraction, more data products, more interactivity, more direct relationships with fans. In other words, they start looking for software.
The fourth pressure is consumer frustration with fragmentation itself. Recent reporting around the NFL’s distribution model shows how sensitive this has become. The AP and Washington Post reported that the U.S. Department of Justice is investigating aspects of NFL broadcasting arrangements amid concerns about cost and fragmentation, with reports noting that following all games in 2025 could require access across 10 different services and potentially cost fans over $1,500 a year. Whether that probe changes the industry materially remains to be seen. But the fact that sports distribution is now drawing antitrust and affordability scrutiny tells you something profound. Rights maximization has started to collide with usability.
That collision makes smarter packaging and smarter targeting even more valuable. If the live rights environment becomes more fragmented and cumbersome, the surrounding digital ecosystem highlights, interactive layers, alternate experiences, in-app environments matters more.
Which again points back to the sports-tech stack.
Most discussions of sports tech are strangely flat. They focus on excitement, capability, and innovation, while skipping over one of the most important dimensions of any technological transition: labor.WSC’s core promise only makes sense because it can do work that was previously done by teams of editors and digital producers. Genius’s products reduce the need for manual statistical packaging and can standardize outputs across media and betting environments. A synchronized platform like Infinite Athlete reduces the amount of human reconciliation required to make different layers talk to one another.
The polite corporate language for this is “efficiency”.
The more honest description is that entire categories of routine media and operational work are being redefined by automation. This does not mean all those jobs vanish overnight. In many cases they evolve upward: more strategy, more oversight, more packaging, more exception handling, less repetitive production. But it does mean the skill mix changes. Editorial labor moves from clip-building toward brand framing and distribution strategy. Broadcast labor moves from static storytelling toward data-enhanced orchestration. Commercial teams depend more on software-enabled activation and less on manual campaign execution.
There is also a subtler shift in status. In the old sports hierarchy, production, commentary, and relationship management often carried prestige because they visibly shaped the product. In the new hierarchy, engineering, data architecture, and stack integration gain influence because they shape the conditions under which the product can be made at scale. That can change who rises, who gets budget, and which departments quietly become the center of gravity.
This is another reason the term “disruption” can be misleading. It suggests a clean replacement of old by new. What is actually happening is more like a redistribution of power inside organizations: away from purely editorial or broadcast craft, and toward platform management, data operations, and software partnerships.
Who understands that first will hire differently. And the clubs and leagues that hire differently first usually gain the edge.
If data is the new commercial substrate of sports, the question of who owns athlete data becomes unavoidable. This is where the story of the Stack Era stops being just commercial and becomes political. As performance tech becomes more granular, wearables, player tracking, biomechanics, load management, recovery indicators, surface data, sensor integrations, the athlete increasingly exists not just as a competitor but as a live data-generating entity. Infinite Athlete’s entire proposition, for example, is built around integrating performance, video, and biomechanics layers. Chelsea explicitly described the Tempus Ex/Infinite Athlete relationship as stretching from fan engagement to coaching, player health, safety, and match preparation.
That may produce better outcomes. It may reduce injury risk, improve tactical preparation, and generate smarter development. But it also makes the athlete’s digital footprint more commercially useful than ever before.
And the law is not fully caught up.
Crucial questions arise, such as who can sell athlete-generated data? Who can combine it with video? Who can use it in commercial products? Who can retain it when a player changes teams? Who can compare it across platforms? And can a player meaningfully consent in an environment where refusing data collection may affect selection, contract negotiations, or return-to-play protocols?
The more sport becomes software-mediated, the more athlete data sovereignty moves from the margins to the center. This will not only be a legal issue. It will be a labor issue, a collective bargaining issue, and eventually a brand issue. Because fans are happy to embrace new technology until they suspect the athlete has become less a person than a perpetual source of monetizable telemetry.
The sports industry is not there yet. But it is moving in that direction.
There is a reason these technologies are spreading so quickly, and it is not just because executives like dashboards. Much of this is genuinely useful to fans. The modern sports consumer has become accustomed to a level of digital responsiveness that old sports products did not always provide. They expect immediate clips. They expect multilingual content. They expect alternate angles, instant stats, custom overlays, and interfaces that behave more like products than broadcasts. Chelsea’s numbers around Match View X, 2.7 million views, nearly half of users engaging with interactive features, and a 48% increase in views year on year, suggest that when these products are well executed, fans respond.
This is why dismissing all of it as gimmickry would be a mistake.
There is real consumer value in faster, richer, more personalized sports media. There is value in not waiting for a producer to cut your club’s best moments. There is value in broadcasts that explain more, not less. There is value in products that make sport easier to understand for casual fans without alienating committed ones. There is value in sponsor activations that are less crude and more relevant. There is value in digital ecosystems that extend the emotional life of the event beyond the final whistle. The problem is that fan benefit and industry concentration often arrive together.
That is the historical lesson from platform economics almost everywhere else. Convenience can mask dependency. Personalization can mask enclosure. Better user experience can mask a transfer of power toward the firms that mediate that experience.
In sports, this dynamic is especially potent because the emotional attachment of fans makes them very tolerant of product experimentation so long as the underlying passion remains intact. They do not necessarily care who built the highlight engine or who synchronized the data feed. They care that it works.
Until, of course, it stops working for them.
Fragmented rights, rising costs, paywalls, over-targeting, privacy concerns, and ad saturation are reminders that technological sophistication does not automatically align with fan welfare. That is why the current moment feels so unstable. The tools are getting better at the same time as the overall consumer ecosystem is getting more fragmented and expensive. Fans are benefiting from this stack-driven evolution. But they are not necessarily in control of where it leads.
For years, the sports industry comforted itself with a reassuring belief: no matter what happened to entertainment more broadly, live rights would remain the most resilient premium asset in media.That belief still contains a lot of truth. S&P Global’s estimate of $67.34 billion in global sports rights payments in 2026 underlines how valuable live rights remain. But the question is no longer whether sports rights are valuable. It is whether rights alone are enough.
That is a different strategic question.
As rights become more fragmented across broadcasters, streamers, DTC products, and tech platforms, the surrounding software layer matters more. Rights holders need better data, better discoverability, better retention tools, better personalization, better sponsor integration, and better methods of turning one live event into an ecosystem of monetizable outputs. In a previous era, a rights deal could paper over inefficiency. In the current one, rights inflation still matters, but it is less capable of doing all the work by itself. That is why sports organizations are increasingly willing to partner with technology firms that promise not just audience growth, but operational leverage.
There is also a strategic irony here.
For much of television history, broadcasters were the gatekeepers because they controlled distribution. In the next phase, the gatekeepers may be the firms that control the data and software standards that make fragmented distribution workable. In other words, the new leverage may sit less in owning the channel and more in owning the interoperability layer.
That is a very different sort of moat.
And it explains why investors are so interested in companies that, on the surface, may not appear as glamorous as clubs or leagues. Infrastructure businesses are attractive because they can become essential across many rights holders at once. They scale horizontally across the industry rather than vertically within one property.The more fragmented sport becomes, the more valuable those horizontal connectors become.
The phrase gets overused, but in this case it fits. What makes firms like WSC Sports, Genius Sports, and Infinite Athlete distinct is not merely that they use AI. It is the worldview they bring to sport. Traditional sports organizations tend to think in property terms: our team, our league, our broadcast, our sponsor, our venue, our season cycle. Technology companies think in stack terms: ingestion, standardization, automation, scale, APIs, interfaces, activation, data portability, network effects. When those two worldviews collide, the tech worldview often ends up setting the tempo.
That is because stack logic compounds. A club can build a successful direct-to-consumer campaign. A league can launch a smart app. A broadcaster can create an alternate feed. But the company that provides the common infrastructure behind many such efforts gains a broader and more defensible advantage.
This is the lesson Silicon Valley learned long ago. Products matter. Platforms matter more. WSC is pushing beyond highlights into sponsorship activation and commercial workflows. Genius combines official data, betting distribution, and augmented broadcast tools. Infinite Athlete is trying to unify event data, video, performance, and fan products under one synchronized environment. These are not random adjacencies. They are classic platform moves.
And once you understand them as platform moves, the future becomes easier to imagine.
More acquisitions. More consolidation. More exclusive deals. More pressure on leagues to decide whether they want best-in-class point solutions or a smaller number of foundational technology partners. More tension over data access and portability. More commercial value accruing to the firms that can sit between content creation, fan engagement, and monetization. This is not just tech entering sport. It is platform capitalism adapting itself to sport.
So who will own the future of sport?
That question sounds dramatic, but it is the right one. For most of the modern era, ownership in sport was intuitive. Teams owned brands. Leagues owned competitions. Broadcasters owned screens. Sponsors rented attention. Fans supplied loyalty.
Today, ownership is becoming more layered and less visible.
Who owns the official live data? Who owns the player-tracking architecture? Who owns the clip-generation workflow? Who owns the interactive streaming layer? Who owns the fan segmentation logic? Who owns the biometric archive? Who owns the software environment in which all of this becomes operational?
The answer, increasingly, is: not always the people you assume.
And that is why this moment deserves more attention than it usually gets in mainstream sports coverage. The visible drama of sport still happens on the field, court, pitch, or track. But the invisible battle for the economics of sport is happening underneath it, in software agreements, data contracts, rights extensions, integrations, acquisition strategies, and the quiet accumulation of dependency.
That is the battle the Stack Era names.
Moneyball changed the way sports thought. The Stack Era is changing the way sports function.
That is the real distinction.
Moneyball helped clubs make smarter judgments. The Stack Era is about environments that operate with less human mediation. Moneyball was about insight. The Stack Era is about infrastructure. Moneyball produced better questions. The Stack Era is producing a different industrial order.
WSC Sports shows what happens when media production becomes software. Genius Sports shows what happens when official data becomes one of the most valuable strategic choke points in the industry. Infinite Athlete shows what happens when someone tries to unify the entire environment into a single, continuous data layer beneath modern sport.
None of this means the old powers disappear. Leagues remain immensely powerful. Clubs still own cultural meaning. Athletes still create the product. Broadcasters still pay huge sums for live rights. But the center of gravity is shifting. A growing share of leverage now belongs to the companies that make sport legible to machines, interoperable across layers, and monetizable across contexts.
That is a profound development, because infrastructure power is often the hardest power to see and the hardest power to reverse once embedded. The next great fortunes in sport may still be made through rights, ownership, and sponsorship. But the next great strategic control points are more likely to be found in code, data flows, synchronization layers, and AI-driven infrastructure.
The Moneyball era taught sport how to think like a spreadsheet. The Stack Era is teaching it how to behave like software.
And when an industry starts to behave like software, the most valuable asset is no longer just talent, or content, or even rights. It is the stack everything else has to run through.
A. Strulak writes on sports business, commercial strategy and the economics of rights. Vinciamo Sports, Sport. Reimagined.
More Insight
Bayern Munich and the NHL just signed a partnership with no disclosed money in it. That is exactly what makes it interesting.
Read article →Talent is rarely the scarce resource in sport. The system capable of finding, developing and retaining it usually is.
Read article →Why a century of accumulated meaning is becoming football's scarcest commercial asset, and how one club is building that asset from scratch.
Read article →