FIFA+ Smartly Targets Shoulder Content With New Soccer FAST

While international soccer rights have become a growing part of the live sports strategy for U.S. streaming services, it’s potentially made it harder for fans to connect to the game.

Along with the price tags that media companies are paying for the rights—from England’s Premier League ($2.7 billion) to Spain’s La Liga ($1.4 billion), to Germany’s Bundesliga ($241 million)— U.S. audiences are paying for a variety of streaming and/or cable services to tune in. Add in the various services required to watch the U.S. men’s and women’s national teams, plus other domestic leagues around the world, along with FIFA-sanctioned events like the World Cup, Champions League and more… it all adds up pretty quick.

That cost, of course, is why the newly announced “FIFA+” streaming service could wind up an extremely smart play for soccer’s global governing body.

Rather than trying to compete with the world’s richest media companies for redundant content, FIFA+ appears to understand that its value is derived from how it expands the reach of soccer content. That’s not only accomplished through original shoulder programming, an extensive archival library and exclusive live games, but also the fact that the service will not cost consumers a dime.

Given the nature of how much sports rights usually cost, you don’t hear much about sports-focused free, ad-supported streaming TV (FAST). Yet, that’s exactly what FIFA+ is doing here, as a way to better democratize coverage of soccer and its audience by removing the numerous financial hurdles that currently prevent one or both aspects.

FIFA+ pledges to air 29,000 men’s matches and another 11,000 women’s matches from the world’s domestic leagues, providing access to leagues that many U.S. viewers would have little opportunity to watch otherwise. Exclusive FIFA+ originals emphasizing the stories behind some of the game’s most talented (male and female) players only serve to enhance the fan-focused experience. But the biggest draw may be the previously untapped archival footage market.

Past games are not a new phenomenon for viewers, as ESPN Classic was once founded almost exclusively on the idea. And conference- and league-focused networks in the U.S. use plenty of programming hours looking back at archival games as well (which anyone tuning into a sports network during COVID’s early months in 2020 can attest to).

But for soccer, the nature of domestic and international rights deals, questions around localization and the perceived issue of cost have prevented such a library from existing. Now, FIFA+ will basically give away an immensely valuable library of footage from every World Cup for the last six decades. The NFL is looking to make billions on this sort of content while packaging it with redundant, team-focused content in a media and/or streaming deal.

FIFA, meanwhile, skipped the part where rights are tied to someone else’s service. Sure, they won’t take home the subscription fees a major media company would here. But making this content free also lowers the barrier to entry for what’s still viewed as a niche sport in the U.S., and that’s going to make FIFA+ more interesting for advertisers.

Now, there’s a chance that any future rights deal in the U.S. changes what FIFA+ looks like. One could certainly argue that archival World Cup footage alone is a pretty valuable asset, and if future World Cup TV rights in the U.S. are headed to a partner with more streaming infrastructure in place (unlike Fox) following the expiration of the current deal in 2026, then maybe we see parts of FIFA+ folded partially into an existing property like ESPN+, Peacock, Paramount+ or Amazon Prime Video.

But for now, FIFA and its members stand to benefit a ton from this new avenue for centralized exposure while the rest of soccer’s rights are overstretched across the TV ecosystem. With the World Cup coming later this year, interest in the FIFA+ service will certainly be high in 2022. The real test will be how well it’s able to retain (and grow) interest in between World Cup years.

For what it’s worth, I think the breadth of content alone here would give them a pretty good chance — especially when it’s free.