There’s a growing cold war between the legacy NFL media partners and insurgent streamers. Ironically, the battle lines will be drawn Christmas Day. The outcome could shape how we watch NFL games on Netflix and YouTube for years to come.

As first reported by my colleague Ryan Glasspiegel on July 1, ESPN and Fox Sports are refusing to lend out their talent for Netflix’s coverage of a yuletide NFL doubleheader. With only six weeks to go before Netflix streams the Cowboys-Commanders and Lions-Vikings games, neither ESPN nor Fox has budged on its talent.

Instead, the only confirmed talent for Netflix’s coverage will come from CBS Sports (Ian Eagle, Nate Burleson, and Matt Ryan), which is producing both games. Plus, Noah Eagle of NBC Sports. Look for Netflix to also employ talent from NFL Media, which will handle pregame, halftime, and postgame programming. 

Before Netflix streamed its first Christmas games last year, ESPN allowed Laura Rutledge and Mina Kimes to join the tech giant’s coverage, while Fox gave the green light to Greg Olsen. But any requests for ESPN and Fox talent this year were met with a firm answer: Nyet. ESPN previously put the kibosh on YouTube’s request to use Jason Kelce for its Week 1 Chiefs-Chargers broadcast from Brazil on Sept. 5. 

The question now is what happens with Drew Brees, the former TV free agent, just hired by Fox to replace Mark Sanchez. Netflix announced Brees as part of its coverage team Sept. 16, but now that he’s full-time, Fox could pull Brees—or grandfather in his Netflix appearance since he signed it before joining Fox. We’ll see.

Outside of Brees, the word has come down from the executive ranks of ESPN and Fox: Enough is enough. No more streamers poaching our talent. No more sheepishly going along to make NFL brass happy on Park Avenue. No more ignoring the growing threat from deep-pocketed tech giants. Especially, when the traditional TV networks believe Netflix, YouTube, and Amazon Prime Video will try to bid on their game packages in 2029, when the NFL opens early bidding on its 11-year, $111 billion cycle of media-rights deals. 

There are already hard feelings emanating from the increasingly bitter carriage standoff between Disney and YouTube. Look for this practice of legacy media standing up to streamers to only expand in the coming months, sources tell Front Office Sports. 

“We pay our people so much money, we don’t want them associated with other networks,” says one source. “If Netflix or YouTube wants to hire somebody full-time, go for it. Or do what Amazon did and hire a full-time broadcast team. Otherwise, stay the hell away from our talent.”

Another TV executive talked about the years of investment that legacy networks make to turn former unknowns into nationally recognized play-by-play announcers, studio analysts, and sideline reporters. Why should they let rival streamers waltz in to exploit the star power they’ve spent years nurturing? 

“All we ever hear about is, ‘Streaming is the future.’ So we do the work—and they get the credibility?” asked one source. “This is not specific to Netflix or YouTube. Our people are busy. Why should we lend them out? To anybody?”

But tell that to announcers and analysts who like the idea of moonlighting on global streaming platforms. These lucrative gigs can pay game commentators more than $100,000 for one day’s work, say sources, while studio analysts can pocket $50,000 or more. But even some talent agents admit ESPN and Fox have a point, business-wise. 

“I’m obviously very pro-talent. But ESPN and Fox are saying to themselves, ‘Why should we help our competitors by lending them our talent?’ They make a significant long-term investment to lock down the best of the best. They commit to long-term deals worth millions of dollars. But they’re supposed to let their people work for a competitor for a day?” asks one agent. “Again, I’m pro-commerce and pro-talent. But I don’t get upset when they feel strongly about this.”

Outside of production partners like CBS and NFL Media, Netflix and YouTube will likely have to employ non-affiliated talent moving forward, say sources. 

As one agent told FOS about ESPN and Fox: “They basically look at Netflix as a competitor now. They’re not going to let their talent work for a competitor. That’s really what this is. There were a couple of exceptions last year. But this year they’re saying, ‘No way.’ It’s a blanket policy.”

The issue’s not going away. Netflix is in the second season of a three-year deal to show one live NFL game on Christmas Day. The league was thrilled by the success of Netflix’s Christmas Day doubleheader in 2024. The two games averaged 26.5 million viewers—making them the most-streamed NFL games in U.S. history. 

This year, the NFL will stream a Christmas Day tripleheader, with Netflix showing Cowboys-Commanders at 1 p.m. ET, followed by Lions-Vikings at 4:30 p.m. ET. Amazon Prime Video will take over in prime time, streaming Broncos-Chiefs at 8:15 p.m. ET. Meanwhile, ESPN had a huge Monday Night Football matchup with the Super Bowl champion Eagles taking on the Packers in Green Bay. The game was simulcast on sister network ABC, while Peyton and Eli Manning had their popular ManningCast on ESPN2.

ESPN, Fox, and Netflix declined to comment on this story. An NFL Media spokesperson told FOS about Christmas Day: “Regarding additional talent surrounding the games, there has not been an announcement on that yet. Any such announcement would come from Netflix PR.”

Critical reaction to President Donald Trump’s live interview with Fox Sports on Sunday was decidedly mixed. But if I had to sum up my reaction in one word it would be: fumble.

I don’t have a problem with Fox interviewing the president during its broadcast of Lions-Commanders from D.C. After all, Trump could be the biggest sports fan to ever occupy the Oval Office.

He was the first sitting commander-in-chief to attend the Super Bowl in February. From his golf empire and long-standing relationship with UFC to his ownership of the USFL’s New Jersey Generals and 2014 attempt to buy the NFL’s Bills, Trump has a long history with pro sports. Plus, this was Veterans Day weekend in the nation’s capital. And to its credit, Fox does a sterling job saluting veterans and serving members of the U.S. Armed Forces. 

But couldn’t Fox’s Kenny Albert and Jonathan Vilma have asked one news-making question during an interview that lasted more than eight minutes? Here are two topics the outspoken POTUS might have teed off about: the Commanders’ new $3.7 billion stadium and the backlash to the NFL’s selection of Bad Bunny as halftime performer for Super Bowl LX on Feb. 8.

On Saturday, ESPN’s Don Van Natta Jr. and Adam Schefter reported that Trump wants Washington’s proposed domed stadium named after him. That’s not a big surprise since his name has graced everything from luxury buildings and airlines to fragrances and Bibles. As White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told ESPN: “That would be a beautiful name, as it was President Trump who made the rebuilding of the new stadium possible.” 

Fox passed on the opportunity—even after the president himself provided an opening when he mentioned the Commanders building a “beautiful stadium” under owner Josh Harris. It would have been dead simple to ask Trump if he wanted Washington to name it after him. Instead, Albert began talking about the old RFK Stadium. Huh?

Then, there was Bad Bunny. It was only a month ago that Trump called the Grammy winner’s selection “crazy” and “absolutely ridiculous.” The Bad Bunny backlash generated global headlines, with the late Charlie Kirk’s Turning Point USA announcing it would counterprogram the NFL’s halftime show. Despite speculation the NFL would back down, commissioner Roger Goodell stood by the choice during the league’s fall meetings. How would Trump respond? Does he still care about Bad Bunny? We don’t know. Fox didn’t ask.

The closest Fox came to a tough question was when Vilma asked the president about “where we are as a nation.” As a skilled politician, Trump hit that softball out of the park—while also getting in a dig at former President Joe Biden. “We’re doing great,” he replied. “Recruitment is doing phenomenally. People have spirit. Our stock market hit an all-time high. Prices are coming down. We inherited a mess. Prices are coming way down. I’ll tell you, our country has over 17 trillion dollars being invested in it, which is a record. So we’re doing great.”

What we got instead of real questions was the ask for Trump to reminisce about his youthful days playing football at the New York Military Academy, how many touchdowns he scored (none, recalled Trump), and NFL legend Joe Namath, who retired in 1978. 

One thing I liked was when Trump talked about how sports are a “microcosm” for life. But for the most part, the interview was banal and meandering. The most cringeworthy moment came when Fox invited the president to try his hand at play-calling à la former President Ronald Reagan. “This is a very big play, don’t you think?” offered Trump. 

Other U.S. presidents have received similar network invites. Former President Joe Biden was supposed to do a pre–Super Bowl interview with Fox in 2023. But Biden’s on-again, off-again sit-down with Fox Soul was finally shelved, with both sides pointing the finger at the other. Former President Barack Obama, meanwhile, appeared so often on ESPN he was practically an anchor.

I’m a big Kenny Albert fan. He’s one of the most talented and versatile play-callers in the game. And I get it. Nobody expects him and Vilma to morph into investigative reporters, or for them to confront Trump with aggressive 60 Minutes–style questioning. They’re more comfortable talking about Cover 2 than government shutdowns and D.C. politics. 

But where were their producers? Here’s the bottom line: Fox had eight and a half minutes to get some news out of the most newsworthy person in the country. In the end, the network didn’t have much to show for it.

Mina Kimes, one of ESPN’s star NFL analysts, admitted Saturday night that she made a “colossal fuck-up” by promoting Papaya Gaming’s app Solitaire Cash on social media.

Will the other ESPN personalities who did the same promotion follow suit? 

In recent days, Kimes, Dan Orlovsky, Laura Rutledge, Ros Gold-Onwude, and Kendrick Perkins all promoted a #BeatStephen challenge with ESPN superstar Stephen A. Smith on their X/Twitter feeds. Kimes, Orlovsky, and Rutledge have since deleted their promo tweets; Kimes is the first to publicly distance herself from the company. 

Their journey is a good example of why sports media talent should be careful with the outside marketing company they keep.

The controversial Papaya is currently embroiled in a federal lawsuit accusing it of falsely marketing games of skill and of using “tailored bots to control the outcomes of tournaments.” 

“The truth is: I didn’t spend any time looking into the whole thing, and that’s 100% on me,” Kimes wrote on X/Twitter. “Thought it was just typical marketing work, and I’m deeply embarrassed I didn’t vet it. A colossal fuck-up on my part.”

Madison Avenue endorsements typically represent a windfall for sports media TV/radio talent. Everybody likes extra cash with little effort. Just ask Charles Barkley and Shaquille O’Neal of TNT Sports, among many other sports personalities.

But these marketing deals can also backfire if a TV talent’s personal brand gets tangled up with a shady company. 

Given that ESPN just shuttered ESPN Bet to align with DraftKings instead of Penn Entertainment, and amid a massive ongoing NBA betting scandal, gaming promotions of any kind could again become a third rail for top talent.

ESPN declined to comment Saturday night on whether Smith and the others will follow Kimes’s move. But Kimes’s public mea culpa indicates talent see the damage their reputations took from the solitaire affair.

She received plenty of kudos for owning up to her mistakes on Twitter on Saturday. And in response to critics who asked whether she’ll give back the money she was paid from the endorsement, Kimes said on Bluesky: “Haven’t been paid a dime (we’ll see what happens now!!) but it [sic] I do I’m certainly giving it away.”