It looks like the broadcast arrangements for the next two FIFA Women’s World Cups are sorted—or are they? News flash: if you haven’t heard, Netflix has struck a new partnership deal with FIFA to secure the broadcasting rights for the 2027 and 2031 Women’s World Cups in the United States. While Gianni Infantino describes this deal as a “landmark moment,” fans think otherwise, citing the failures of previous MLS and NFL deals.

Though FIFA has yet to disclose financial numbers for this new deal, Netflix has pledged to make things interesting for the next two prestigious women’s tournaments. In addition to offering live games, the American OTT platform will produce exclusive documentaries.

“As a marquee brand and FIFA’s new long-term partner, Netflix has shown a very strong level of commitment to growing women’s football. This agreement sends a strong message about the real value of the FIFA Women’s World Cup and the global women’s game. FIFA and Netflix partnering together make this a truly historic day for broadcasting and for women’s football,” said President Gianni Infantino.

Notably, this won’t be the first time Netflix has vowed to showcase such illustrious sporting events. More recently, the OTT giant aired the Jake Paul vs Mike Tyson fight alongside the women’s lightweight match of Katie Taylor vs Amanda Serrano, becoming the most-watched professional women’s sport in U.S. history with an audience of over 74 million.

Additionally, Netflix is also in line to broadcast two much-anticipated NFL clashes on Christmas Day, including Kansas City Chiefs vs. Pittsburgh Steelers and Baltimore Ravens vs. Houston Texans. Though it may seem that the streaming platform will get the job done for the impending two World Cups, there remain doubts over certain reasons why it doesn’t seem to be a good idea in the eyes of fans.

Here’s why the FIFA-Netflix deal seems a bad idea to the soccer fraternity

Before we delve deeper into the anger of soccer fans, let’s make you understand by citing a few examples of similar yet different deals that aren’t working quite brilliantly according to Reddit fans.

The MLS-Apple deal, worth $2.5 billion over 10 years, provides MLS with $250 million annually, split among 30 clubs—about $5–6 million per team. In comparison, the WNBA earns $200 million annually, shared among 12 teams, giving each around $16.6 million. Unlike MLS, which struggles with limited visibility due to its Apple TV+ paywall, the WNBA benefits from broader exposure on major networks like ESPN/ABC, drawing in more casual viewers. No wonder fans would rather like to see the women’s World Cup on traditional media channels:

“I genuinely don’t understand the obsession of moving soccer into streaming services. The MLS took a hit in viewership even though the league showed growth in attendance, online visibility, etc. It’s not that people lost interest, but nobody wants to add another subscription to their monthly bills especially in this economy lol. Wouldn’t be surprised if a big number of viewers ended up watching it through illegal streams.”

If this is not enough, consider the recent MLS Cup final, where LA Galaxy’s 2-1 victory over the New York Red Bulls reportedly drew an average of 468,000 viewers across Fox and Fox Deportes. This marks a 47% decline compared to the combined linear audience of 890,000 for the championship game in 2023:

“So the biggest womens sports competition won’t be on broadcast tv?Doesn’t seem good for the game but I guess fifa went with the highest bidder. It can become a positive if the coverage is a home run but that’s a big ‘IF’.”

The second example is a YouTube-NFL deal, where the American streaming platform acquired the rights for the NFL Sunday Ticket in a deal worth around $2 billion annually. Though the goal was to expand its streaming footprint and attract new subscribers, it’s facing substantial losses of approximately $1.27 billion per year. That had to happen, considering the revenue generated from subscriptions and advertising is not expected to cover the high costs of the agreement:

“Seriously, this is a disaster class decision for the women’s game and those who just want to watch. YouTube can’t get subscribers for NFL Sunday ticket and is losing over $1 billion a year. No one’s paying what they’re probably going to charge for 4wks of women’s footy.”

Before diving into this fan’s frustration, let’s provide some context. During the Tyson-Paul fight, many viewers were lucky to catch even a few minutes of the match due to significant streaming issues. In fact, some fans resorted to ordering DVDs of the stream just to watch the fight later. If similar problems occur during the Women’s World Cup, it could turn into a risky business:

“I haven’t used Netflix in about 15 years, but man, this seems like a bad deal for fans. I mean, having to order a DVD for a game and wait for it to come in the mail before watching it? No thanks!”

Of course, we can’t overlook the large Hispanic community in the United States, who are not only passionate soccer fans but also prefer watching matches in their language. This fan questions whether Netflix will offer commentary options in multiple languages for viewers on their platform:

“Ugh. This is a TERRIBLE decision on the part of FIFA. Hopefully, there will be a Spanish language broadcast through Univision or Telemundo on over the air TV stations.”

This is was just a glimpse of what the fans had to say about the recent FIFA-Netflix partnership. Regardless, we would like to know your views in the comments.