• Disney and partners have settled with Fubo to launch the Venu sports streaming service.
• Venu's launch was delayed over an antitrust suit filed by Fubo.
• Disney is set to merge Hulu + Live TV with Fubo, creating a major digital TV service.

Remember Venu, the sports streaming service co-owned by Disney, Fox, and Warner Bros. Discovery?

Unless you spend a lot of time focused on the sports media business, you probably don't. That's because the service never launched: It was supposed to go live in the fall but got derailed by an antitrust suit filed by Fubo, a small streaming service.

Now it's again set to launch — after Disney and its partners essentially paid Fubo to drop the suit. Hearings in the case were supposed to start Monday.

Part of the payment will be cash, but there's a more eye-popping, and confusing, part of the deal: Disney plans to combine its Hulu + Live TV streaming service — its cablelike package of TV channels — with Fubo's similar service into a new company, which doesn't have a name yet.

The combined company should have about 6 million subscribers, making it the second-largest all-digital TV service after YouTube TV, which has some 8 million subscribers. And it would be the sixth-largest pay-TV service, period.

(Important note: This deal does not affect Disney's much bigger Hulu subscription on-demand service — the one most people think about when they think of Hulu. That one had 47.4 million subscribers as of September; Hulu + Live TV, which costs much more, has 4.6 million subscribers.)

We can get into a few more details in a moment. But to me, the biggest takeaway is this: It's a reminder that Disney, which is launching its own stand-alone ESPN streaming service this fall, isn't fully confident about that service's prospects. That's why it wanted to be in Venu — to be part of a bigger sports streaming service, in case a meaningful number of people wanted streaming sports from ESPN and other networks as well.

And now that Venu is (very likely) to launch this year, it means that by next fall, ESPN watchers will have a lot of options: They can pay for stand-alone ESPN; they can pay for it as part of a sports-streaming package along with other channels like ABC, TNT, and Fox; or they can pay for it as part of a very big bundle of channels, delivered by a variety of traditional and digital pay-TV companies.

Onto the details: The new, unnamed Disney/Fubo joint venture would be 70% owned by Disney, which would also control its board. But Fubo's existing management team would run the service. The deal also allows Fubo to create a new "skinny" bundle of networks including ESPN and ABC. And people who are already paying for Fubo or Hulu + Live TV via existing apps would be able to keep doing that.

Fubo also gets cash as part of the deal. Disney, Fox, and WBD plan to collectively pay the company $220 million, and next year Disney is set to lend the company $145 million to help pay down Fubo's other debt obligations. Fubo will get a $130 million fee if the deal doesn't get regulatory approval.

Fubo shareholders like the deal, pushing the stock up some 172% Monday to about $4. (Fubo had a brief pandemic-fueled run in 2021 when its shares zoomed up to $49, but since then, the market has mostly ignored it.)

So, when will Venu launch? No one is saying, but my hunch is this spring.

Remember that Venu was originally supposed to launch in the fall, when college and pro football kicked off. But Disney is already planning on launching "Flagship" — its ESPN-only service — this fall for the same football-related reasons, and it wouldn't make a lot of sense to launch both services at the same time.

So I would expect Venu to go up much earlier once the joint venture, which has been mostly mothballed for months, is ready for prime time. Some big sports dates coming up to keep in mind: The Super Bowl is February 9; college basketball's big tournament kicks off in mid-March.

• Starting next fall, you'll be able to watch ESPN without paying for other cable channels.
• ESPN hasn't said how much its new streaming service will cost. Analysts think it might go for about $25 a month.
• ESPN isn't sure how many takers the new service will have. It's hoping a new ad campaign will prime the pump.

If you pay attention to the media business, you know that ESPN is going to cut the cord next year. Disney's sports channel is finally going to offer TV viewers a chance to subscribe to ESPN as a stand-alone streaming service, like Netflix or Max.

But ESPN needs to reach a much bigger audience than people who pay attention to the media business if this thing is going to work.

So here's a new ad that's supposed to "set the stage for ESPN's upcoming chapter," per the company's press release. It's going to start airing on Christmas.

This one isn't for me. But I'm not a professional ad critic. And lots of times, the ad campaigns that ad critics swoon over don't really move the needle, so who knows?

But I am old, and I remember the 1990s, when ESPN's SportsCenter was the center of the sports universe. And the winking, mockumentary spots it ran all the time made you feel like you weren't wasting your time watching sports. Sports were fun, but also funny, and you were in on the joke, too.

Anyway. Things are different now. Let's look ahead to the future. Specifically next fall, when what ESPN refers to as "Flagship" is supposed to launch. (This is different than the ESPN+ service it already sells, which shows you stuff that's not on ESPN; Flagship will be a streamed version of all the stuff that's on "real" ESPN.) How much will it cost, and how many people will sign up?

The company has yet to reveal pricing, or audience projections, so outside estimates can vary wildly.

MoffettNathanson analyst Rob Fishman thinks ESPN will sell Flagship for about $25 a month, and projects modest pickup at first: 1 million paid subscribers by the end of 2026, 1.5 million in 2027, and 3 million by 2030.

Wells Fargo analyst Steven Cahall is way more bullish. He thinks ESPN will sell Flagship for $23 a month, and projects 12 million subscribers in 2027, and 17 million by 2030.

That big spread reflects the uncertainty I've heard coming from Disney and ESPN insiders themselves. They simply don't know how many people will want to pay for a service that gives them a lot of sports, but not all the sports on TV. And they also don't know if the people who do pay are going to be cable TV subscribers who are trading down from a big bundle of channels — or if they will be cord-cutters/cord-nevers who aren't paying for cable in the first place.

That uncertainty was part of the rationale for ESPN's participation in Venu, the "Hulu for sports" streaming service that was going to cost $43 a month, and would include ESPN and other Disney channels like ABC, as well as sports and non-sports programming from Fox and Warner Bros. Discovery. The thinking/hope was that between traditional TV, the stand-alone streamer, and the joint venture, ESPN would end up capturing whatever audience wanted to pay for sports, no matter how they wanted to pay for it.

Venu was supposed to have launched already, but has been held up by an antitrust legal challenge; a trial is supposed to get underway in early January. So if Disney and its partners win, ESPN could find itself launching two different streamers next year.

• College football used to have a regular season and some bowl games you may or may not have watched.
• Now college football has its own playoffs — and this year, it is supersizing them.
• Can Americans invest even more time watching football? It's a good bet.

Are you ready for some college football? A lot of college football?

Doesn't matter. If you live in America and you're going to be around a TV over the next few weeks, it's going to be hard not to see college football.

That's because this is the first year college football is running a supersize version of its playoffs, featuring 12 teams, up from four. That means there are going to be 11 games — from Friday to January 20 — that are going to get a lot of attention from a lot of people.

The commercial calculation here is straightforward: National playoffs draw national interest for what is often a regional sport. So more national playoff games equals more interest.

That's why Disney's ESPN is paying $1.3 billion a year for the (mostly) exclusive rights to the playoffs. (Disney, somewhat weirdly, has sublicensed a few of the playoff games to its frenemy Warner Bros. Discovery's TNT network.)

ESPN's customers think the playoffs will be popular, too. The network says it has added dozens of new advertisers to its playoff lineup and is boasting about big increases in revenue.

But even before the first snap of the first game, the bulked-up tournament seems like it has already been a hit by boosting the pre-playoff games. Nielsen says regular-season ratings for college football were up 6% this fall compared with 2023 — and up 11% for adults ages 18 to 34.

In a world where traditional TV shrinks every year — and even more so with young viewers — that's quite a bump. And it's exactly what the media industry was hoping for.

"There were more games, throughout more of the regular season, that were meaningful and impactful for the playoff race," says Amanda Gifford, who heads up college football production for ESPN. "Almost every weekend, there were games that had impact."

That boost wasn't just confined to games on ESPN. Mike Mulvihill, who heads up analytics and strategic planning for Fox Sports and Fox broadcast, says his team thought about playoff implications as it was planning which regular-season games it would broadcast this year.

Early in the season, when it wouldn't be clear which schools were likely to compete for a playoff slot, Fox leaned on brand-name matchups, like Alabama vs. Wisconsin. But later in the season, when Indiana became a surprising playoff contender, Fox was delighted to broadcast its game against Ohio State.

I've seen the effects of expanded playoffs play out in real life: A couple of weekends ago, I spent the night with a bunch of middle-age dudes who were toggling between multiple college games, none of which featured Notre Dame, where they had all graduated. But they cared deeply about what happened in games like Texas vs. Georgia because the results could affect where the Irish would end up in the playoff. (Notre Dame ended up matched up against Indiana for the playoff's opening game).

So, if college football is winning, who's losing?

In theory, these games could end up competing with pro football, whose end-of-season games and early-round playoff season overlap with the college tournament. But you'd have to be a very brave person to bet against the NFL — the one thing Americans will watch on TV no matter what.

A much safer wager: College football's playoffs will destroy any remaining interest in all of the also-ran bowl games, which have already been steadily downgraded by fans and networks — some of which don't bother to send announcing crews to the games.

So sorry, Myrtle Beach Bowl. You, too, GameAbove Sports Bowl. And I'm from Minnesota, but I'm still not going to watch the Golden Gophers play Virginia Tech in the Duke's Mayo Bowl. Who cares who wins any of those?

But on Saturday, in the first round of the playoffs, Penn State is playing Southern Methodist — a school I vaguely remember being kicked out of college football for paying players. Now it's essentially legal — and encouraged — and whoever wins gets into an even higher-stakes game 10 days later. Truth be told, I'm not a college football guy. But I'm in, anyway.

Correction: December 20, 2024 — An earlier version of this story misstated the matchup for the Duke's Mayo Bowl. Minnesota is set to play Virginia Tech, not West Virginia.