The Game Is Everywhere: Who Is Left to Cover It?
By Cheval John | Vallano Media
This article was created with the assistance of artificial intelligence.
The final version was reviewed, edited and fact-checked by the author
Graphics created with AI-assisted design tools.
Visual concepts, editorial direction, composition, and final creative decisions were developed by Vallano Media.
High school and small-college sports are easier to watch, track and discuss than they were a generation ago.
But as traditional newsrooms continue cutting sports staffs, more content does not necessarily mean more independent journalism.
On a Friday night, the stadium can still be full.
Parents check scores on their phones.
Players post highlights before leaving the parking lot.
Coaches communicate directly with their communities.
Fans who cannot attend may be able to stream the game from home.
The underlying activity has not disappeared.
High school sports recorded 8,415,684 participation entries during the 2025-26 school year, another all-time high and an increase of 149,440 from the previous year.
The National Federation of State High School Associations compiles those figures through its member state associations, making the total a broad measure of participation across American high school athletics.
There are also more ways to follow those athletes than previous generations had.
Scores update quickly. Highlights circulate across social platforms.
Schools can produce broadcasts themselves.
Streaming has made thousands of games available beyond the communities where they are played.
The games are increasingly visible.
Yet another part of the local sports ecosystem is shrinking.
The independent reporter in the press box.
The games remain. Many of the jobs do not.
The change became particularly visible again this fall.
On Oct. 1, multiple USA TODAY Co. sports staffers publicly announced that their positions had been eliminated.
Akeem Glaspie had been covering Butler basketball.
Michael Chavez said the company eliminated his position covering Mississippi high school sports.
Sherlon Christie, a senior trending editor, announced his departure after 22 years with the company.
The full scope of the cuts was not immediately clear.
Only weeks earlier, McClatchy eliminated a majority of the positions in the Lexington Herald-Leader newsroom.
The cuts included three sports reporters, according to Kentucky Public Radio.
Those departures matter for reasons that extend beyond the number of jobs lost.
For generations, the local sports reporter was part of the infrastructure surrounding a community’s teams.
The reporter knew the schools.
The coaches.
The administrators.
The rivalries.
The history behind why one game mattered more than another.
Over years, that person might watch an athlete become a coach, an assistant become a head coach or a struggling program become a contender.
That kind of institutional knowledge is difficult to replace with a scoreboard.
This is bigger than the sports department
What is happening in press boxes reflects a much larger transformation in local journalism.
Nearly 40 percent of local U.S. newspapers have disappeared since 2005, according to Northwestern University’s Medill Local News Initiative.
More than 270,000 newspaper jobs have been lost over that period, a decline of more than 75 percent.
Across journalism occupations more broadly, employment fell a little more than 7 percent from 2023 to 2024.
Digital publishing has not simply recreated the economics that supported those newsrooms.
Medill examined web traffic at 100 of the country’s largest newspaper sites and found that their average monthly pageviews declined by more than 45 percent over four years.
Only 11 of the 100 recorded growth during that period.
At the same time, local journalism itself has not disappeared.
In 2005, newspapers employed 71 percent of U.S. reporters.
By 2024, that share had fallen to 29 percent, while digital media and broadcast reporting each accounted for roughly a quarter of journalism employment.
That distinction matters.
The story is not simply that journalism is disappearing.
Where journalism happens is changing.
More content is not the same thing as more journalism
That becomes particularly important in sports.
A high school can livestream its football game.
That is useful.
A university can produce an ESPN+ broadcast.
That is useful too.
A coach can post highlights.
A parent can upload video.
A recruiting service can track prospects.
An independent creator can operate a podcast, newsletter or YouTube channel.
A school can distribute its own interviews, statistics and behind-the-scenes content.
Each can add something valuable to the sports-media ecosystem.
But they do not necessarily perform the same function.
A team’s social account represents the team.
An athletic department’s media operation represents the institution.
A recruiting service serves a particular audience.
A streaming platform primarily distributes the competition.
Independent journalism serves another purpose.
Someone still needs to ask why a decision was made.
Someone needs to provide context when something changes.
Someone needs to verify conflicting accounts rather than merely repeat them.
Someone needs to cover athletes, coaches and institutions as more than statistics, recruiting rankings or highlight clips.
And sometimes the most important story has little to do with the final score.
Streaming solved one problem while exposing another
Small-college sports provides one of the clearest examples of the tension.
Technology solved much of the old distribution problem.
Sam Houston offers a useful case study.
In 2008, Jason Barfield was leading the operation that became Bearkat Sports Network, which was streaming more than 60 Sam Houston sporting events annually.
In 2016, he began transitioning live-event production toward ESPN.
The operation continued to grow.
By 2024, Sam Houston said Bearkat Sports Network was responsible for nearly 80 ESPN+ productions each year, along with more than 50 live audio productions, press conferences, podcasts and studio programming.
That is genuine progress.
A game produced in Huntsville, Texas, no longer has to remain primarily a Huntsville experience.
But Bearkat Sports Network and ESPN serve different purposes from The Huntsville Item or an independent journalist covering Sam Houston.
One can show the game.
Another may need to report independently on the institution, its decisions and the people around the program.
Those roles can coexist.
Ideally, they should.
The danger comes when growth in the first category creates the impression that the second is no longer necessary.
Video Courtesy of ESPN College Football YouTube Channel
The patchwork is replacing the old model
The future of local sports media is unlikely to belong to one type of organization.
Traditional newspapers remain part of it.
So do television and radio.
But coverage increasingly can come from independent digital publications, newsletters, podcasts, YouTube channels, photographers, school broadcasts, university media operations and individual creators.
There are advantages to that fragmentation.
A reporter who loses a newspaper position no longer needs another newspaper to grant permission to keep reporting.
A broadcaster can create a podcast.
A photographer can build a direct relationship with an audience.
A journalist with deep knowledge of one conference, school or region can build a specialized publication around an audience that a larger outlet considers too small.
The barriers to publishing have fallen dramatically.
The cost of sustained original reporting has not fallen nearly as far.
Travel costs money.
Covering teams every week takes time.
Building sources can take years.
Public-records work requires patience and expertise.
Attending games, practices, press conferences, school-board meetings and community events requires somebody to show up.
Someone still has to fund that work.
That is the unresolved problem.
AI makes the distinction even sharper
Artificial intelligence adds another layer to the economic challenge.
Routine sports information is particularly easy to summarize: Scores. Schedules. Standings. Statistics.
Basic game results.
A reader increasingly may be able to obtain those answers without visiting the publication that originally gathered or organized the information.
Medill identified the integration of generative AI into search engines as an additional challenge for publishers, noting that users can increasingly encounter summarized information before reaching the underlying source.
The decline of local journalism began long before generative AI, so AI should not be treated as the cause of that decades-long contraction.
It is another pressure on an already disrupted business model.
That makes commodity information harder to build a business around.
But it may make another category of journalism more valuable: information that does not exist until someone reports it.
AI can summarize a press conference once a recording, transcript or report exists.
It can search documents, compare information and identify patterns.
It can help journalists organize research, test claims and work more efficiently.
But it does not eliminate the need for the sourcing and firsthand reporting that put new information into the record.
Local knowledge that has never entered that record still has to be sourced, verified and reported.
The easier existing information becomes to summarize and redistribute, the more valuable original sourcing, verification and local context can become.
That creates an opportunity, too
The decline of the old model does not necessarily mean the end of local sports journalism.
It may mean its business structure has to change.
Independent publishers could become part of the answer.
So could memberships.
Subscriptions.
Sponsorships.
Nonprofit newsrooms.
Local radio partnerships.
Newsletters.
Podcasts.
Specialized digital publications.
No single model is guaranteed to replace what newspapers once supported.
But the migration of journalism employment beyond newspapers demonstrates that the profession itself is already adapting.
Broadcast and digital media now employ substantial shares of U.S. journalists even as newspaper employment continues to contract.
The challenge is ensuring that the new structure can financially support enough people to do original reporting consistently.
There is still something to cover
The audience has not vanished.
More than 8.4 million high school sports participation entries were recorded during the 2025-26 school year.
Thousands of schools stream events.
College programs outside the largest conferences can place games on national digital platforms.
Athletes can communicate directly with fans.
Communities can follow teams from almost anywhere.
Technology has made the competition dramatically easier to see.
That is worth celebrating.
But visibility alone does not create journalism.
A community can have livestreams, highlights, statistics, podcasts and hundreds of social-media posts about its teams while still losing something important if nobody is being paid to independently follow those teams week after week.
The future therefore presents two different questions.
The first has largely been answered: How do we make the games easier to see?
Technology solved much of that problem.
The harder question remains: Who is going to keep showing up to report what happens around them?
Because the game can be everywhere.
That does not automatically mean the journalism will be.
Graphics created with AI-assisted design tools.
Visual concepts, editorial direction, composition, and final creative decisions were developed by Vallano Media.
From Hobby to Headline: How Niche Live Streamers Helped Redefine Live Media
By Cheval John | Vallano Media
This article was created with the assistance of artificial intelligence.
The final version was reviewed, edited and fact-checked by the author
Graphics created with AI-assisted design tools.
Visual concepts, editorial direction, composition, and final creative decisions were developed by Vallano Media.
For generations, major television networks controlled much of the live media experience.
They decided which events received coverage, when programs aired, and how audiences consumed them.
But outside traditional broadcasting, another media ecosystem was developing.
Gamers streamed from their bedrooms.
Independent producers experimented with live video.
Schools and local sports organizations discovered new ways to reach audiences that television rarely served.
These broadcasters often lacked expensive equipment, major sponsorships, and established distribution networks.
What they possessed was a direct relationship with viewers who cared about their content.
Their experiments helped demonstrate an important change in audience behavior: people were willing to watch specialized programming online, participate in live conversations, and follow events that traditional television considered too small to broadcast.
Major media organizations did not simply copy these creators.
Their investments in streaming also reflected improvements in technology, changing economics, and growing demand for digital access.
Nevertheless, niche creators and smaller broadcasters helped reveal something increasingly valuable: an audience did not need to be enormous to deserve attention.
The Streaming Revolution Began With Experimentation
One of the early pioneers of online live broadcasting was Justin.tv, which launched in 2007.
Initially built around broadcasting co-founder Justin Kan’s daily life, the platform eventually opened to other users, allowing people to stream their own activities online.
Gaming emerged as an especially popular category.
In June 2011, Twitch launched as a dedicated platform for gaming livestreams, building upon Justin.tv’s earlier experiments.
Its growth provided measurable evidence that interactive live video could attract substantial audiences.
According to Twitch’s March 2013 announcement, more than 600,000 unique broadcasters attracted over 28 million unique viewers during February 2013.
The company also reported that those viewers watched an average of more than 90 minutes of video per day.
These were company-reported figures, but they illustrated the scale that an emerging live-streaming community had achieved.
The significance extended beyond gaming.
Twitch demonstrated that audiences were interested in content built around participation.
Viewers could communicate with streamers, react to events, and interact with other members of the community while broadcasts unfolded.
Unlike conventional television, the relationship was not exclusively one-directional.
The audience became part of the experience.
How Niche Creators Tested New Media Ideas
Independent creators possessed an advantage that larger media organizations sometimes struggled to replicate: flexibility.
A creator could experiment with a different broadcast format, introduce a live discussion, or change programming based on audience feedback without navigating a large corporate structure.
That flexibility encouraged experimentation with live conversations, extended broadcasts, community participation, and behind-the-scenes programming.
Not every experiment succeeded.
Nor did every creator build a sustainable business.
But collectively, these activities helped demonstrate that specialized interests could support meaningful online communities.
A gaming enthusiast might spend hours watching someone else play.
A hobbyist could follow a live demonstration.
A viewer interested in a particular subject could interact directly with a knowledgeable creator.
These audiences were not necessarily looking for programming designed to attract millions of people.
They wanted content relevant to their interests.
For media companies, that distinction would become increasingly important.
However, niche creators were only one part of streaming’s development.
Faster broadband connections, smartphones, connected televisions, improved video delivery systems, and changing consumer expectations also contributed to its expansion.
The growth of live streaming was therefore not a simple story of independent creators forcing television networks to change.
It was a broader transformation in which smaller broadcasters helped demonstrate new possibilities while technology and economics made those possibilities increasingly practical.
Local Sports Streaming Revealed an Overlooked Opportunity
While gaming helped popularize interactive livestreaming, local sports broadcasting revealed another opportunity.
For decades, many sporting events attracted passionate supporters without receiving consistent television coverage.
High school football games, volleyball matches, youth tournaments, and smaller college competitions often had audiences interested in watching but limited opportunities for traditional distribution.
Streaming offered another option.
Schools and independent producers could reach families, alumni, and supporters beyond their immediate communities.
One of the clearest examples was the NFHS Network.
Launched in 2013, the network developed a national platform for live and on-demand coverage of high school sports and other school activities.
According to a September 2019 report from the National Federation of State High School Associations, nearly 230,000 events had been broadcast through the network since its launch.
The report also documented more than 100,000 events during the preceding year, including approximately 20,000 nontraditional activities such as graduations, concerts, and theatrical performances.
Those figures demonstrated that digital broadcasting could extend well beyond the sporting events most likely to attract conventional television coverage.
The network also created educational opportunities.
Through its School Broadcast Program, students participated as commentators, camera operators, and producers under the guidance of school advisers.
The significance was not simply that more games became available.
Streaming expanded the definition of which events could receive coverage and who could participate in producing it.
A parent traveling for work could follow a child’s game.
An alumnus living hundreds of miles away could reconnect with a former school.
A student interested in journalism could gain practical broadcasting experience.
These were valuable outcomes even when individual events attracted relatively small audiences.
The business lesson was becoming clearer: a specialized audience could be worth serving without the reach of a national television broadcast.
That did not guarantee profitability.
Production expenses, distribution costs, subscriptions, sponsorships, and audience retention still mattered.
But streaming created opportunities that traditional broadcasting economics had often limited.
Video Courtesy of Max Preps YouTube Channel
Smaller College Conferences Demonstrated the Value of Digital Distribution
College athletics provided another example of how specialized audiences could benefit from expanded digital coverage.
Before ESPN+ launched, universities and conferences were already distributing events through their own websites, conference networks, and existing streaming partnerships.
The Ivy League was among them.
In October 2017, the conference announced that its Ivy League Network would carry more than 200 men’s and women’s basketball games during the 2017–18 season.
The broader platform offered more than 1,100 live events annually across multiple sports.
The conference also maintained a relationship with ESPN3, which carried selected Ivy League productions.
This history matters because it demonstrates that smaller college conferences were not simply waiting for major broadcasters to invent digital distribution.
They were already using it.
In April 2018, ESPN and the Ivy League announced a 10-year media rights agreement that would place more than 1,100 conference events annually across ESPN platforms, with most available through ESPN+.
The agreement covered football, basketball, and numerous additional sports while preserving selected events for traditional television.
The Ivy League’s official announcement described the arrangement as a way to expand exposure and improve access for fans.
Rather than creating an entirely new audience from nothing, ESPN was incorporating an existing digital sports offering into a larger distribution system.
The distinction is important.
The Ivy League example does not prove that independent streamers directly influenced ESPN’s decisions.
It demonstrates how digital distribution developed among specialized sports audiences before becoming part of a larger media company’s subscription strategy.
When Major Media Recognized the Value of Underserved Fans
When ESPN+ launched on April 12, 2018, it represented an important expansion of ESPN’s direct-to-consumer business.
It was not ESPN’s first experience with streaming.
The company had already offered digital sports coverage through services including ESPN3 and authenticated viewing platforms.
ESPN+ nevertheless created a new subscription offering that combined live sports, original programming, and on-demand content.
What makes its launch especially relevant is how ESPN executives described the intended audience.
In an interview published by ESPN on launch day, Burke Magnus, then ESPN’s executive vice president of programming, identified two particularly important groups.
One consisted of fans interested in niche sports that had received limited exposure.
The other consisted of supporters who struggled to access coverage of specific teams, including college alumni interested in following their former schools.
That explanation provides direct evidence of how a major broadcaster viewed the commercial opportunity.
ESPN recognized that passionate sports audiences existed beyond the programming typically featured on its primary television networks.
Its strategy was not necessarily the result of watching independent creators succeed.
Instead, ESPN’s own explanation showed that the company understood a principle smaller digital broadcasters had also demonstrated: specialized audiences wanted reliable access to content they cared about.
For sports media, this represented a significant opportunity.
A volleyball match, college baseball game, or international sporting event might not justify a national television window.
But digital distribution could make such coverage more practical within a larger programming portfolio.
Streaming Was More Than a Response to Creators
It would be misleading to suggest that niche live streamers alone drove the expansion of digital media.
Major broadcasters had their own reasons to invest.
Broadband availability improved.
Smartphones and connected televisions created additional viewing options.
Streaming technology became more capable.
Media companies pursued subscription revenue, advertising opportunities, and control over their digital distribution.
Sports rights agreements also played a major role.
Traditional broadcasters needed to adapt to an environment in which audiences increasingly expected programming across multiple devices.
These changes developed alongside the growth of independent streaming communities.
The relationship was therefore more complicated than smaller creators inventing an idea and larger organizations copying it.
Niche broadcasters helped demonstrate audience demand, while major companies developed strategies shaped by technology, commercial opportunities, existing media rights, and competitive pressures.
Both developments contributed to a changing media environment.
The broader result was an expansion of what audiences could watch and how organizations could reach them.
Key Moments in Live Streaming’s Evolution
Year
Development
2007
Justin.tv launches, helping pioneer accessible online live broadcasting
2011
Twitch launches as a gaming-focused livestreaming platform
2013
Twitch reports more than 28 million unique viewers in February; NFHS Network launches
2017
Ivy League Network offers more than 1,100 live events annually
2018
ESPN+ launches and announces major college sports distribution agreements
2020s
Live streaming remains an important distribution channel across sports, entertainment, news, and creator media
The Business Lesson: Pay Attention to the Audiences Others Overlook
The development of live streaming offers a lesson that extends beyond media.
Businesses sometimes focus so heavily on large markets that they overlook smaller communities with specific needs.
Independent creators and local broadcasters frequently operate in those overlooked spaces.
They may lack the resources of established companies, but they can experiment, learn from their audiences, and develop products around interests that larger organizations have not prioritized.
The growth of Twitch demonstrated the potential of interactive communities.
The NFHS Network showed how digital distribution could expand access to local events.
The Ivy League’s digital coverage illustrated how smaller sports properties could reach supporters beyond their geographic markets.
And ESPN’s own explanation of its 2018 streaming strategy confirmed that underserved sports fans represented an audience worth pursuing.
These examples do not establish that every major broadcaster followed the same path or that niche creators were solely responsible for streaming’s growth.
They establish something more useful: audience demand can become visible in places that traditional media has overlooked.
For entrepreneurs and media organizations, the lesson is to recognize those signals before dismissing them.
A small audience does not automatically mean a small opportunity.
Sometimes it means an opportunity that has not yet been fully understood.
The next important change in media may emerge from a major broadcaster, a technology company, or an independent creator experimenting with an unfamiliar format.
And sometimes, it begins with someone pressing “Go Live.”
Graphics created with AI-assisted design tools.
Visual concepts, editorial direction, composition, and final creative decisions were developed by Vallano Media.
Sources and further reading:
Amazon Web Services — How Twitch Built Its Global Live Streaming Network
Twitch — Record-Breaking Growth, March 2013
NFHS — NFHS Network Begins Seventh Year of Covering High School Events
Ivy League — Basketball Television and Streaming Coverage, October 2017
Ivy League — Long-Term ESPN Agreement, April 2018
ESPN Press Room — ESPN+ Launch Interview, April 2018
Share this: