We’re witnessing one of the bigger carriage fights in recent memory between YouTube TV and Disney. While it’s fundamentally a financial and legal battle – Disney pushing for higher carriage fees and YouTube TV resisting on behalf of its subscribers – it’s an equally fascinating communications battle unfolding in real time.
Carriage disputes are nothing new in the media industry, but this one stands out for its scale, visibility, and the personalities caught in the crossfire. It affects millions of viewers, disrupts marquee sports and entertainment programming, and spotlights how each company manages message control, stakeholder pressure, and reputational risk under scrutiny. Let’s take a look.
Disney: a Coordinated Messaging Machine Turned Messy
Disney has framed the dispute as a consumer access issue, urging fans to “contact YouTube TV” and even suggesting alternative viewing options including Disney-affiliated platforms like Hulu Live, Fubo, and ESPN’s direct-to-consumer app. Simultaneously, they’ve mobilized their talent bench such as Laura Rutdlegde, Scott Van Pelt, Stephen A. Smith to help push their messaging and urge fans to pressure YouTube TV.
That approach, however, has produced friction. Some talent, like Van Pelt, have faced sharp online backlash, while Pat McAfee’s on-air resistance to ESPN’s directive highlights internal dissent with being drawn into corporate messaging.
Adding to the public narrative, SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey, whose conference has a media deal with ESPN, tweeted that he’d switched to a Disney-owned service, noting, “Problem solved. Plenty of options in this environment (saved a bit while making the change).” Meanwhile, independent voices like Big Cat and JJ Watt have commented on the dispute without taking sides, amplifying its reach across sports and entertainment circles.
YouTube TV: a Controlled Approach
In contrast, YouTube TV has adopted a restrained communications approach, focused on keeping subscribers informed and managing expectations rather than engaging in a PR battle. YouTube TV has largely stayed silent on social media (last tweet was October 30) and avoided directing blame at Disney or ESPN. Their public messaging emphasizes the ongoing negotiations without offering detailed commentary, aiming to present themselves as trying to reach a fair deal and protect subscribers from rising costs. It’s an approach rooted in crisis communications discipline: when the other side shouts, quiet confidence can project stability and credibility.
A Ripple Effect
As the impasse drags on, frustration among viewers is mounting. More than 10 million subscribers are missing ESPN and ABC programming, including this weekend’s marquee college football games like BYU vs. Texas Tech and Alabama vs. LSU, along with non-sports staples like Dancing with the Stars. While fans grow weary, neither company appears in a hurry to settle. As The Athletic’s Dan Shanoff noted, both sides can afford the standoff – for now.
Interestingly, regulatory pressure has been muted. FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, vocal in previous carriage disputes involving FOX and NBC, has been notably silent this time, leaving fewer external incentives for resolution.
This standoff highlights a larger problem for fans: the growing fragmentation of sports rights across streaming platforms. The recurring questions like “Where can I watch?” and “Why can’t I watch?” have become symbolic of a broken system that benefits rights holders short-term but erodes accessibility and engagement long-term. The likely next phase is rebundling – either through wider aggregator platforms or strategic partnerships that simplify access and restore audience trust, which could give marketers a renewed opportunity to reach fans efficiently.
The Broader Lesson
For communicators, the YouTube TV–Disney confrontation is more than a contract dispute; it’s a live demonstration of how corporate narratives compete for trust under pressure. Both companies are messaging simultaneously to three audiences – consumers, investors, and regulators – framing themselves as the side “fighting for fairness.” But in this new media landscape, the victor won’t just win a contract; they’ll define the playbook for how future disputes unfold in the public sphere.
Inside the YouTube TV vs. Disney dispute — a battle over carriage fees, messaging, and audience trust shaping the future of streaming.