Sports Media Used To Make Stars — Now It Doesn’t Know How

The internet and streaming platforms haven’t just left a mark on Hollywood-style entertainment; the sports industry has felt the waves: a rushing tide that swept up cable behemoths like ESPN and publications like Sports Illustrated — even newspapers such as The Washington Post no longer carry separate sports sections. In just a few years, the industry that cultivated and created stars turned to the internet to recruit them. This is one of many changes to an ecosystem that dominates an increasing share of Americans’ time and attention each year, judging by NFL viewership numbers alone. Gambling, fantasy leagues, college transfer portals, and media startups have contributed to an evolution in sports and are the topics of discussion for DW’s Weekend Punch interview with Outkick founder, Fox News contributor, and Tennessee die-hard fan Clay Travis.

***

Ben Domenech: Obviously, you have just achieved something pretty significant when it comes to the world of sports media with OutKick. You were one of the OG people to recognize the space that existed that wasn’t being filled. How do you think about that sports media landscape now, and what do you think is different when you started OutKick?

Clay Travis: Good question. When we started OutKick, there was much more of a written marketplace for original content. If you remember back in those days, you might go to Deadspin, you might go to Grantland, or Kissing Suzy Kolber. It was the heyday of interesting written content that was being produced on a regular basis. That doesn’t really exist now.

The blogosphere was still a thing. Video hadn’t completely taken over, and everybody didn’t have one-minute social media clips that they were being inundated with on TikTok, Instagram, or even Twitter, where the virality has all gone video. I still think much of the news cycle was dictated by what people wrote rather than what people said. That’s the biggest thing I see as different in the marketplace right now compared to when we started.

BD: When you see the landscape now, what are you surprised by in terms of either the success or the failure of the worldwide leader to adapt to the changing cultural moment and priorities of fans?

CT: It used to be the case that ESPN made stars. And I actually think ESPN is now reflective of the larger marketplace. Other than maybe Fox News and maybe Netflix, I’m not sure anyone makes stars anymore, other than the internet and maybe YouTube, but you don’t have big media companies that deputize you and say, “You are now a star.”

One of my favorite stories back in the day was right before the show “Friends” made its debut. The entire cast went out together in Las Vegas, and one of the show’s creators was there with them and said, “This will be the last time that you guys can go out to dinner for the rest of your lives.” And you are going to be on after “Seinfeld,” you’re going on NBC, it’s a sitcom that everyone is going to see, and you are going to go from normal people to luminescent stars overnight.

That kind of world doesn’t exist. You can see it in the rise of Pat McAfee, where ESPN had to go hire people who were already famous. You can see it in the success that the Barstool guys have had. I still think of myself as a guy who came out of the internet, and you have to compete against everybody when you come out of the internet. You don’t get deputized, and someone doesn’t say, “Oh, this guy’s going to matter because we’re putting him on a show and there are very limited numbers of shows.” In fact, it’s kind of a fun question. Who is the last person in sports media to become famous from television? It used to be that you would find a Stephen A. Smith or a Michael Wilbon or a Tony Kornheiser columnist —   people who had had an opportunity to write, did radio, and then you put them on television.

That pathway doesn’t seem to exist for ESPN other than maybe, again, Fox News and Netflix.

BD: We’ve just seen the takeover of Hollywood and the box office by two creators in the horror space who came out of YouTube. Do you think at some point there will be a similar crossover effect from these YouTube personalities to a greater degree than it’s already happened, or are they their own animals and will stay within that lane just because of the nature of what they do?

CT: I think if you can make money, Hollywood and every other media company is going to find ways to make money more than they otherwise would. For example, I’m utterly fascinated that Star Wars , which has been popular since 1977, was dominated by two YouTube guys, even though Star Wars obviously had a 50-year head start on them in terms of recognizing the marketplace. And so I think what it represents is every generation wants to find its new people, and I think YouTube is more experimental, and when you’re more experimental, you can find out what works quicker than a lot of big companies can. If they’re totally wrong, they lose hundreds of millions of dollars. If a YouTuber is totally…