Alright, welcome back to Design, Sports & Technology Part 2. This is still that little corner where I get to dig into how sports feel now, not just how they’re played. The logos, the screens, the culture, the tech creeping into every inch of it. And honestly, the biggest change in sports over the last decade isn’t a rule tweak or some new training method. It’s where the game lives.
Because long gone are the days of four network stations. You remember that world, right? You turned on Channel 4, 5, 7, or 9, and whatever game was on… that was your game. If it was Mets vs. Braves and you were a O’s kid? Tough. If it was golf and you wanted football? Sorry. You didn’t choose the game the game chose you.
Then cable came along and we thought we were living in the future. ESPN, Fox Sports, TNT, CBS Sports, regional networks… it felt like a buffet. But even then, sports were still held hostage by the schedule. One game here. One primetime game there. If your team wasn’t on, you were out of luck.
Now? Totally different universe.
In 2025, sports don’t belong to networks anymore. They belong to streams. Everything is streamed. Pro games, college games, high school games, and yeah all the way down to kids sports. We’ve basically reached the point where a random 11U tournament has the same viewing infrastructure as a midweek MLB game.
And I’m not exaggerating. Parents are out here setting up iPhones on tripods like they’re running ESPN2. You can literally watch your kid’s at-bat while you’re sitting at work or stuck at another event. You don’t need to be in the stands to feel like you’re there. Apps like GameChanger didn’t just change youth sports, they changed our expectations around sports. The idea that “if it happened, you should be able to see it.” Live, archived, on your phone, with stats attached like a mini SportsCenter.
So yeah, the tech changed the game. But it also changed us.
Which brings me to the thing I keep coming back to:
What exactly is it that draws people to sports in the first place?
Is it winning?
Is it competition?
Is it the sport itself?
Or is it the branding and story around it?
Because if streaming has taught us anything, it’s that people will watch a lot of sports they don’t even have a relationship with… if something about it hits.
Sometimes it’s the stakes.
Sometimes it’s the style.
Sometimes it’s a player.
Sometimes it’s just a vibe.
And I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately, especially talking sports with my 13-year-old daughter. We’ve had these conversations about women’s sports that are honestly way more interesting than anything I hear on TV panels.
One that keeps sticking out:
What is it about Caitlin Clark?
Why did she attract a wave of fans like that?
Was it branding?
Was it talent?
Was it timing?
Or was it all of it stacked together?
Because here’s the truth: you don’t get that kind of attention off one thing. Talent matters obviously. You don’t fake being that good. But talent isn’t always enough to pull casual fans into a sport they don’t normally watch.
Caitlin Clark was a perfect storm.
She had a game that looked different. Deep threes, fast pace, confidence, a little edge. She had highlights built for the feed and you didn’t need context, you just needed eyes. And she hit at the exact moment when women’s basketball was ready for its ignition point. Her talent built the fire, the moment fed it oxygen, and the branding followed naturally because once people care, the story writes itself.
And that’s why I keep asking this next question out loud:
Why doesn’t softball have a pro league that makes real money?
Because don’t tell me the sport isn’t exciting.
Softball is chaos in the best way.
It’s fast-paced. Bases are closer. Decisions are quicker. There’s no double-clutch across a giant infield. Almost every ball in play is bang-bang. Every pitch feels like something might happen. Baseball is a slow burn. Softball is a sparkler. Blink and you miss the play.
So in a world where everything is streamable, where you can pull up a college softball game like it’s nothing, it can’t just be “people don’t watch women’s sports.” That excuse expired. We are in 2025. That’s not the problem anymore.
The real issue feels more like this:
Softball still hasn’t had its “Clark moment.”
And that moment isn’t just about being good. It’s about becoming unavoidable. It’s about crossing out of the bubble and into the culture. The way a star in the right moment can make a whole league feel like the center of the world.
Women’s basketball got that spark.
Women’s soccer has had a few.
Softball is still waiting for the one that flips the switch.
And I think part of it is presentation, too. Not the game, the packaging. The way it’s sold, scheduled, clipped, promoted. The way stars are framed as stars. Because in 2025, you don’t grow a sport by hoping people stumble onto it. You grow it by giving people a reason to care before they even know they care.
Streaming gives every sport a seat at the table.
But branding decides who actually gets eaten.
So yeah, I’ll say it again as a dare, because I mean it:
Give softball a try.
Give women’s sports a try, period.
Not as charity.
Not as a statement.
Just as a sports fan.
Because once you actually watch it, you realize the product has been there the whole time. The speed, the tension, the skill, the drama and it’s all real.
Now we’re just waiting on the culture to catch up.
And I don’t think it’s far off.
Somewhere out there is the player, the team, the run, the story that makes pro softball feel inevitable instead of optional. In this streaming world, once that fuse gets lit, it won’t take ten years. It could take ten days.
That’s the new game now.
Not just who wins.
Who catches fire first.