Which broadcasters publicly discussed carriage decisions for alternative Super Bowl programming in 2025–2026?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Broadcasters that publicly discussed carriage or distribution decisions tied to the Super Bowl and its alternate programming in the 2025–2026 window were limited in number and scope: Gray Television publicly announced specific carriage plans for Super Bowl LIX on its ATSC 3.0-capable Fox affiliates, while major rights-holders such as NBC and Fox made broader scheduling and rights moves that shaped whether alternative or counterprogramming would be viable — though those networks largely signaled restraint rather than explicit counterprogramming carriage plans [1] [2] [3]. Public reporting shows a mix of technical carriage announcements, commercial/rights bundling comments, and industry-wide norms discouraging aggressive counterprogramming [1] [4] [5].
1. Gray Television made an explicit carriage announcement for Super Bowl LIX
Gray Television publicly announced it would carry the Super Bowl in Dolby Vision and HDR10+ on its Fox affiliates that offer ATSC 3.0 signals, a concrete carriage decision tied directly to how audiences would receive the game over-the-air on certain stations such as New Orleans’ WVUE-DT [1]. That statement is an example of a broadcaster making a technical and distribution commitment about the Super Bowl feed itself — not an alternative program — but it is the clearest public carriage decision documented in reporting for the 2025–2026 period [1].
2. NBC signaled commercial and scheduling priorities that shape carriage choices
NBC, the rights-holder for Super Bowl LX , publicly discussed commercial selling strategies and bundling across marquee events — notably packaging Super Bowl ad inventory with the Olympics and NBA All-Star Game — indicating a business posture that affects programming and carriage decisions on its platform and affiliate system [3] [4]. Those revelations from NBC executives and reporting do not announce counterprogramming carriage, but they reveal incentives for NBC to protect the Super Bowl window and prioritize unified carriage rather than enabling competing or alternative full-length broadcasts on partner outlets [3] [4].
3. Networks’ scheduling swaps and norms reduced incentive to host alternate Super Bowl programming
Industry reporting explained that network scheduling swaps — such as NBC and Fox exchanging Super Bowl LIX and Super Bowl LX to accommodate Olympics coverage — and an established norm among broadcasters to avoid aggressive counterprogramming make public carriage of alternative Super Bowl programming unlikely; these are public facts about how networks coordinate rights and scheduling [2] [5]. The historical pattern, documented in reporting, shows networks typically avoid new competing entertainment against the Super Bowl and often air reruns or marathons instead, a norm that materially constrains carriage decisions for alternative programming [5].
4. Counterprogramming intent surfaced from non-broadcasters, not major networks
Public discussion of actual counterprogramming intent in 2025–2026 that reached reporting largely came from non-broadcast organizations rather than network affiliates — for example, conservative group plans to stage an alternative halftime-style event were noted in reporting as emerging but preliminary; the documents show intent but not carriage commitments by established broadcasters [5]. That distinction matters: an advocacy group or promoter announcing plans is different from a broadcast network publicly committing carriage or channel distribution for an alternate feed, and the record for 2025–2026 contains more of the former than the latter [5].
5. Industry commentary and legal analyses colored carriage choices, but didn’t declare alternate broadcasts
Trade and legal commentary referenced carriage, local-OTA perception, and regulatory context that influence whether local stations or cable/satellite systems might carry alternative programming during the Super Bowl window — subjects explored in broadcast-law and trade reporting — but these pieces largely analyze constraints rather than record specific broadcaster promises to air competing shows [6] [7]. The coverage shows the mechanics that would enable or inhibit carriage decisions, but it does not document widespread public broadcaster endorsements of alternate programming carriage for Super Bowl windows in 2025–2026 [6] [7].
Conclusion: narrow public record, wide implications
The documentary record in the supplied reporting identifies Gray Television as the clearest example of a broadcaster publicly discussing a carriage decision tied to Super Bowl transmission quality (ATSC 3.0 Dolby Vision/HDR10+) and cites major networks’ scheduling and commercial strategies (not explicit alternative-program carriage) that implicitly discourage counterprogramming [1] [2] [3] [4]. Reporting also notes non-broadcaster groups expressing counterprogramming intent, but not network carriage commitments, and trade/legal outlets discussed the regulatory and commercial backdrop that shapes broadcaster decisions [5] [6]. Where the sources are silent, the record does not support asserting that other broadcasters publicly committed to carrying alternative Super Bowl programming in 2025–2026.