Some links on this page are affiliate links: if you buy through them we may earn a commission, at no extra cost to you.
Twitter said its experiment streaming 10 Thursday Night Football games during the 2016 NFL season had gone “incredibly well.” The platform reported millions of viewers, positive fan reaction and a smooth combination of live football with Twitter’s real-time conversation.
But the endorsement came before the NFL had decided whether to renew the arrangement. In April 2017, the league awarded the next season’s streaming package to Amazon Prime Video. Twitter lost the live-game rights, although it continued working with the NFL on highlights, analysis and other live programming.
What Twitter streamed
Twitter’s deal covered 10 Thursday Night Football games in the 2016 season. The games were part of the NFL’s “Tri-Cast” distribution model: broadcast television on CBS or NBC, cable carriage on NFL Network, and digital distribution through Twitter. The first streamed matchup was the New York Jets against the Buffalo Bills in September 2016; the package concluded with the New York Giants versus the Philadelphia Eagles in December.
The experiment was significant because Twitter was not merely offering clips from a television broadcast. It was distributing the live game itself and attempting to make its social conversation part of the viewing experience.
#1 Best Overall
- Standard Edition for PlayStation 5 (disc) includes the full EA SPORTS Madden NFL 27 game. Experience authentic NFL gameplay with Franchise mode, Superstar Career, and Ultimate Team.
- DYNAMIC FRANCHISE MODE – Persona Engine brings each NFL athlete to life with unique personalities, creating a reactive and evolving league shaped by your decisions.
- AUTHENTIC NFL GAMEPLAY – Realistic WR vs DB battles, improved coverage, and new short-yardage mechanics deliver true on-field physicality and control.
- BUILD YOUR LEGACY – Progress through the Superstar G.O.A.T. Career Journey and customize your roster with Ultimate Team Captains.
Viewers could watch at no charge, and a Twitter account or cable subscription was reportedly not required. Access included web browsers, Twitter’s mobile apps and dedicated applications for Apple TV, Amazon Fire TV and Xbox One. Availability was international but not universal; the contemporaneous report specifically identified Canada as an exception because of territorial rights.
What “incredibly well” meant
On January 3, 2017, Laura Froelich, Twitter’s global head of sports partnerships, told GeekWire that the arrangement had gone “incredibly well.” That was Twitter’s assessment, not an independently audited industry verdict.
Froelich pointed to audience growth during the season, generally positive feedback and the fact that the initial broadcasts were delivered relatively smoothly. Twitter also believed the games demonstrated a distinctive product idea: viewers could watch the event while seeing a curated stream of reactions and commentary beside the video.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
The stream used the same play-by-play commentary as the CBS television feed, with advertising shown throughout the game. Twitter’s broader ambition was to turn its existing role as a “second screen”—the place people discussed live events while watching television—into a destination that hosted both the video and the conversation.
The reported audience numbers
According to figures Twitter supplied and GeekWire reported:
Rank #2
- NFL-THEMED GUESS WHO? GAME: Who is the mystery NFL player? Ask the right questions to find out in the officially licensed Guess Who? NFL Edition game
- GUESS PLAYERS FROM THE AFC OR NFC: This Guess Who? kids board game includes 2 double-sided character sheets, so players can guess from 24 AFC players or 24 NFC players
- 48 PLAYERS FROM ALL 32 NFL TEAMS: Featuring Josh Allen, Lamar Jackson, Patrick Mahomes, TJ Watt, Isaiah Likely, CeeDee Lamb, Jalen Hurts, Saquon Barkley, Christian McCaffrey, and Aiden Hutchinson
- CLASSIC GUESS WHO? GAMEPLAY: “Is your player in a red uniform?” “Is your player a quarterback?” In this mystery board game, kids ask questions to deduce their opponent’s NFL player
- QUICK AND EASY GAME FOR AGES 6+: This fun mystery game for 2 players is a fast and easy to learn kids game for Family Game Night, playdates, and after school
- The first game attracted slightly more than 2 million viewers.
- The second drew approximately 2.2 million viewers.
- The remaining eight games reportedly reached between 2.6 million and 3.1 million average viewers.
- The peak reported total was 3.1 million viewers for the Week 14 Oakland–Kansas City game.
- The average-minute audience was approximately 250,000 per game.
These figures require some care. A total-viewer number and an average-minute audience are different measurements. A total can include people who watched for a qualifying period at any point in the game, while an average-minute figure estimates how many were watching during an average minute. Without identical methodology, neither number should be treated as a conventional television rating.
Meaningful reach, but not television-scale reach
The clearest comparison came from the Oakland–Kansas City game. GeekWire cited NBC as reporting 17.4 million TV-only viewers, compared with Twitter’s reported 3.1 million viewers.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →That gap does not prove the Twitter stream was a failure. The two figures may have been calculated differently, and the digital stream and television broadcast were complementary distribution channels rather than perfectly interchangeable products. Twitter also offered free access without the traditional cable gate, which gave the NFL another way to reach online viewers.
Still, the comparison establishes an important limit to Twitter’s achievement: the platform had demonstrated substantial digital reach, but it had not displaced television’s established audience, distribution infrastructure or viewing habit.
Why Twitter wanted the rights
The NFL partnership served several goals at once:
- Live-video credibility: Twitter wanted to prove it could distribute a major event at scale.
- User acquisition: Free access could attract people who did not regularly use Twitter.
- More time on the service: Live games offered a reason to remain on the platform for several hours.
- A stronger advertising proposition: Twitter could sell video advertising alongside the real-time conversation.
- A broader media strategy: Sports, news and entertainment were central to Twitter’s push into live programming.
The strategic pitch was therefore larger than “watch football on Twitter.” It was “watch the event and participate in the conversation in one place.” That combination was difficult for traditional television to reproduce, and it gave Twitter a potentially valuable role around major live moments.
Rank #3
The commercial questions behind the positive review
Audience and engagement were only part of the test. The deal also had to make financial sense.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors2Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute3Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsTwitter reportedly paid about $10 million for the 2016 streaming rights. Advertisers including Verizon and Anheuser-Busch reportedly paid between $2 million and $8 million for NFL streaming packages. The figures are reported commercial estimates, not confirmed contract terms published in the sources.
Contemporary coverage raised questions about whether advertisers were satisfied with the value of the audience and whether the revenue generated could justify rights, sales and production costs. A stream can be technically reliable and popular with viewers without becoming a major financial driver.
That distinction matters when judging the phrase “incredibly well.” It can describe at least four different outcomes:
- Technical success: the service stayed available during live games.
- Audience success: millions of people watched.
- Product success: video and conversation worked together to encourage engagement.
- Financial success: advertising and strategic value outweighed the costs.
Twitter publicly emphasized the first three. The available reporting did not establish that the fourth had been conclusively achieved.
Rank #4
- ULTIMATE FOOTBALL EXPERIENCE: Dive into the NFL Gameday board game, perfect for football enthusiasts. Enjoy strategic gameplay that brings the excitement of the field to your tabletop.
- FAMILY FUN FOR ALL: Designed for up to four players, this NFL board game is ideal for family game nights. Suitable for adults and kids, it offers engaging play for everyone.
- STRATEGIC PLAY: Test your skills with this NFL football board game. Plan your moves carefully to outsmart opponents and score touchdowns, making it a thrilling experience.
- PORTABLE DESIGN: With compact dimensions of 9.5 inches, this NFL game day board is easy to store and transport. Take it to gatherings or play at home for endless fun.
- SAFE AND DURABLE: Made from high-quality plastic, this NFL board game is built to last. It includes small parts, so it's recommended for ages twelve and up.
Why the NFL had reason to consider other bidders
The NFL was evaluating more than whether Twitter’s player worked. Live sports rights are commercial assets, and the league could use the experiment to test demand from larger technology companies, compare distribution models and seek a higher fee.
A competing partner might offer a larger paying subscriber base, stronger existing video infrastructure or a different approach to exclusivity and monetization. The NFL also had to weigh audience reach, advertising, measurement, regional rights and the value of associating its games with a subscription service.
At the time, “no word” on a renewal meant only that no future agreement had been publicly announced. It did not prove that negotiations had ended or that Twitter had been rejected. The eventual decision showed, however, that technical execution and positive fan reaction were not enough to secure the next package.
The timeline: Amazon replaces Twitter
- January 3, 2017: Twitter described the 2016 arrangement as having gone “incredibly well,” while the NFL said it was evaluating its options. GeekWire report
- April 4, 2017: The NFL announced that Amazon Prime Video would stream 10 Thursday Night Football games during the 2017 season, replacing Twitter. The reported value was approximately $50 million, compared with Twitter’s reported $10 million fee for 2016. NFL announcement
- May 11, 2017: Twitter and the NFL announced a new multiyear content partnership covering official highlights, news, analysis, live pregame programming and a 30-minute weekday NFL show. It did not include live Thursday Night Football games. NFL announcement
- 2018: Amazon renewed its streaming partnership for the 2018 and 2019 seasons. NFL announcement
Twitter did not simply “lose the NFL”
It is more accurate to say that Twitter lost the NFL’s 2017 live-game streaming package. The company remained an NFL partner, but its role changed from live distributor of Thursday night games to a provider of official digital programming.
That distinction reflects the difference between game rights and content rights. Live games are typically the most valuable and competitive category. Highlights, analysis, pregame shows and weekday programming can still attract viewers and support conversation, but they do not carry the same exclusivity or rights cost.
What the experiment ultimately proved
Twitter proved that a social platform could distribute a major live sports package and combine it with a built-in real-time conversation. Its reported audience was large enough to make the experiment commercially and technologically important, especially because the games were broadly accessible without a cable subscription.
It did not prove that Twitter was the highest-value long-term home for NFL games. The reported audience remained well below television scale, the economics were questioned, and Amazon was willing to pay far more for the subsequent package. The 2016 experiment was therefore both a product success and a warning: demonstrating that streaming works is not the same as winning the rights market.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
