Should Streaming Be Part of the Membership?
On this page
The Pacers include a DAZN Season Pass for season-ticket holders. The Magic offer a discount. Beyond the purchase decision sits another question: how can viewing make membership valuable between visits to the arena?
Two NBA team streaming offers put that choice into practice. For the 2026–27 season, the Indiana Pacers say all season-ticket holders receive a complimentary Pacers on DAZN Season Pass. For a member who wants to watch the eligible games, that removes an additional paid subscription purchase. Orlando Magic season-ticket holders receive a 20% discount on their Season Pass and can decide whether to add it. Pacers announcement, Magic announcement.
The difference is small enough to disappear in a launch announcement. It deserves attention from anyone deciding how a club’s digital services should contribute to the business. Watching can be something a member buys separately, or something their existing membership already provides.
Those choices create different propositions for the fan. Streaming can also give the membership another use between visits to the arena: another occasion to follow the team and spend time with the club. That potential relationship benefit deserves a place in the commercial assessment alongside subscription income.
NBA team streaming: what does the member gain?
An included pass can extend the usefulness of a season ticket beyond attending games. A member who also wants to follow the team’s eligible televised games receives another way to enjoy that relationship, without buying the pass separately. The value is most tangible for someone who actually wants to watch. A benefit that goes unused adds little to that person’s experience.
There are still boundaries. A complimentary pass isn’t a promise of every game everywhere, or of access without an account. The ticket itself costs money, and the published announcement doesn’t show how the streaming cost is reflected in the overall package.
A discounted add-on makes a different offer. The member gets preferential terms for an additional service and chooses whether it is worth buying. That gives someone who wants the stream a specific price advantage. It tells us nothing about whether the underlying ticket is cheaper, whether fans prefer the arrangement, or whether the package is better value overall.
For the club, the strategic question is how that additional viewing should relate to a commitment the fan has already made. Treating it as a membership benefit puts more of the offer inside that commitment. Selling it separately preserves an additional purchase decision.
Another reason to spend time with the club
The strategically interesting opportunity is continuity. A ticket gives a member access to games at the arena. Streaming can extend the experience to other occasions: following an eligible game from home or watching when attendance isn’t possible. It gives the club another way to be useful in a member’s routine.
Including the pass removes an additional paid purchase for those members who want it. That can make the viewing benefit easier to take up. If members use it repeatedly, the club gains more occasions for them to experience the team as part of their existing membership. A discounted pass can also create those occasions, once the member chooses to buy it.
This is a relationship benefit to design for and test. More opportunities to watch can support an ongoing connection; the offers alone don’t establish that fans become more attached or more likely to renew. Nor does viewing through DAZN establish that the club receives the viewer’s contact details. The experience of following the team and the club’s access to customer data are different questions.
A subscription target can miss the purpose
If a club includes streaming to strengthen its membership offer, standalone subscription sales provide an incomplete assessment. A ticket holder receiving a pass isn’t another subscription purchase. The relevant questions concern use of the benefit, its cost and its contribution to the membership.
I would start by examining how many eligible members activate the pass and watch repeatedly. I would also want to know how many would otherwise have paid for a separate subscription. An included pass can replace an existing purchase as well as add something useful; both belong in the calculation.
Any stronger claim about renewal needs further evidence. Usage doesn’t establish that the benefit persuaded someone to renew. Changes in ticket price, team performance and other benefits could also affect that decision. The club needs to understand the contribution after costs and possible lost standalone sales before calling inclusion a commercial success.
A separately sold pass has a more direct transaction to assess: who buys, what they pay and what remains after the relevant costs. Member take-up shows how many members buy under the discounted offer. It still doesn’t establish how many additional purchases the discount caused, or what it contributes to the wider ticket relationship.
The purpose of the offer should determine the evaluation. A benefit designed to make membership more valuable deserves a different assessment from a product primarily expected to earn its own subscription income.
One club can use both approaches
This isn’t a choice between two mutually exclusive club models. The Pacers themselves combine free viewing, paid passes and an included member benefit. Their launch offers 22 regular-season games and four preseason games free; the FAQ specifies a free account. A paid pass covers the wider local offer, subject to nationally exclusive games and territorial rules. Pacers launch, access guidance.
The point is to decide what each route is for. Selected free games can let someone experience the service. A standalone pass serves someone willing to pay for the viewing package. An included pass adds a benefit for someone who has already bought a season ticket. The same platform can support all three, while the club assesses different questions for each group.
The public offers don’t reveal why the Pacers and Magic agreed their particular terms. Existing ticket packages or negotiations could explain the difference. We cannot infer their underlying economics or management intentions from the benefit alone.
Put the fan benefit in the brief
For a club reviewing a streaming proposal, I would want the commercial brief to answer four questions: which fans it serves, what they gain, how it fits what they already buy, and which result would justify its cost.
That makes the brief more useful to both the club and its partners. An intention to strengthen membership calls for a way to deliver the benefit and assess its use. An additional subscription product calls for a credible reason to pay and a viable contribution after costs. A broader viewing offer may contain both.
The useful lesson from these two offers is a product decision: decide what the fan’s existing relationship should earn them, and how the service can make that relationship useful more often, before settling how the stream will be sold.
Source note: This analysis interprets the clubs’ published 2026–27 offers, checked on 21 October 2026. It does not establish their strategic intentions, confidential contract terms or measured subscriber and renewal outcomes. The expired Pacers early-bird promotion is excluded. Viewing remains subject to the applicable account, territory and game-rights conditions.