What happens to sports content when short-form content is all AI generated ‘slop’?

Hey {{name}} ,

Welcome to the 20th edition of The Sports Stack. For those who have been with us for a long time, you’ll realise I’ve been quiet, and I can only apologise for that. It’s been an incredibly busy time for me recently with work, travel, and moving house. I’ve had several draft ideas written but I never felt they were quite right to share, so I didn’t force it.

I’m going to get straight into this week’s edition, which is a little different from previous editions - the joys of an extended break means I can disrupt the style a bit..

This week, I’m focusing on one topic that has been in my notes and drafts for quite some time. It’s something I genuinely worry about, and although I don’t have all the answers, I’ve tried to jot down my thoughts to spark the conversation. I’d love for you all to get involved, and I’ve included some questions at the end for you to answer in the comments or by replying directly to this email. I’ll gather all feedback for my next edition.

Short-form video is about to drown in AI slop, and it’s all a bit depressing (even though the technology is incredibly impressive). Sports organisations need to understand what happens when the clips, reels, and TikToks dominating discovery feeds become indistinguishable from real life. I’ve been thinking about this for a few weeks now and trying to figure out how I can write down my thoughts in a way that doesn’t just feel like a brain dump. Throughout this article, I am specifically focusing on short-form content because that’s where the battle for attention and authenticity will be won or lost. Long-form content on platforms like YouTube still has a defensible position, but the 60-second highlight reel is fighting for its life. 

You've seen the tools: Sora 2, Vibes, Meta's Movie Gen, TikTok's Symphony. My Instagram feed is already polluted with AI-generated videos of dead celebrities "performing" new songs and athletes making "statements" they never made. The Washington Post documented this rise, and it's accelerating faster than platforms seem able to manage. 

Ultimately, I believe the question for everyone is not about technology but about attention (as it always is). What happens when people prefer to watch AI-generated, non-authentic videos, thereby boosting them on feeds and reducing exposure to genuine, authentic content? The immediate counterargument might be ‘well, if people are engaging with this content, then that’s what they like,’ fair enough, but sport is different. Sport competition is built on unscripted authenticity that provides entertainment and drama. However, when sport has to compete against synthetic impossibilities optimised solely for engagement, the moat around authentic moments begins to erode quickly.

I absolutely loved (and hated) this analysis from Casey. Give it a watch after you’ve read my article.

Sports and athletes are not immune: An AI video of Rory McIlroy saying he would never play golf in the US again after The Ryder Cup went viral, with many viewers believing it was true; however, it was generated using AI.

Atlanta Braves fans lost thousands to scammers using AI-generated images of players in fake charitable scenarios. One woman transferred $2,000 to someone impersonating Austin Riley via a fake fan page. According to the FBI, AI-related fraud losses hit $16.6 billion in 2024, a 33% rise from the previous year.

You’ll recall not long ago I wrote about Liverpool's success in reaching 1 billion social media engagements as a milestone. But what is the worth of 1 billion engagements when algorithms can't tell the difference between genuine moments and fake content?

Let's talk about the uncomfortable reality: Mark Zuckerberg stated, “I think we're going to add a whole new category of content which is AI-generated or AI-summarised content, or existing content pulled together... The next natural phase of the evolution is a feed full of AI-created content”. 

Over 90% of Gen Z and millennial fans consume sports content via social media. These platforms are the main way they discover new content. However, if platforms prioritise engagement over authenticity, and AI-generated content consistently attracts more engagement than genuine moments, sports organisations will need to rethink their strategies and adapt.

This has always been the issue with over-reliance on third-party social platforms and channels - the algorithm is outside your control, and you do not own your destiny. Aside from partnerships, these providers only focus on engagement, app usage time, ad revenue, and other metrics (just as you would prioritise on your own platforms).

Sports organisations have spent years building engagement strategies around authentic behind-the-scenes access and player personalities. But when the barrier to creating "compelling sports content" collapses to zero, and the algorithms start to promote ‘engaging AI slop’, what will be the actual moat for sports organisations?

Moat #1 - Copyright as a moat.

The legal landscape is already shifting in favour of the rightsholders: 

The limitation: Legal protection is reactive, not proactive. It stops infringement after the fact, but doesn't prevent synthetic content from flooding feeds in the first place.

Moat #2 - The Economics of Live and Unscripted Drama

The numbers tell a compelling story about why live sports remain valuable: 

Why AI can't compete: AI can generate a million synthetic sports highlights, but it cannot generate the uncertainty that drives live sports consumption. The uncertainty, unscripted drama, and not knowing what is going to happen to a team you love, adore, or hate is what makes sports content unique. Being able to watch short-form clips of sporting moments you've witnessed live, over and over, or to share with family and friends, cannot be matched by synthetic content.

Moat #3: First-Party Data and Owned Channels as Your Fortress

I've written at length about the importance of third-party social channels for discovery, but equally how vital it is for sports organisations to build strong first-party data acquisition strategies and invest in owned and operated platforms. These channels act as your moat because:

The counter-argument: What you gain in first-party data, you lose in overall reach. This is where sports organisations need to focus on their most important assets: the athletes themselves.

While AI slop floods feeds with fake celebrity content, real athletes offer something unique and irreplaceable (especially with the right copyright contracts and lawyers in place) - authenticated human stories. Partnering with athletes to create exclusive content for your owned channels and their voice becomes your moat against AI-generated slop. 

None of these moats operate in isolation - the winning strategy: Use copyright to protect your IP, leverage the live experience to create authentic moments, then amplify those moments through owned channels featuring your athletes' genuine voices. This three-layer defence is your moat.

Path 1: The Arms Race (which I think is a terrible idea): Chase engagement by adopting AI tools to create "enhanced" content. Use AI to generate pre-match hype videos, simulate impossible moments, and optimise everything for algorithmic performance.

Why this fails: You can't out-AI the AI companies. OpenAI and Meta have billions in funding and the best engineers. More importantly, you're competing on terrain where your only advantage, authentic, unscripted moments, becomes irrelevant. You’ll also open yourself to copyright and infringement claims, whilst alienating some of your fanbase. 

Path 2: The Authentic Owned and Operated Fortress (my recommendation): Double down on being the last guardians of authenticity in sports. Use your owned channels, stadiums, broadcast rights, and direct fan relationships to reinforce what's real. Focus on the things that make you unique, your athletes, storylines and drama. To make this work, however, you need to free yourself from third-party social networks, meaning you should have direct access to your fans through your owned-and-operated channels. This means shifting metrics from engagement to brand value and community depth. It can also take a significant investment in technology.

Why Path 2 Can Work: 

The economics favour scarcity, not abundance. Live sports rights are projected to hit $75 billion by 2030 precisely because authentic moments are scarce. While AI floods feeds with infinite synthetic content, verified authenticity becomes more valuable. When everything can be faked, provably real becomes premium.

You already have the infrastructure. Sports organisations don't need to build the authenticity moat from scratch. They own:

Legal protection: Copyright law just dealt a $1.5 billion blow to AI companies using content without permission. Your broadcast rights are defendable assets in ways synthetic content never will be.

Direct channels: WhatsApp Channels achieve 45-60% open rates (12x higher than email). Owned apps give you algorithmic control. Newsletters let you break news on your terms.

Athlete partnerships: Your athletes are media platforms with built-in authenticity verification. Partner with them to create exclusive content for your channels, and their voice becomes your moat.

I’d love to try something different with this week’s article because I don’t have all the answers, and I am genuinely interested in hearing the opinions of my readers and community. I’m going to share a list of questions, and I’d love for you all to reply in the comments or directly to this email. I’ll collate all the responses and share them in the next edition of The Sports Stack.

Thanks for reading,
Mark