By Mark Harris, Founding Partner, Football Pyramid Partnership
For a game that prides itself on tradition, non-league football is approaching a decidedly modern crossroads.

Live streaming below Step 3 of the National League System has so far been a mixture of promising experiments, individual club successes and one conspicuous disappointment. And I should know, because that was a project I led in my time with the Northern Premier League. Yet none of those things answers the most important question.

Does live streaming work in non-league football ?

In our view, The answer is increasingly: yes – but probably not in the way it has been tried so far. Streaming can never replace Saturday afternoons at the ground. Nor should, with the benefit of hindsight, clubs move fixtures simply to create digital inventory.

The real opportunity is to reach the supporter who isn`t going to be there anyway - the distant away fan, the supporter who has relocated to another part of the country, or is working away, someone unable to travel, an expatriate living overseas or, potentially, a completely new international audience. Get that distinction right and streaming could look very different three years from now.

Where are we now ?

At Steps 1 and 2, streaming is already established through National League TV and DAZN. Below that, the picture remains fragmented but there are enough examples to suggest that demand exists.

Poole Town`s first live-streaming trial, against Farnham Town in September 2025, attracted more than 2,000 viewers. The club described it as an "overwhelming success".

Bury FC has developed its own paid streaming proposition. Farnham Town has demonstrated how digital content can build an audience beyond the turnstile, while Harborough Town has perhaps provided the most interesting example of all.

After partnering with Spanish football media channel La Media Inglesa, Harborough developed a following not only in Spain but across Spanish-speaking markets. Around 100 Spanish supporters subsequently travelled to Leicestershire for a Southern League match against St Ives Town.

That matters because it changes the argument. Those supporters weren`t choosing between watching a stream and paying at the turnstile. Streaming created a relationship that eventually generated physical attendance.

I`m convinced the commercial potential is high for larger Step 3 and Step 4 clubs, but less so as a universal proposition across the entire NLS. So where is the cut-off? There probably isn`t one defined simply by Step. A well-supported Step 4 club and a sizeable diaspora may have a better streaming proposition than a Step 3 club with average-sized crowds.

A more useful test is whether a club can regularly generate perhaps 50–100 paying viewers at sensible production cost. With automated camera technology now in place at most Step 3 and 4 grounds, and controlled production costs, break-even can be surprisingly low.

Below Step 4, the economics become increasingly difficult unless production is largely automated, sponsorship covers the cost or the club has an unusually large digital audience. At Steps 5 and 6 streaming is more likely to be selective rather than routine – cup ties, derbies, play-offs, sold-out games, and fixtures with identifiable overseas demand.

Trident TV: right idea, wrong model

The Trident Leagues` partnership with ClubberTV should not be interpreted as proof that supporters don`t want streaming.

The agreement proposed more than 100 streamed Step 3–4 matches, with participating clubs receiving a rights payment. But the proposition was built around weekly and monthly ClubberTV subscriptions rather than primarily around supporters buying their own club`s match. The agreement was eventually terminated following limited club take-up.

The idea was right. There clearly are supporters who cannot attend every game and will watch remotely. The commercial model failed to realise non-league fans generally follow their club, not the Northern Premier, Southern or Isthmian League as an entertainment package. Asking somebody who wants to watch one team to buy access to dozens of unrelated games misunderstands the customer.

Implementation could have been better. Potential customers had insufficient advance notice of which matches were being streamed. Most importantly, UEFA Article 48 meant ordinary Saturday 3pm matches could not be streamed domestically. That created pressure to concentrate on midweek games, international-break weekends or move kick-offs.

For many supporters, that became the issue. Non-league football is built around match-going supporters and changing kick-off times risks disrupting supporters, volunteers, sponsors and the wider matchday economy.

Interestingly, the actual production experience wasn`t necessarily the problem. Guiseley reported that ClubberTV tested connectivity beforehand, integrated with existing club commentary and required relatively little additional matchday work.

The lesson was, and is, a hard one for those of us who were involved. But is an important one. Streaming didn`t fail. The proposition did.
[ -- link to Linkedin Field of Dreams ]

Scotland and Wales show another way

Look north and west and there are useful lessons. ScottishFootball.online provides something much closer to what could work lower down the English pyramid: common technology behind individual club-branded services. Its numbers are significant.

During 2025/26 it delivered 233 live streams to almost 35,000 viewers, up from around 25,000 viewers the previous season. Across three seasons, its live-streaming services generated almost £550,000, with the income going directly to participating clubs. For 2026/27 it began the season with 315 streams in its fixture schedule.

The supporter buys from the club rather than from an anonymous league channel. That`s a crucial distinction.

Wales has gone further. The FAW launched Cymru Football TV in 2026, making every Cymru Premier fixture available through a dedicated streaming platform. Meanwhile S4C`s renewed Sgorio agreement provides more than 40 live domestic matches annually across broadcast and digital channels.

Other sports offer lessons too. Netball has deliberately used streaming and free digital distribution to increase visibility: viewing hours for the relaunched Netball Super League rose 229% during the first ten rounds of 2025 compared with the whole 2024 season, while Sky`s YouTube views increased 61%.

British basketball previously demonstrated a similar effect: viewership across YouTube and Sky grew 217% in 2022/23, while live and on-demand social video views jumped from 1.4 million to 20 million.

These aren`t exact comparisons with non-league football. But they demonstrate that digital distribution can grow audiences without destroying the live product. Indeed, British ice hockey – another sport heavily dependent on matchday revenue – attracted a record 1.32 million spectators in 2025/26, averaging 3,863 per game.