Imagine a world where bitter rivals in the entertainment industry, once locked in fierce legal battles over stolen content, are now joining forces like old pals teaming up for a blockbuster adventure. This isn't just a feel-good story—it's the dramatic shift we're witnessing as streamers and traditional TV networks bury their grudges and embrace partnerships that could redefine how we watch our favorite shows. But here's where it gets controversial: are these alliances truly win-win, or are they just clever ways for big players to sideline smaller creators? Stick around, and you'll see why this evolution is sparking heated debates among industry insiders.
Back in 2007, the industry was rocked by a massive $1 billion lawsuit from Paramount (formerly Viacom) against YouTube, highlighting the deep divide between traditional broadcasters and emerging online video platforms. Paramount claimed YouTube was illegally distributing its TV shows, sparking years of legal wrangling that drained millions in fees before a settlement finally emerged. During that period, public chats between Hollywood studios and tech giants grew friendlier on the surface, but underlying tensions simmered. Executives from networks quietly grumbled about the unchecked influence of streamers like Netflix, YouTube, and Amazon Prime Video, viewing them as disruptive upstarts. Meanwhile, those in the streaming world often dismissed linear TV as outdated relics on the verge of becoming extinct, much like dinosaurs in a rapidly changing landscape.
As years passed, this chilly standoff began to warm. Streaming services started appearing in bundles with cable providers or popping up on TV interfaces, making them feel like natural extensions of home entertainment. Yet, despite these steps, the partnership remained fraught with friction for numerous reasons, including competing interests and regulatory hurdles.
Fast forward to 2025, and with TV advertising revenues plummeting and streaming platforms hitting subscriber limits amid stagnant growth, both sides have largely set aside their differences. High-level executives are now exchanging firm handshakes over deals that once seemed impossible. As Guy Bisson, research director and co-founder at the U.K.-based Ampere Analysis, puts it, 'You can lead the charge or risk being left behind by others.'
The wave of collaborations kicked off with a groundbreaking agreement between Netflix and France's commercial broadcaster TF1, announced at Cannes Lions this year. Netflix co-CEO Greg Peters described it as a 'fresh type of alliance,' akin to major U.S. networks like NBC or ABC entrusting their entire output—including live channels and sports—to a streaming giant.
Starting in mid-2026, this marks one of the boldest experiments in TV content delivery in recent history. The motivations could include Netflix dipping into advertising, strengthening its local presence, retaining viewers, or a mix of all these—time will reveal the full picture.
Following that June announcement, a string of comparable deals emerged, such as Amazon's Prime Video teaming up with France Télévisions domestically. This partnership brings five key channels from the public broadcaster and around 20,000 hours of content from its France.TV streaming service onto Amazon's platform. France Télévisions CEO Delphine Ernotte Cunci hailed it as a 'landmark advancement in boosting France.TV's public service visibility, allowing everyone to explore its distinctive offerings in new settings.'
France.TV is now featured prominently on the Prime Video France homepage, serving as a glimpse into what's coming. This raises questions about how it affects French content producers and rights owners, potentially altering traditional revenue streams.
Variations on a theme abound. These major French agreements aren't isolated. Netflix has also bundled with MBC, a powerhouse in the Middle East, across the MENA region—mirroring its U.S. and U.K. strategies. MBC's new aggregator, MBCNOW, is gaining traction as a leading player and competitor to Netflix, so the motto 'if you can't outpace them, partner with them' seems to apply.
Meanwhile, Disney+ has inked branding and content-sharing deals with the U.K.'s ITV, Germany's ZDF Studios, and Spain's Atresmedia. The Mouse House is merging Hulu into Disney+ globally and combining its sports streamer ESPN with rival Fox One in America. Expect more surprising unions to surface.
Though specifics vary, these are largely examples of what Ampere calls 'diagonal integration.' Here, broadcasters, grappling with a crumbling TV ad market, tap into streamers' vast audiences. In return, global streamers gain access to local programming expertise, cutting down on costs for original content and offering a channel for distributing news. With looming regulatory battles, this approach could help dodge content quotas and other European requirements, acting as a strategic advantage for all involved.
Market observers sense a pivotal moment unfolding. 'We're on the edge of a floodgate opening for even more such arrangements,' notes Ampere's Bisson.
Not a one-way street. Change always brings uncertainty, and the Netflix-TF1 deal has ignited lively discussions at industry gatherings. Are creators of shows now on extra platforms getting fair payouts? Could this hurt traditional TV viewership? Who foots the bill and how? These queries are top of mind for executives. Analysts, however, argue the logic holds strong.
'For networks, harnessing the local footprint of giants like Netflix for distribution is spot-on,' Bisson explains. 'And for Netflix, it's equally beneficial—not a unilateral arrangement. They acquire heaps of high-quality local material that, despite their massive spending, they couldn't produce alone. This sets a benchmark for imitation.'
He points out that Ampere's data indicates streamers are funding shows at '75% of peak TV levels,' a cap unlikely to rise. Thus, aligning with top local producers fills content gaps effortlessly. 'Streamers lag 25% on originals,' he adds. 'We're not recovering from that downturn, but these partnerships lessen the pressure on their own productions.'
On the regulatory front, another perk emerges. Big streamers rarely venture into local news, leaving that to terrestrial and public outlets. Critics suggest streamers should contribute to funds supporting these news efforts. Yet, French Netflix users can already stream TF1's news, and Prime Video subscribers access France Info, aiding streamers in regulatory defenses. Even modest viewership gains for news could be a 'powerful argument' against new rules, according to Tom Harrington, head of television at Enders Analysis. 'Demonstrating that younger audiences tune into news via platforms they wouldn't otherwise use is advantageous,' he remarks.
Netflix and TF1 are keeping details under wraps, with TF1 not commenting and Netflix offering only: 'Our distribution deal with TF1 launches in summer 2026, and we'll provide more info nearer the date.' They've collaborated before on series like Les Combattantes and L’Agence, plus Netflix's inaugural French daily drama, Tout Pour La Lumière.
The year-long delay stems from Netflix processing over 30,000 hours of TF1 content and integrating five linear channels. A source close to the deal describes it as aligning video quality and user experience between the two platforms. 'Netflix isn't dependent on TF1 here,' they clarify.
U.S. streaming analyst Dan Rayburn observes Netflix leaders labeling the agreement as 'experimental,' not a precursor to widespread deals soon. 'Initially, folks assumed Netflix was entering live linear TV and striking pacts everywhere,' he says. 'They emphasized it's about learning, chosen for France due to high demand and its modest scale. They've managed expectations wisely. In three years, perhaps another similar one.'
Other insiders view the Netflix-TF1 tie-up as 'opportunistic,' fueled by TF1 CEO Rodolphe Belmer's close ties to Netflix's leadership. Belmer served on Netflix's board from 2018 to 2022 while heading Canal+, and he's stayed connected with Reed Hastings and co-CEOs Ted Sarandos and Peters.
Overall, streamers portray these as mutually valuable local collaborations, extending years of content licensing. Networks see them as fresh avenues to reach elusive viewers. Disney's European pacts with free-to-air broadcasters signal optimism.
'We're honored by our enduring ties with European free-to-air partners for licensing and acquiring content,' states a Disney rep. 'These new accords expand access to superb local narratives on streaming, while bolstering local production investments and benefiting the wider industry.'
Disney's agreements vary from select programs to extensive libraries, proving diagonal integration isn't one-size-fits-all. Enders Analysis' Harrington labels the ITV deal—a 'Taste of' branded section on platforms—as 'minimal, almost promotional.' ITV audiences can catch Disney+ shows like Andor, Only Murders in the Building, and The Kardashians on ITVX, with ITVX content such as Mr Bates vs the Post Office, Love Island, and A Spy Among Friends on Disney+. They'll review additions regularly, rotating titles every eight weeks on average.
Disney+ EMEA General Manager Karl Holmes, speaking in July, said, 'We foster a reciprocal bond, tapping into free-to-air viewers in major markets.' ITV's content chief Kevin Lygo termed it a 'symbiotic partnership,' with Holmes predicting 'diverse approaches yielding comparable results,' ahead of announcements with ZDF Studios and Atresmedia.
Complicated rights scenario. As MIPCOM approaches—the hub for TV rights deals—the topic of fair compensation from these pacts is heating up, likely to dominate late-night chats at the Palais and nearby spots like the Brown Sugar bar.
When TF1 and France Télévisions deals dropped, French international distributors reacted with concern. They saw networks gifting content to streamers, eliminating chances for a domestic second-tier release. This could erode long-term value and disrupt financing if second-window sales were part of the budget. Ironically, streamers often buy those second windows to enrich their catalogs.
A key distributor source warns: 'If deficit funding relies on a second window, getting a streamer involved helps. But with TF1 shows already on Netflix, no other service will pay top dollar.'
Anonymous sellers interviewed stress that their series investments hinge on controlled rights. Breaches demand refunds. 'Compensation must come from elsewhere,' one insists.
Another notes: 'This fuels more consolidation. While some genres thrive on AVOD as a new secondary layer, losing direct buyer ties is challenging—you understand their needs.'
Though one distributor calls these 'exceptionally intricate,' most anticipate fair settlements, possibly with participation rights already activated. Contracts evolve among partners, and if equitable, disputes are avoided. Some argue guaranteed second-window sales via streamers simplify budgets.
For simpler cases, consider Disney+'s German deal with ZDF Studios, ZDF's production arm. 'Our Disney+ license is standard distribution for ZDF films and series in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland,' a spokesperson says. 'All rights holders get paid properly; no other rights impacted.' Streamers claim deal proceeds will sustain or boost broadcaster SVOD content.
The future outlook. This evolving dynamic between networks and streamers is about adapting for survival. Netflix aims for prime living-room prominence, while terrestrials seek to sustain operations and grow digitally. These alliances emerge amid post-peak TV, where linear TV declines and mergers dominate. Paramount, recently acquired by Skydance, is rumored to pursue HBO Max owner Warner Bros. Discovery. Canal+ is finalizing a $2 billion MultiChoice Africa buyout, and DAZN now owns Australian giant Foxtel—another diagonal play, per Bisson. Who else might make a bold leap?
In Europe, the Berlusconi-controlled MediaForEurope has seized Germany's ProSiebenSat.1 Media to build a Netflix-rivaling powerhouse. Post-acquisition, Enders Analysis' François Godard noted MFE's enhanced position for streamer content talks, calling it 'a positive shock to European TV.'
Looking ahead, colleague Harrington asserts: 'True power resides in controlling content viewing, payment, and interaction.' Mysteries include AI search's role, Google integrations, 'super aggregator' apps, and unforeseen tech. Many foresee this trajectory.
The industry faces turbulent times, but currently, streamers and networks are in a harmonious phase. This might oversimplify, yet court battles like Viacom's against a streamer feel unlikely.
And this is the part most people miss: in a world where content creation is increasingly consolidated, are these partnerships empowering viewers with more choices, or just enriching corporations at the expense of diversity? What if regulators force stricter rules that could unravel these deals? Do you think smaller creators will get squeezed out, or will innovation thrive? Share your thoughts in the comments—do you applaud this newfound friendship, or fear it's a facade for bigger monopolies?
