Sling TV just launched a pay-per-view-style model that lets viewers access live TV on their own terms—no subscription required.
The company’s new Flex Pass gives users short-term access to its programming lineup—$4.99 for a 24-hour Day Pass, $9.99 for a Weekend Pass, and $14.99 for a Week Pass. These passes include channels from its Orange plan, such as ESPN, TNT, CNN, Disney Channel, and more. Add-ons like Sports Extra or News Extra can be bolted on for a few extra dollars.
It’s built for specific moments: a playoff game, an awards show, a season premiere. And it’s priced to match how people actually watch. No commitment, no automatic renewal. Just pay, watch, leave.
It’s a shift in how access to live content can be sold—and it’s one of the most practical ideas I’ve seen in streaming in a while.
Metered Access: Long Talked About, Rarely Tried
The idea of metered access—charging users for what they watch instead of forcing them into monthly subscriptions—has been floating around media circles for over a decade. But nobody’s really tried it, let alone pulled it off. And the reason’s content rights.
Most licensing deals—whether subscription- or ad-based—are built around predictable, recurring usage at scale. Metered access breaks that model wide open. Start offering short-term, pay-per-use access, and suddenly you’re in murky legal and financial territory. How do you split a $5 Day Pass between ESPN, CNN, and Disney Channel? How do you project usage-based revenue when everything’s built to sell by the month?
In short, the economics of metered access scare the hell out of content owners.
It’s not that the model doesn’t work—we’ve seen it succeed elsewhere. Platforms like iStock and Envato made their names with credit-based models: pay $100, get 20 credits, spend them on images, templates, or assets priced by value. Users loved it for the flexibility and control. But even those companies have largely pivoted to subscriptions. That shift says more about business incentives than consumer preference.
Sports has been the closest testing ground. NBA League Pass and MLB.TV have both sold single-game access in the past, even dabbling in quarter-by-quarter packages. But those experiments stayed siloed within league-owned apps. Sling’s move is one of the first times we’ve seen a mainstream distributor apply that same logic to a broader channel bundle.
Struum attempted a version of this too, with a credit-based system that allowed users to stream content across partner platforms using tokens. It was one of the more ambitious takes on metered access in the streaming world, and while it didn’t break out, it showed there’s genuine interest in flexible, usage-based models.
Sling’s version brings that same logic to live TV: short-term access, upfront pricing, no commitment. And because Sling already operates on modular bundles and add-ons, they’ve probably carved out more flexibility in their deals than most other services can even dream of.
Why It Works for Consumers
While the rest of the industry tries to lock users into recurring billing, Sling is betting on freedom. For viewers, it’s simple: only pay when you care. You don’t need to sign up for a $70 monthly sports package to watch one game. You don’t need a live TV subscription for one live event. It respects the fact that not every customer wants to be a “subscriber.”
It also reduces decision friction. Viewers don’t need to ask, “Is this worth a whole subscription?” The answer is, “It’s five bucks. Watch the damn game.”
It’s not built for loyalty—it’s built for reality. And that’s exactly what today’s viewers want.
Why It Works for Streaming Services
This model isn’t just consumer-friendly—it’s business-smart.
- Monetizing the Drop-Ins:
Most platforms view churn as a threat. Sling found a way to monetize it. Someone who never planned to subscribe still becomes a paying customer, on their own terms. - Better Data, Lower Pressure:
A one-day viewer still gives Sling their email, device ID, and viewing habits. That’s data they can use for retargeting, marketing, and retention strategies—without the need to convert every viewer into a subscriber. - Smarter Acquisition Funnel:
This model works like sampling: let users try the product with minimal risk. For some, it’s a one-and-done. For others, it’s the start of a longer relationship. Either way, Sling wins. - Differentiation:
In a landscape packed with indistinguishable bundles and bloated pricing, true flexibility isn’t just a feature—it’s a brand position. Sling now owns it.
Will It Catch On?
Probably not right away. Most streamers are too addicted to the sweet, sweet drip of monthly recurring revenue. Event-driven platforms—especially those banking on live sports and cultural moments—should be watching this closely. This is a potential unlock for real-time-based monetization.
And in this era where live is everything—this is where the action is. With sports rights ballooning and live events taking center stage, offering flexible, moment-specific access isn’t just a smart move. It’s the kind of innovation the industry keeps talking about but rarely executes.
Struum tested the waters with à la carte streaming. Sling’s Flex Pass takes another swing—this time with a simpler pitch and better timing.
The Take
Sling’s Flex Pass gives the industry an alternative to the tired subscription model. It won’t replace monthly plans anytime soon, but it opens the door to a more flexible future.
And in a market scrambling to reduce churn, drive LTV, and monetize sporadic viewers, turning commitment-averse users into paying customers—on demand—isn’t just clever. It’s what the moment demands.
I always love companies who challenge the paradigm for sure, and while I like the idea of fluidity with regards to what and when I pay for what I watch, sort of an UBER a la carte viewing experience, I do think it complicates the ad buying and delivery business, which is a big part of what Sling does. Very few campaigns are delivered on a single day or even week, so how are advertisers able to forecast the impressions that will be delivered on a network? From an advertising standpoint this pushes me toward a network direct deal vs. an aggregator to assure I know what I’m paying for. Additionally the value proposition is problematic on a cost/channel basis. One of the biggest complaints that customers have is frustration in managing ALL their subscriptions, this just seems to exacerbate that frustration. I think offering a “season pass” (which is what the NBA does) is a more reliable option. With SOOO many sports streaming options it’s time to evaluate the value proposition to the consumer.