Sport’s Creator Boom Has a Sameness Problem

There has been a lot of discussion around creators in sport over the past couple of weeks.
At the US Open, creator accreditation nearly doubled to ~100 this year, while debate around filming, access and disruption became part of the tournament conversation. Wimbledon has confirmed it won’t introduce a dedicated creator accreditation category for 2027. Formula 1 has faced questions, with fans questioning why lifestyle influencers with little connection to the sport are getting access that can be difficult or expensive for actual fans to get.

None of that is slowing investment in creators.

For example, Foxtel Group has launched Club Kayo, with creator squads across AFL, NRL, cricket and motorsport, retaining creators across the season rather than bringing them in for one-off activations. WSL Footballs new Interception campaign uses three content types: Live, Edit and Makers, giving creators different ways to work with players and the sport.

In Australia, 84% of organisations are investing in creator marketing, with 77% planning to increase that investment over the next two years. At this year's Australian Open more than 700 influencers generated 1.1b impressions, up 160% YoY.

However, there is also a risk of every sport starting to look the same. YPulse's 2026 research found 62% of 13-39-year-olds are tired of seeing the same influencers everywhere, while 73% say they trust smaller creators more.

Look across sport in AU/NZ, and that sameness is starting to creep in. The same creator faces move from tennis to F1, then into footy, major events and sponsor activations. The same people, at different events, making versions of the same content for different brands. Eventually, it starts to feel more like an ad than content from a creator you chose to follow, which undermines much of the value of working with creators in the first place.

That puts more weight on who gets access and why. What audience or community are they helping the sport reach? What are they there to create? What can they make that feels specific to that sport or event rather than another version of the same brief?

There is a resourcing issue too. Alice Soper recently highlighted Rugby Canada's “Creators Club”, which invited aspiring creators to produce content around two tests without pay. Creating pathways for new creators is great, but “exposure” shouldn’t become a substitute for paying people for content the organisation benefits from.

Internally, creator strategy is becoming a substantial job: finding talent, managing relationships, access, rights, compensation, creative development and measurement. Yet many sport organisations are still adding that work to already stretched digital roles.

Sport should absolutely be investing in creators, but as the space gets more crowded, the advantage will come from being much more deliberate about who gets access, why they are there, what they are being enabled to create and whether the organisation is resourced to do it well.