Collectibles, as an asset class, are unkillable. The industry has survived the Great Depression, two World Wars, the dot-com crash, the GFC, COVID, and the current macro cycle, and has come out larger every single time. The category has compounded for almost a century in spite of itself, with no standardized infrastructure, no centralized price discovery, and no real financial plumbing. What’s happening now is that all three are finally being built at once.

At Will Ventures, we’ve been spending the last few months going deep on the market.

We think collectibles are in the middle of a big transition. The same kind of transition that turned other products like fine art and wine into legitimate financialized markets in earlier generations.

We have 3 beliefs that we’ll discuss in this piece:

1. The trading card playbook is a template, not the destination. The next decade of category-defining companies in collectibles will be built in watches, memorabilia, toys, and a handful of others. Most capital is still chasing cards.

2. Digital repacks are one of the most important commercial innovations in the category in 30 years and also very exposed to regulatory disruption. There is significant downside risk, but this model can be applied to other industries.

3. The trust layer (grading, authentication, vaulting, and lending) will produce huge outcomes in other categories.

Part 1: The Maturity Curve

Every asset class went through some version of the same transition. We think this is the most useful framing for where collectibles are now.

Take art. For most of the 20th century, fine art was bought by people who liked art, displayed by people who could afford to display it, and traded through dealers who knew everyone. There was no public price for a piece, no way to borrow against one, no index. Then in the 1970s and 1980s, Sotheby’s and Christie’s published auction results consistently enough that comps became visible. Specialist art lenders emerged. Independent appraisers got professionalized. Insurance products got standardized. By the 2000s, fine art had become a real asset class that institutional investors could allocate to and family offices could lend against.

Wine went through the same transition between 1980 and 2010, with the rise of en primeur futures, Liv-ex as a centralized exchange, Robert Parker scoring as a near-universal grading scale, and bonded warehousing as standardized custody.

We see a similar pattern across these assets. A category becomes a real asset class when four pieces of infrastructure exist at once: standardized authentication, reliable price discovery, custody and provenance, and financing and instruments. When all four exist, the category gets repriced upward, often dramatically, because it can absorb a much wider pool of capital. Buyers no longer need to be domain experts. Lenders no longer need to underwrite each transaction from scratch. Institutional allocators can finally buy in.

Trading cards are roughly seven years into this transition. PSA’s grading scale is universally accepted. CardLadder and Market Movers provide real-time comps. Vaulting and digital repacks have built a custody layer. Alt and others have built the financing layer. Cards are the first collectible category where all four pieces exist simultaneously, and you can see the result in monthly trading volume, which is roughly 50x what it was in 2018.

Every other major collectibles category is missing at least two of the four pieces. Watches have decent custody and a real marketplace, but no standardized grading scale and limited lending. Game-worn memorabilia is missing all four. Toys have demand and content but no grading premium and no real secondary market for graded inventory. Handbags have credible authentication but no grading, no vaulting, and no lending at scale. Wine is the most mature outside of cards, with all four pieces present but most still operating at meaningful friction.

The companies that win the next decade in collectibles will be the ones building the missing infrastructure for categories that aren’t cards.

Part 2: The market today and key stakeholders

The global collectibles market is massive and sits somewhere between $320 billion and $600 billion (the global video game market is ~$300B), depending on who’s measuring and what they’re including. The wide range itself tells you something about the lack of structure across the industry.

The TCG market (Pokémon, Magic: The Gathering) was roughly $7.5 billion in 2025. Sports cards add another $13 to $15 billion on top of that. Combined, the trading card market is $20B+ and growing at a healthy clip.

Beyond cards, toy collectibles, blind boxes, designer figures, and the whole Labubu / Pop Mart phenomenon, are growing at nearly 11% annually, driven heavily by Asia-Pacific and the “kidult” demographic that now accounts for over a third of the toy market.

The collectibles ecosystem is convoluted and full of different stakeholders. Let’s take a look at the different players in the sports and trading card market for example.

IP Holders sit at the top. Leagues, entertainment franchises, and player associations license their IP and collect royalties on every card and sticker produced. That’s somewhere between $500 million and $1 billion a year across sports, entertainment, and TCG. For decades, IP holders were perfectly happy cashing royalty checks while the rest of the chain captured the real upside, but that dynamic is changing.

Manufacturers make the product. Topps (now Fanatics), Panini, and Upper Deck are the biggest names there. The total manufacturing layer is $4 to $5 billion globally. Manufacturers are now trying to vertically integrate and build a full stack: pack rips, marketplace, portfolio management, etc. all under one roof.

Grading and Authentication is quietly one of the best businesses in the ecosystem. PSA, Beckett, CGC, and SGC assign condition grades on a standardized scale. Graders are an extremely important part of the value chain - a PSA 10 Pokémon card can fetch 5 to 10x what a PSA 9 of the exact same card sells for. In 2025, 26.8 million cards were graded across major companies, up 32% year over year. PSA accounted for 19 million+ of those, grading more than 90,000 cards daily. Collectors, PSA’s parent company, raised at a $4.3 billion valuation in 2022 and has since rolled up SGC and Beckett, consolidating roughly 80% of the card grading market under one roof.

Marketplaces are where most collectors are getting their collectibles. eBay did over $10 billion in collectibles GMV in 2025, with trading cards as the single biggest driver of GMV growth for nine straight quarters. Add Goldin, Fanatics Collect, Alt, Whatnot, and the long tail, and secondary marketplace volume probably exceeds $15 billion a year. Live commerce has been a big innovation in the last 10 years, with breakers on Whatnot and Fanatics Live blending shopping with entertainment in a way that looks more like Twitch than eBay.

Financial Instruments and Repacks are the newest part of the stack. We’ll cover this in more detail later. Fractional ownership, lending (Alt Advance lets you borrow against vaulted cards at 9 to 10% APR), and digital repacks (Triumph, Courtyard, Arena Club, etc.) are all building new on-ramps into collectibles. This layer is probably $1 billion today and growing fast. The idea around lending is simple: if you can borrow against other assets, you should be able to borrow against your card collection. Digital repacks have done a great job taking less desirable inventory and generating liquidity for them.

This stack exists in other categories beyond cards as well, though the depth of the value chain is more limited in other areas.

Okay, now that we understand the major parts of the ecosystem, let’s talk about what’s driven the growth that has pushed collectibles from a niche hobby to a legitimate asset class.

A standard explanation for the current boom goes something like: COVID, stimulus checks, nostalgia, low rates. That’s part of the story but it’s incomplete. Four structural shifts have compounded over the last decade.

Liquidity and transparency: CardLadder and similar companies give collectors real-time comps on almost any card. Online marketplaces eliminated geographic friction in what used to be a deeply local hobby. Grading capacity has roughly 5x’d. The asset class has moved from “I think this is worth something” to “I know exactly what this is worth right now.”

Demographics and wealth transfer: The kids who collected Pokémon and ripped basketball packs in the late ‘90s and early 2000s now have real disposable income and a deep emotional connection to the IP. Roughly 60% of US collectors are now between 25 and 45. High-net-worth collectors allocate around 20% of their wealth to collections and the growth will continue to compound.

Content as a flywheel: Whatnot did roughly $6 billion in GMV in 2025, doubling year over year. DeepPocketMonster has 4 million followers across platforms ripping packs on stream. Card opening went from a solitary basement activity to one of the most engaged-with content categories on the internet. Content turns collectibles into a recurring, social, top-of-funnel acquisition channel rather than a niche hobby that requires hand-to-hand evangelism.

Format innovation: Digital repacks, live breaks, blind boxes, fractional ownership, and instant-liquidity vaults have all been invented or scaled in the last five years. Each format independently increases the velocity of capital and stacked on top of each other, have rewritten unit economics of the entire industry.

What’s interesting is that we think many of these shifts have significant runway left. Demographics, wealth transfer, and format innovation will only continue and we think we’re still in the early innings of this industry.

Part 3: Cards as proof of concept

By now, many of you may be familiar with the story of trading cards and sports cards and their recent growth. The point of this section is to discuss what’s driven the growth and how we think the success of cards can translate to other collectibles categories.

Grading is an unsung need and profit pool

As mentioned above, one company, Collectors Holdings now controls roughly 80% of the card grading market. The margins are extraordinary and capacity is the real constraint. PSA, the largest brand under Collectors, has built a brand that has a tremendous moat.

Collectors CEO Nat Turner has re-vitalized the PSA business. The business already had significant momentum, mostly driven by the fact that a PSA 10 card can fetch 5 to 10 times what a PSA 9 of the same card sells for. But, PSA has quietly evolved from a simple grading company into the trust, data, and infrastructure layer that underpins the financialization of cards.

Effectively, the grading scale is what makes the asset class function. Without it, you have no comps, no lending, no digital repacks, no derivatives. With it, you have all four. Whoever builds the equivalent in another category captures the same kind of structural margin and the same kind of moat. We’ll come back to this in Part 4.

Breaking is now a media business, and the media business is the interesting part

A “break” is a group purchase of a sealed product. A breaker buys a $500 hobby box, sells 30 spots at $20 each, opens the packs live, and whoever’s spot has the big hit walks away with the card. It feels part like a lottery, part like QVC, and part like Twitch.

The economics are good. Whatnot takes about 10–11% of GMV including payments. Breakers buy at wholesale, sell spots at 15 to 40% above MSRP, and clear 15 to 25% net margins on the spread. Top full-time breakers can clear $500,000 a year and breaker networks like WeTheHobby, which started as a one-person operation in 2021 and now has 200-plus employees, are doing hundreds of millions in annual gross revenue.

WeTheHobby has effectively become a vertically programmed media company that happens to monetize through cards, with dedicated channels by sport, on-air talent, podcast operations, original IP, and the leverage to negotiate exclusive allocations from manufacturers. The most successful card retailers in the country, like Layton’s, reportedly do up to 90% of their revenue through breaks.

The question we keep coming back to: do platforms tolerate aggregators long-term, or prefer to own talent relationships directly? Twitch and YouTube spent the last decade neutering MCNs once creators figured out they didn’t need them. We think the same fate awaits most generic breaker networks. The ones that survive will look like sports media companies with proprietary IP, exclusive allocations, and direct relationships with manufacturers and IP holders.

The format is also migrating into adjacent categories. We’ve seen breaks for Pop Mart cases, sealed Funko, Magic boxes, watches, sneakers, and luxury goods. The constraint is that breaking only works when the underlying product has high variance, transparent comps, and meaningful chase items. Cards check all three. Toys and blind boxes check most of them. Watches and high-end sneakers check fewer. Our prediction: breaking goes deep into toys and TCG-adjacent categories and stays niche in watches and luxury.

Digital repacks: An entirely new format that has re-written unit economics

Digital repacks are one of the most important commercial innovations in the collectibles industry in 30 years. They didn’t exist three years ago and are now arguably the highest-velocity business model in the entire space.

The mechanic is straightforward. A platform vaults a pool of pre-graded cards, publishes the odds and checklist, and sells digital “packs” online ranging from $10 to $10,000 plus. You buy a pack, see your card revealed instantly, and decide whether to ship, vault, or sell it back to the platform at roughly 90% of fair market value. Most users sell back instantly. Cards transact 8 to 10 times before any single one is redeemed. The platform takes about 10% of GMV every time.

The most useful number we’ve heard in the category: roughly $1 of platform inventory generates around $10-20 of GMV per month. That is a unique e-commerce ratio. eBay does roughly $0.10 of GMV per dollar of inventory across its marketplaces. Amazon’s third-party marketplace does maybe $0.40. Digital repacks, at $10-20, are operating in a different economic universe.

Two strategic camps have emerged.

The collector camp (Courtyard, Arena Club, Trove): premium positioning, athlete and team partnerships, collector tools, vaulting, and category expansion. Courtyard launching watches is the early read on whether the format works outside of cards.

The engagement camp (Triumph, Packz, Catchback Cards): aesthetic and pacing closer to mobile gaming and DFS than collecting. Faster reveals, smaller tickets, gamified mechanics. The user base overlaps heavily with sports betting and social casinos.

Three things flow downstream. First, repacks pull demand forward for grading. Every card has to be slabbed first, which is part of why PSA processed 19 million submissions last year. Second, they make vaulting table stakes, not optional. The vault is the wedge, the same way custodial infrastructure was the wedge in crypto. Some companies are doing this directly and others are doing it through 3rd parties. Third, repacks create a new liquidity layer for previously illiquid mid-value cards, which had been too cheap to auction and too good for raw eBay listings.

Now here is where we have some concerns.

Mechanically, a buy-and-sell-back digital pack is hard to distinguish from a chance-based wager with a fixed house edge. That mechanic is well-known to gaming regulators and the dollar volumes are now getting too large for state attorneys general and gaming commissions to ignore. The participants also skew young and the skill-versus-chance line is fuzzy for buy-back mystery boxes.

We think operators that publish full odds, gate underage participation, set per-user spend limits, and lean into responsible-spending features will be in much better shape when scrutiny arrives. Operators leaning into casino-style retention loops, hidden odds, or DFS-style aesthetics are going to be the test cases. Our best prediction is that regulators will increasingly scrutinize digital repacks in the coming few years, especially if the underlying card market softens. At that point, the companies that will face more scrutiny will be the ones that cannot credibly distinguish their product from a lottery, platforms without transparent odds disclosure, age verification, deposit limits, or a clear collectibles-first (rather than wager-first) value proposition.

To be clear, we are still long this format.

The fact that consumers are guaranteed to get a physical asset at a floor price and that this dynamic is similar to the physical experience a card collector has at a show, gives us confidence this model can exist without regulatory scrutiny. Furthermore, the unit economics are too compelling for it to disappear, and the format is too useful to the rest of the value chain to be banned outright. But the operators that come out the other side will grow very responsibly and make product decisions that are good for the user and the industry at large.

Part 4: Where the next category-defining companies will actually be built

We think the next decade of category-defining companies in collectibles will be built in the categories sitting one or two steps behind cards on the maturity curve.

For each category below, the operative question is the same: which of the four maturity-curve pieces (grading, price discovery, custody, financing) are missing, who has the right to build them, and what do the resulting businesses look like at scale.

Game-worn memorabilia

The emotional resonance of game-worn memorabilia is arguably the highest in the entire collectibles stack. However, the infrastructure to support it is perhaps the lowest. There are 3 core problems.

Supply is opaque and relationship-driven: Topps prints millions of cards a year. An athlete wears one jersey per game. Across the major US leagues, you’re looking at a few hundred thousand game-worn items a year, and most never reach the open market. They stay with the athlete, route through equipment managers with private networks, go to charity auctions, or get gifted. Sourcing is hand-to-hand combat that takes years.

Authentication is technologically primitive: Fanatics Authentic, Beckett, Meigray, and MatchWornShirts are names that are deep in the space. The actual workflow at most of these companies however still requires significant human intervention. Computer vision authentication, which can match a jersey to a specific game from broadcast footage in seconds based on stitching patterns, sweat and dirt placement, fabric wear, etc., doesn’t exist at scale yet. We think someone will build that technology soon.

There is no grading scale: “Excellent condition” is a narrative. Cards have a 1-to-10 scale that the entire market trusts; that scale is what enables price discovery, lending, and digital repacks. Memorabilia has nothing like it. A photo-matched jersey worth $500,000 and a non-photo-matched jersey of the same player from the same season worth $50,000 will be described in the same auction catalog using effectively identical adjectives.

The bull case is interesting. Unit values are higher than cards and supply is structurally scarce in a way cards never will be. Buyers are wealthier and emotional resonance is highest. The bear case is that all four maturity-curve pieces have to be built more or less from scratch, and the people who can build them need a combination of skills (deep league relationships, authentication expertise, and auction operations) that almost nobody has.

Watches

Watches are an interesting category. The luxury watch market is $33 billion for primary and roughly $22 billion for pre-owned. Chrono24, Bezel, and others have built credible online marketplaces. Furthermore, brand-run certified pre-owned programs from Rolex, AP, Patek, and others have given collectors more confidence on the highest-end inventory. Liquidity is decent at the top of the market but gets thin fast as you move down.

What’s missing is the same thing that was missing in cards 10 years ago: a universally accepted, standardized grading scale. Watch authentication today is a mix of brand certifications, individual experts, and platform-specific authentication layers. None of it converts cleanly into a number the market can underwrite.

This matters because the absence of grading is the actual constraint on the watch market becoming an asset class. Buyers need expertise and lenders need to underwrite each transaction from scratch.

We think a PSA-equivalent for watches is an obvious company that doesn’t yet exist. Whoever builds a credible 1-to-10 scale, with the brand equity and process discipline to make a “Grade 9 Patek” mean the same thing to every dealer, lender, and collector globally, becomes a critical piece of the value chain.

There are some challenges: watches have moving parts, the market is more mature than cards were in the early 2010s, and brand certification programs exist. But remember, TCG manufacturers also saw PSA as a competitor before realizing their value. We think the same pattern will play out in watches, and the window to build this is now.

Toys and blind boxes

Pop Mart is one of the more impressive consumer companies built in the last decade. The brand grew 3x year over year to $5B+ in revenue last year. Labubu has crossed over from Asia-Pacific into the US, EU, and LATAM. The unboxing-on-social loop is the same behavioral mechanic that drives breaking on Whatnot, and it is producing the same kind of viral demand.

While demand has been solved, there is still ample opportunity on supply, secondary markets, authentication, and price discovery.

Grading: CGA grades action figures and Funko Pops. The problem is that, unlike cards, a graded toy does not consistently command a meaningful premium over an ungraded one. Until that changes, throughput will likely stay capped. Whoever builds a grading scale that the market actually pays a premium for unlocks the entire downstream stack (lending, repacks, indices) for toys.

Cross-border secondary markets: Most interesting toy supply originates in Asia, and most new demand is in the US and EU. The cross-border arbitrage is real and currently captured by a fragmented set of resellers, eBay sellers, and Discord-organized group buys. Someone is going to consolidate this with proper authentication, customs handling, and unified pricing. The resulting business may end up looking a lot like StockX for toys.

Pricing data: There is no CardLadder for toys. One interesting case is ghostwrite, the collectible toy business that partners with leading IP and does a combination of limited drops and blind boxes. They have built their business on blind dutch auction pricing - this mechanism has created transparency for both primary participants and future secondary buyers. We think someone will build a data asset that allows comparisons across products and standardizes price discovery.

We are bullish on toys as a venture-investable category; we think the right toy-specific platform with a credible authentication and pricing layer can become a massive outcome.

Part 5: The Financial layer is a big, underbuilt opportunity

If we had to point at one structural shift that would do the most to financialize collectibles over the next decade, it would be the maturation of the lending and capital layer.

Cards are increasingly treated like a real asset class because the financial plumbing has caught up. Alt offers loans up to 40% of total card portfolio value. PWCC has a $175 million credit facility with WhiteHawk. Collateral Finance Corporation lends against vintage cards alongside precious metals. The category now has fixed and variable rate options, instant cash advances against vaulted inventory, and a real secondary market for the underlying loans.

There is essentially nothing of comparable scale in watches, memorabilia, toys, handbags, wine, sneakers, or comics. Every one of these is a billion-dollar-plus market with assets that hold value, can be vaulted, and can be authenticated, and yet there is no real lending product against any of them.

Across many of these categories, unit values are higher than cards. Assets are just as durable. And the buyer base is wealthy so default rates are likely to be very low.

The right way to build is category by category, partnered with the dominant authentication and vaulting player in each vertical. Horizontal lending platforms across all collectibles will lose to vertical specialists who own the trust layer in a single category first. Underwriting expertise scales by category, not horizontally. The winning model is to build the dominant lending product in one category, integrate tightly with the grading and vaulting infrastructure, and only later expand sideways.

We expect to see two or three category-specific lending platforms reach significant scale in the next five years. We think the first will probably be in watches and the second will probably be in memorabilia, contingent on someone solving the grading problem.

Part 6: International is another massive expansion opportunity

The US is roughly 55% of global trading card value. Europe is 25%. Asia-Pacific is 20–25%. LATAM and MENA are the rest. Most category-defining collectibles platforms we’ve discussed so far are US-first. We think that will change. Let’s look at a few of these geographies.

Asia-Pacific: Japan is already a $2 billion-plus market, the largest outside of the US, with deep TCG roots and a mature collector base. Local auction houses, marketplaces, and grading services already exist. In China, the collectible behavior is built around new IP (Pop Mart, Kayou) rather than legacy IP, and the platforms that win there will look very different from PSA or Whatnot. Counterfeiting is a structural problem that creates a durable opportunity for a trusted authentication brand. South Korea is also emerging fast, with a young, mobile-first collector base.

Each market has its own payment rails, dominant social platforms, counterfeiting risks, IP landscape, and buyer demographics. The winners are likely to start as regionally native companies with proprietary IP and authentication relationships. We also don’t think the infrastructure stack in Asia will be rebuilt the same way it was in the US. Payments, social distribution, and commerce are already well integrated, which compresses the time it takes for a category to financialize.

Latin America: Anecdotally one of the fastest-growing collector communities in the world, especially Mexico, Brazil, and increasingly Argentina and Colombia. Today the activity sits in Discord, WhatsApp, Mercado Libre, and a small handful of regional Instagram-driven platforms. This fragmentation we think will change. We expect one platform to consolidate most of the activity, with payments, centralized inventory and pricing, and build native social and community features. We think there’s a real chance the LATAM winner becomes a multi-billion dollar company without ever entering the US market.

India: The collector base today is materially smaller than in other markets despite enormous sports fandom. We think that changes faster than most people expect. Cricket cards are an obvious initial catalyst. IPL memorabilia is another. Recent regulatory changes around fantasy and real-money gaming are pushing consumer attention toward adjacent ways to engage with sports. The right India play is mobile-first, payments-native, and probably starts with cricket before broadening to Bollywood IP, regional language IP, and eventually global TCGs.

Across all of these regions, we think IP partnerships, trust, authentication, and payments are key bottlenecks to more commercial viability.

–

Zooming out, while there has been tremendous innovation in the last few years, we think the opportunity in collectibles is just beginning.

Collectibles have always had demand. They’ve always had emotional resonance, cultural relevance, and pockets of extreme value. What they haven’t had, until recently, is the infrastructure that allows markets to scale. Things like standardized grading, reliable price discovery, financing, and liquid marketplaces.

Sports and trading cards are simply the first place where all of those pieces have fallen into place. That same transition is starting to play out across watches, memorabilia, toys, and entirely new formats that didn’t exist five years ago. It’s happening across Asia-Pacific, across Latin America, and will also happen in markets that today feel underpenetrated.

We think massive businesses will emerge in collectibles around the “PSA for everything else”, digital packs / blind boxes for other categories, lending and financialization, and geographic expansion.

At Will Ventures, we’re excited about the next generation of innovation in the collectibles industry. If you’re building in this space, or thinking about it from a new angle, we’d love to hear from you.

Beyond the AI hype, the content upload velocity on YouTube has exploded to 20 million videos uploaded daily. More time is being spent inside Fortnite and Roblox, with the latter reaching nearly 3 hours per day per DAU. It feels like every major sports league is breaking viewership and ratings records. And now there’s more AI content flooding the collective internet, not less.

But here’s the question if you’re a creator with digital distribution: at a time of content abundance, how do you actually build a durable media business? What we’re publishing today is focused on the themes and characteristics we’re excited about in creator businesses even against the backdrop of unlimited options for viewers and the explosion of AI video. We’re bullish on trust and community, unscripted human moments and building offline. And while scale is compounding in the YouTube ecosystem, there’s going to be more opportunity to differentiate yourself, cut through the noise, and build something that lasts.

Themes we’re excited about:

1. Trust via Personality-Driven Formats

In an environment where anyone can generate 4K footage, the barrier to entry for high-quality visuals has collapsed. But visuals and fidelity aren’t drivers for deep engagement and affinity. We still believe the creators who win combine a distinct point of view with real domain expertise. These creators can curate recommendations and build trust within specific categories, which eventually allows them to cut through the clutter (whether it’s a ChatGPT search result or random slop on TikTok). There is significant opportunity in going deep on specific topics within a vertical or where there are fervent audiences.

For example, in the culinary world, creators like Jack’s Dining Room, HowKevEats, and Fallow have become arbiters of taste. Their value lies not just in the visual appeal of food, but in their journey to different cities, conversations with restaurant owners and back-and-forth when making awesome pancakes. And each has expanded beyond content in unique ways: Jack with a high end dining series + festivals, Kevin with the Biter app, and the Fallow team have restaurants of their own. These creators are building a modern, direct-to-consumer version of the Food Network or Anthony Bourdain’s tv series.

In technology, Marques Brownlee (MKBHD) is still the gold standard. He combines high production value with a direct and approachable tone when reviewing the latest gadgets (phones, cars, glasses). He’s cemented himself as the go-to creator in this category. You can find reviews about tech-enabled products tons of different ways, but when MKBHD speaks on a product, millions of people listen. He’s done this by avoiding brand partnerships that would feel like it could sway his opinion, gaining access to certain products in advance of wide releases (driving must-see content to his channel) and providing unique context to product releases and technology shifts.

Community is still at the center of what makes content special, especially on YouTube. It probably deserves more attention. The connection between a creator and their audience is something AI struggles to replicate. Creators have to offer something only they can: distinct personality, expertise, or both. That’s what builds trust. And once trust exists within the community, it opens the door for collaborations with other creators / celebrities that make the content even better. Each of the creators above has done this: earned trust with their community, then used it to team up in meaningful ways.

2. Un-summarizable Content

I heard Colin & Samir talking about this idea: if your YouTube video can be summarized by AI-model-of-choice and the viewer is indifferent, you are in trouble. Creating genuine entertainment and emotional value are at a premium.

Consider Sean Evans and Hot Ones. It’s the modern day talk show for celebrities, athletes, creators, etc. Sean is a masterful and prepared interviewer, but the format works not because of the interview Q&A alone, but there’s some magic in watching the guest struggle through the spice, in-depth questioning, uncontrollable facial emotions, etc. You don’t see celebrities have genuine reactions like this in any other setting! The vulnerability, panic, anxiety and humor make it must-watch. In sports, Bryson DeChambeau’s Break 50 series thrives on the chemistry of a two-person golf scramble. There’s a much longer thread on why Golf and YouTube are an amazing marriage. And this format that Bryson’s chosen is an amazing “lean back” experience with unscripted back and forth, epic golf shots and a really unique take on sports content.

These two and their teams have cracked something where conversations need to be consumed on video. If you are just providing information or utility, you can be replaced by AI. But if your personality or video “hooks” are superior to the information itself, you can’t be replaced. The algorithm goal-seeks for viewer satisfaction: when you combine multiple attractive inputs across valuable insights, utility, personality, and presentation, you’re likelier to find audience. We’re bullish on content that relies on human chemistry, comedic timing, and physical presence - we think these characteristics will allow creators to form more durable, net new IP in a crowded ecosystem.

3. Bottom-of-Funnel and Offline Businesses

At some point in the not-so-distant future, the rapid increase of net new content (with AI Video improvements as a catalyst) will create downward pressure on views, RPMs, etc. So as a creator, your content revenue equation might change drastically in the next few months and years. You need to prepare for a version of that reality. Enter “bottom-of-funnel” and offline businesses. These are an extension of what you’ve built as a creator, but your audience transacts / interacts with them off social platforms. These are challenging to spin up and often require dedicated teams to execute. It’s a lift beyond the “day job”. But as our screens get flooded with more content, it’s an important hedge versus what the future of YouTube / TikTok look like. And this exercise isn’t just for scaled creators - if you’re serious about building an audience, I’d encourage you to think about non-content / diversified revenue streams from the start, not just when you feel like your audience is big.

Some of my favorites: The Fantasy Footballers have the most listened to podcast in the category. They’ve leveraged years of audio + video content to drive users to the “Ultimate Draft Kit“ (UDK), a software and content product offering tier-based rankings, detailed draft analysis tools, etc. Sports Card Investor has built one of the leading digital content engines for trading card videos. Recently, he’s opened CardsHQ in Atlanta, one of the largest card shops in the world that’s doing tens of millions in revenue with plans of expanding into multiple cities. The top of funnel content has served as both trust with audiences and clever marketing to get people into retail. Brands like MeatEater and GoodGood Golf follow the same pattern, leveraging content to drive robust eCommerce and merchandising businesses (both companies earn the majority of their revenue from non-content streams).

4. Scale Compounds

The first three themes hit on content characteristics we’re excited about regardless of audience size. This fourth theme is more of a structural advantage we see today and it benefits the bigger creators: YouTube has never been more important, but it’s also never been harder to break through and find a durable audience. Which is why we think economic value is pooling towards scaled, category leaders. These creators have teams working on content and production value gets better and better. They are constantly evolving with the YouTube algorithm to make sure their content is surfaced through cycles. Their audience touchpoints go well beyond digital into streaming and offline.

In sports, there’s Dude Perfect and Jesser; in culinary, Nick DiGiovanni and Binging with Babish; in science, Mark Rober. These creators have been building for years (sometimes even a decade plus). They started when YouTube was smaller, kept building and creating, and have now found themselves in the enviable position of millions of subscribers, hundreds of millions of views and truly global audiences. Over time, we’d expect some of the biggest creators acting as distributors for content that needs reach - for example a big sports property like UFC pushing Power Slap to its 20mm+ subs or IShowSpeed building out an anime series. These incumbents become networks with real distribution moats.

And with scale, you’ve started to see some of the biggest IP from YouTube start to “window” its content into various forms of traditional distribution. Over the past 12 months, you’ve seen Hulu license older Jesser content, Tubi commission new IP with Steven He and Mythical Entertainment, and Markiplier bring his biggest piece of IP to fans via theatrical release. Pat McAfee has been the biggest example of this in sports and something I think we’ll see more of in sports media going forward. Creators have a unique moment to “land and expand” - build fandom and audiences via digital and take that content to new homes simultaneously while traditional media (incl. streaming) is waking up to creator content.

As a newer creator, breaking through against a backdrop of i) content volume increasing ii) AI slop and iii) scaled “incumbents” is an uphill battle. We mention earlier some of the content characteristics that invoke trust, community, loyalty, etc. But in addition to that, it’s paramount to have a revenue strategy that goes beyond content. That can be a merch business, incubating a food & beverage brand, a subscription to BTS access, a series of live events. And I’d argue you should be thinking about this regardless of audience size and how early you might be in your content journey.

##

Lastly: if you’re a creator, is there an AI strategy that actually fit into any of the above? We’d argue creators and their teams should think about it more from a workflow perspective and less on output. Audiences see through the slop: if it feels lazy, your community might revolt given how omnipresent AI content can feel. That being said, using tools to supercharge your topical research, brainstorming, data gathering, etc. are a few of many valuable ways to spend pre / post production time more efficiently while still emphasizing the time actually creating the content.

We’d love to talk to you if our thesis resonates. We’re actively investing into creators and creator-adjacent businesses. If you’re a creator yourself, or an operator / advisor that works in this industry, please reach out!

There’s a gap between how Americans view DraftKings and how the company views itself.

Most Americans see a sports betting business. But DraftKings – as well as Flutter/FanDuel, Bet365 and other real-money gaming giants – really want to be in the online casino business.

Recently DraftKings made this clearer than ever at their 2026 investor day. They announced plans to launch a DraftKings Super App that will integrate its sportsbook, prediction markets, casino and lottery products into one app for the first time.

The strategic thinking is: Acquire users via low-margin sports betting products, and cross-sell them to extremely high margin online casino products.

Already, online casino drives ~25% of revenue and ~50% of EBITDA for DraftKings. That’s despite online casino being legalized in only 8 US states, compared to 32 states for online sportsbooks.

Now here’s the interesting thing. Since the 2010s, sports betting companies have raised billions from the world’s largest VCs. But online casino companies have raised very little VC funding.

At Will Ventures, we believe that’s about to change. We believe new multi-billion dollar online casino businesses will be built over the next decade, and we think VCs are going to start paying attention. This essay explains why, split into three parts.

Part 1 explains why online casinos are such fundamentally attractive businesses

Part 2 explores why online casinos have been overlooked by VCs, and why that will change

Part 3 outlines where we at Will Ventures see room for innovation, and believe multi-billion dollar online casinos will emerge

Part 1: Why online casino

One great poster child for the online casino industry has been Betty.

Betty (a Will Ventures portfolio company) launched an online casino in Ontario, Canada and scaled from $0 to a $328M run rate in under 3 years.

For perspective, ElevenLabs (one of the world’s fastest-growing AI companies) recently said it went from $0 to $300M ARR in 3 years.

The comparison isn’t apples-to-apples. But it underscores that online casinos can grow as fast as any business in the venture ecosystem.

That’s because online casinos are structurally incredible businesses. Let’s look at the reasons the online casino business model is superior to the sportsbook model.

• On revenues: Casino gameplay is continuous, so a single player can make hundreds of bets per session, any hour of the day. Meanwhile, a sports bettor can only bet when games are on, and they need to wait hours for games to end. As a result, online casino has higher LTVs and no seasonality.

• On costs: Once a casino secures licenses and stands up a site, incremental gameplay requires near-zero marginal cost. Meanwhile, sportsbooks spend heavily on trading teams, market-making infrastructure, risk management, and sports data and league fees. Sharp bettors are a big reason for these costs; sportsbooks will either lose money to them, or spend on trading, profiling and limiting tools to mitigate them. But casinos don’t have these sharps and other cost centers, so they can run 30%+ EBITDA margins, which look more like software than gaming businesses.

• On volatility: Slots and table games (e.g. blackjack) have mathematically-fixed edges, which means predictable margins. Sportsbooks have volatile margins based on game outcomes. So casino operators have a clear line of sight from GGR to profits.

So what do these fundamentals mean? Once a casino nails a positive LTV-CAC ratio, they can pour fuel on the fire – reinvesting profits and/or raising capital – to grow incredibly quickly like Betty in Canada.

There are also more non-dilutive financing options popping up, like General Catalyst, 23 Broadway and PvX Partners, which provide cohort-based financing. That lets companies scale without diluting management or early equity investors.

Another thing to like is casino incumbents feel like dinosaurs. Compare the sites and app store profiles of Ladbrokes, an Entain-owned legacy brand, and Midnite, a fast-growing UK-based startup. Midnite has way more modern branding and UI/UX, and they definitely have more modern backend tech to acquire users, bonus VIPs, and offer better customer service.

The reason these dinosaurs exist is most of the world’s largest real-money gaming operators have all grown through acquisition, not organically. For example, Flutter, a $18 billion conglomerate, operates 15+ brands, all thanks to acquisitions / mergers. Entain, worth $3.5 billion, operates 35+ brands. These are marketing-led, not product-led, businesses. But paid acquisition has become commoditized; anyone can buy a Meta ad. So the incumbents are vulnerable to product-led startups. It’s worth noting that FanDuel disrupted incumbents by being a product-led startup in the 2010s, and they’re now Flutter’s crown jewel.

These startups are also going to benefit from major tailwinds behind online casino.

In 2009, 40% of Americans participated in some form of gambling. By 2025, that skyrocketed to 57%

.People have cited many reasons for gambling’s recent explosion. Derek Thompson has written about Gen Z’s financial nihilism. Jonathan Haidt has drawn a throughline from phone and short-form video addiction. Mobile phone penetration and digital payments have made gambling more accessible than ever. And regulators have realized that if they don’t legalize gambling, people will just do it offshore with fewer taxes and less consumer safety. So the secular trend of the last 20 years has been slow but steady legalization around the world. In sum, there are cultural, economic and political tailwinds behind online casino.

We’ll mention one last reason the online casino business is interesting. It’s more anecdotal. But in the last few years, we’ve seen a surge of brilliant people moving from finance and tech jobs into the gambling industry. We’ve met quants at Citadel and engineers at Meta leave their high-paying jobs to start or join gambling businesses.

Why? Nate Silver’s book “On the Edge” argues that many hedge fund traders, tech founders, and pro gamblers are cut from the same cloth. They often think in terms of expected value and probabilities. (Hence why so many founders play poker, and why so many VCs host poker nights). Talented young people in finance and tech are seeing a gold rush with online gambling and they’re leaving to build companies in the space.

Part 2: What about the VCs

So if online casinos are such attractive businesses, why haven’t more VCs paid attention to the space? We’d point to three reasons.

First, there’s a geographic dislocation between where VCs live and where casino founders live. The bulk of VC money is in the US. But most real-money gaming talent is in Europe. Post-PASPA, American sportsbooks all rushed to hire this talent. DraftKings bought SBTech, MGM partnered with Entain, and FanDuel brought over PaddyPower executives post-Flutter acquisition. So if you’re a VC camping out in a San Francisco Blue Bottle, you’re probably not meeting the best real-money gaming founders.

Second, online casino is a highly-regulated industry, and VCs don’t love that. High regulation means high taxes, compliance burdens, and the possibility of a single policy change or licensing delay wiping out years of progress. Highly-regulated markets also require deep industry expertise to make smart investments, so generalist VCs often steer clear of these spaces. That’s also why you don’t see many generalists dabbling in core healthcare.

Third, and most importantly, are “vice clauses.” The largest LPs of VC funds – namely pension funds, university endowments and sovereign wealth funds – have historically had clauses that prohibited investments in vices like gambling, tobacco, alcohol, and porn.

Many LPs dropped sports betting from their clauses post-PASPA. And we think more LPs will inevitably drop casino. Why?

In the last few years, Americans have seen a convergence between fintech and gambling products. Robinhood is a $68 billion company that calls itself a financial management tool, but really encourages people to day-trade stocks. Coinbase is a $51 billion company that also calls itself financial management, but encourages people to put savings into volatile crypto assets.

And perhaps the best examples are Kalshi and Polymarket, which hit $10+ billion valuations by taking bets on sports, politics and Super Bowl halftime shows. Their founders call them financial management platforms. But in reality, 90% of volume during the NFL season came from sports, so they feel a lot like sportsbooks. Polymarket’s also seen an explosion of 5- and 5-minute crypto markets. Betting on whether Bitcoin will be up or down in 5 minutes is functionally a slot game.

Financial speculation is a spectrum, with responsible investment on one side and gambling on the other. Robinhood, Coinbase and Kalshi all sit in the blurry middle. It’s hard to draw a clear line and tell people how risky they can be with their own money.

These companies also showed VCs how valuable gambling mechanics could be. Kalshi started as a relatively boring company where users could trade weather derivatives and elections once every four years. But once they added sports, everything clicked. Suddenly users had many events they cared about and reasons to come back every day, creating a sticky experience. Kalshi’s been a rocketship since. Sequoia and a16z emphasized they almost never co-lead deals, but the company was just that exciting.

We expect more VCs to see the opportunity in casino, adjust their LP agreements, and begin investing in the space.

Part 3: Room for innovation

Where is Will Ventures excited to invest in the casino space? We’re paying attention to two megatrends.

First is the interplay between onshore and offshore casinos. Offshore operators have driven the vast majority of innovation in recent years. For example, Stake pioneered the casino livestream, turning gambling into a media product and building a massive creator-driven distribution channel on Kick. Stake also created original house games, rather than just porting traditional games onto the internet. Shuffle introduced a token to make it feel like users’ interests were aligned with the house. Rollbit merged the casino and trading platform experiences by letting users bet on Bitcoin movements.

Thanks to this product innovation, offshore casinos have boomed since Covid. By some estimates, about two-thirds of US gambling revenue happened on offshore casinos last year. Another data point: Stake reported $4.7 billion in 2024 revenue. For perspective, DraftKings reported $4.8 billion (and definitely has way worse margins than Stake).

The problem is offshore operators can’t go public and don’t have a universe of acquirers. So they trade at 0.5-1x revenue (vs 3-5x for regulated operators). That’s why we’re seeing a wave of offshore operators seek onshore licenses. For example, Stake recently announced a five-year license in Denmark. But it’s still to be seen whether the massive offshore casinos that emerged in the last few years can find stable ground. Either way, we’re watching them because they’re at the forefront of product innovation.

The second megatrend we’re watching is the impact of AI. On the surface, online casino checks every box for an industry about to be impacted by AI: large datasets, personalization opportunities, and fast feedback loops. It’s easy to imagine a world where game suppliers make content faster and cheaper with AI; operators offer VIP customer service through AI chatbots; and gamblers get served casino experiences perfectly tailored to their preferences. That said, we’re curious to see whether the value accrues to B2C operators building these products or B2B providers selling tools.

At Will Ventures, when evaluating a new casino investment, we’re looking for a combination of three factors: 1) new products, 2) new distribution, and 3) new markets.

New products

The first thing we’re looking for is a brand that’s bringing net-new casino experiences to the consumer. For example, BetHog (a Will Ventures portfolio company) recently launched the first AI-powered blackjack dealer. Live dealer games are a multi-billion dollar global market. Evolution, the largest live dealer game supplier, has a $13 billion market cap. BetHog’s disrupting that market with a dealer that’s cheaper to provide, always-on, and knows the user better.

We’re also looking for casinos that are using AI to personalize the consumer journey. For example, let’s say you love watching Italian Brainrot videos on Tik Tok. A casino should serve you Italian Brainrot-themed ads, let you play Brainrot-themed slots, and even send you a giant Brainrot plush as a VIP benefit. Last year Stake launched the Stake Engine, which will allow anyone to build their own games for the platform. More customizable games are a first step. But ideally the entire user journey should be unified, from user acquisition to content to retention bonuses.

New distribution

The next thing we’re looking for is novel distribution and acquisition strategy. Crypto casinos reached the masses by growth hacking social media. Stake used clipping to flood social media with its logo. Rollbit launched its own meme coin that it encouraged influencers to promote on social. Even Kalshi tried giving every affiliate on X a Kalshi badge.

Our bet on the next growth hacks? GEO (aka SEO for ChatGPT) will be a priority for operators, as more users look to AI to find a casino to play on. We also think AI influencers are going to become a cheap affiliate channel, and we’ve already met some brands experimenting with them. As long as social media exists, new growth hacks will emerge, and operators will leverage them to grow their user base.

We’re also bullish on the integration of the casino and streamer experience. It’s clear that streamers playing casino games is a fun media product and an effective acquisition channel. But the Kick and casino experiences live on separate platforms. We’re curious how the two experiences will get further integrated. For example, could a casino embed a stream in their platform, and let gamblers play alongside their favorite streamer? Or could a streamer like Clavicular use their moment in the sun to create a new casino for their community?

Lastly, we’re interested in the convergence of online and retail casino. At NEXT New York a few weeks ago, Betty’s CEO Justin Park talked about how Betty acquired a brick-and-mortar bingo hall in Ontario. Brick-and-mortar brands like MGM and Caesars have entered the online space. But before Betty, no online-native platform has entered brick-and-mortar. Imagine if Stake launched an in-person resort. They’d have a better understanding of their players and offer a fun and fresh brand. So much of the casino user experience hinges on customer service and loyalty. As a casino has more assets to sell and optimize the experience across, the stickier the brand becomes.

New markets

The US is a tough market for online casino, since it’s legalized in only 8 states today. However, we think a second-order effect of prediction markets’ explosion could be the further normalization of gambling and more legalization of iGaming. Different regulatory frameworks will also further the normalization of casino. Sweepstakes casinos like VGW had a strong run until recent state crackdowns. And both collectible repacking products like Triumph Rips and many prediction market products like Kalshi’s Bitcoin markets feel a lot like casinos. We think the more people are playing these games, the less states will wait to regulate and capture the tax revenue. Nevertheless, state-by-state legalization is going to move slowly.

The more interesting opportunity is looking to emerging markets, where playbooks that have worked in more mature markets can be applied. For example, Brazil, the largest market in LATAM, launched regulated online casino in 2025. New brands like EstrelaBet have grown quickly by building a Gen Z-native brand and tapping into local sponsors and soccer partnerships. Mexico is LATAM’s second-largest market, where the regulation is a bit more patchwork, but startup operators like Draftea have started to gain market share.

Other interesting markets we’re paying attention to are Finland, the UAE, Chile and New Zealand, where governments are actively considering or implementing new gambling frameworks that will open large online casino markets over the next few years.

##

In sum, at Will Ventures we see plenty of room for innovation in the online casino space, and we’re excited to invest in the category.

If you’re looking to build the next multi-billion dollar casino and parts of this essay resonated with you, please reach out. We’d love to meet you.

For the last 20 years, the internet has had a business model predicated on attention. We designed infinite scrolls to keep you doom-scrolling, notifications became a way to break our focus, and ‘the feed’ became a place to sell your time to advertisers. Every product design choice was optimized for one outcome: more impressions. You, the consumer, became the product.

And that model worked! It created some of the most valuable companies in history and turned digital advertising into a trillion-dollar industry. But it also created an internet that feels increasingly hostile to the people using it.

While the advertising industry on these apps remains a behemoth, as we enter 2026, this model will start to break. Consumers will change their behaviors in ways that current ad-driven platforms cannot serve. Users are much more aware of how these products are designed and the negative impacts of social media and phone usage. They are more skeptical of what they see and increasingly willing to disengage. In the next few years, the core unit of value online will meaningfully change from impressions based to outcomes based.

In part 1 of this essay, I’ll dive into why the “attention economy” has reached its peak and why agentic commerce is next. In part 2, I’ll discuss the 2 sectors I see being most disrupted: travel and shopping. In part 3, I’ll mention a few categories of startups that could emerge as a result of these shifts.

PART 1: Why the “attention economy” has reached its peak and agentic commerce is next

Many people have described consumer frustration with the internet as burnout or screen fatigue. But that’s just part of the problem. The real issue is with cognitive overload.

Over the last 2 decades, as the internet dramatically reduced the cost of publishing and distributing information, the sheer amount of content exploded. As a result, we created an environment that was great at generating options and FOMO, but not great at resolving decisions.

Feeds are the perfect example of this. They’re incentivized to surface content that the algorithm thinks you’re most likely to engage with, not the content that is necessarily correct, useful, or helps you reach an outcome. They’re fundamentally the wrong interface for decision-making entirely.

And as platforms continued to push harder on advertising revenue, content that was polarizing often went to the top, degrading the user experience and putting the onus on them to sort the truth from misinformation.

This trend has already been happening for several years and is poised to accelerate

The downstream effect of all this is decision fatigue and therefore a significant impact on commerce transactions. Today, a user booking a flight is often comparing across multiple platforms, navigating sponsored placements, loyalty incentives, and hidden fees. Shopping requires navigating affiliate links and codes and paid rankings.

This is not temporary. The largest platforms remain structurally dependent on advertising, which means they must increase exposure, not reduce noise. Any attempt to meaningfully improve decision quality runs directly against their revenue model. So, they must continue to increase volume through more content, more ads, and more formats. And as confidence in social media continues to erode and fragmentation of discovery increases, agents are well positioned to help.

Consumers are no longer asking for better feeds or more personalization. They want to find ways to bypass feeds entirely. Not necessarily because they want less information, but because they want fewer decisions. This is part of what I wrote about in my piece on content and commerce last year and also why I see an opening for agents.

Instead of asking the user to navigate, agents operate on their behalf. And because agents are not driven by advertising, they only succeed if they have good outcomes. If they don’t work, users will just stop using them.

Agents are especially well suited to solve for decision fatigue. They can process large amounts of fragmented and biased information and collapse it into a single action, cutting down discovery and selection from hours or days into minutes and seconds.

PART 2: The opportunity for AI agents in travel and shopping

I don’t think this shift will affect every category equally. Agents are most effective where decisions are frequent and confidence is low. In categories where browsing is a core part of the product experience (like media and entertainment) the status quo should remain.

In travel and shopping though, it’s a different story. These are decisions people make all the time, with real money on the line and in systems that are confusing by default.

Travel

Travel is a perfect use case for agents because the decision itself is a bundle of trade-offs that are inherently scattered across platforms. Users are constantly balancing price, timing, nonstop vs. connections, seat preferences, loyalty value, and a dozen other constraints. And they’re forced to compare across OTAs, airline and hotel websites, credit card portals, and loyalty programs, each with partial information.

This is where agents make sense. Imagine telling an agent your constraints and preferences: dates, budget, seat and hotel preferences, loyalty programs, etc. The agent could watch prices, evaluate tradeoffs, and book when the conditions were right. Then, after booking, it could stay on the hook for the trip, managing schedule changes, missed connections, or needed refunds. In an industry where people are really frustrated with OTAs, these agents could behave less like search tools and more like a real travel operator.

The big question is: why doesn’t a general agent from OpenAI or Google just do this?

They’ll certainly try and both Gemini and ChatGPT have travel agents that they’ve teased. But travel has a few characteristics that tend to reward vertical solutions.

ChatGPT travel agent mode, source OpenAI

First, travel is not just about finding information. The hard part isn’t finding options, it’s completing the transaction reliably, handling edge cases, and holding context across key steps. Rebookings, refunds, cancellations, customer support, etc. are all places where there is real friction and vertical products are more likely to build solutions that work and are accountable.

Second, travel is not necessarily predicated on the biggest or smartest model, but rather the most connected ecosystem. In order to “win” in travel you need integrations with airline and hotel inventory, GDS access (with companies like Sabre), payment rails, loyalty accounts, customer profiles, and support channels. While these general models are undoubtedly great at reasoning, they do not magically come with the integrations and commercial relationships to execute. Vertical players can offer a much more complete experience.

Third, personalization in travel is high-leverage and hard to do generically. Everyone says “I want a good deal.” But what customers mean can differ wildly. Some people will accept a layover for $80. Others will pay $300 more for nonstop. Some value points while others just value flexibility. Capturing these preferences over time is where a vertical agent can feel less like a chatbot and more like a trusted operator.

There are already several companies pushing toward this model, and we’ll cover them in the next section.

Shopping

Shopping is another category where agents make sense, but for different reasons than travel.

Like travel, shopping decisions are often spread across different platforms. Users have to weigh price, quality, brand trust, and reviews and are looking through e-commerce platforms, social media feeds, and recommendation engines. As mentioned in Part 1, all of this browsing comes with a significant amount of advertising, which has created real decision fatigue.

Similar to the travel use case above, agents can simplify this process and help consumers compare options and make decisions. This is already starting to happen. Traffic from AI chatbots grew significantly this year.

While there is a significant advantage to vertical, travel-specific AI agents, the advantage in shopping will accrue to the largest AI companies like Gemini and OpenAI. Unlike travel, shopping usually ends once the item shows up. There are returns and exchanges, but they’re standardized and already handled pretty well by the largest retailers. There are fewer edge cases and much less need for ongoing support.

More importantly, power in shopping is concentrated. A small number of platforms control a huge share of discovery, inventory, fulfillment, and returns. Partnering with the biggest retailers gets you most of the way there. You don’t need hundreds of integrations to create real value for customers.

The biggest AI players hence have an advantage. They already sit at the top of the funnel, have massive distribution, and are natural partners to large retailers. If they can fold price comparison, checkout, and delivery into one simple flow, they can take a ton of friction out of shopping without having to win the entire stack.

As agents become more ubiquitous, there are several startup categories that will emerge. In the next section, I’ll outline a few categories I’m excited about.

PART 3: Categories where I’m excited for startups to emerge

As an investor, there are a bunch of categories where I see venture-scale businesses around agentic commerce being built. Here are 3 that I’m most excited by.

1: D2C Platforms

Online travel companies are massive. Airbnb, Expedia, Booking Holdings are all $10B+ revenue companies. Consumer sentiment for these companies though is mixed and there’s an opportunity for new, agentic-first OTAs to emerge. These OTAs would more seamlessly integrate into your loyalty programs and preferences and hopefully handle support issues with much higher satisfaction. The incumbent OTAs are optimized for search and booking, but are terrible at resolution.

I’m starting to see several companies that are building for this space. We’re already seeing early signs of what agent-led travel companies can look like. Startups like Miso, Mindtrip, Rove, and Stardrift blend some elements of OTAs (booking functionality, price comparisons, etc.) with white-glove service that can handle booking, rebooking and support. These companies are betting that while travelers care about search and booking functionality, they also want more premium service that deals with issues when things go awry.

These companies should be able to scale quickly because the pain is obvious and there is already a willingness to delegate. The risk here is operational complexity and marketing. The company that wins will have deep integrations, significant levels of support, and will need to compete against the billions of dollars of advertising budgets the traditional OTAs have. But, the opportunity to win here in success is massive.

2: Agent-native advertising networks

In a world where there are more and more vertical consumer AI apps, the need for these apps to monetize will also increase. Advertising in an agent-led world will change however. Instead of competing directly for clicks, brands and companies will compete to be chosen by agents. Companies like Zeroclick and Profound are building tools to help brands (including travel platforms) understand how they can show up in AI-generated answers. Other companies like Imprezia, Kontext, and Koah Labs are creating agent-native advertising experiences that are contextual, constrained by user-preferences, and more outcome aware.

As volume through AI agents and long-tail verticalized consumer apps increases, this category will scale extremely quickly. The key thing these companies will need to solve is trust. Users need to know that the answers they are getting are the best, not like today’s sponsored rankings.

If these companies are able to succeed, advertising in this agent-led world shouldn’t feel like ads at all. Instead, the results should feel like aligned suggestions that are highly consistent with what users are looking for.

3. Data aggregation and normalization for AI agents

For agents to make any of these decisions, whether that means choosing the right product or picking the best flights, they need clean, structured, and timely data. Today, getting pricing, availability, inventory, etc. is either 1) difficult to obtain or 2) extremely siloed for agents to sort through.

This data tends to be scattered across sites or buried inside systems that agents might not be able to access. Data aggregation and normalization will be key for AI agents to become ubiquitous in travel, shopping, and other commerce categories.

Several companies are already targeting this problem. Startups like TinyFish, which recently raised ~$50M from Iconiq Capital, sit underneath the agent layer. TinyFish scrapes, monitors, and structures pricing and availability data for retail use cases. For decades, companies like Sabre have done this for travel. But I think a new, AI-forward Sabre will emerge that will make it easy for travel-specific agents to be built.

Getting better inputs is a key bottleneck to get these new, D2C travel platforms off the ground and I’m excited to see more companies like TinyFish enter the space.

##

In my view, agentic commerce feels inevitable. As platforms continue to get noisier and trust continues to erode, users are going to start looking elsewhere. I’m excited about the use cases that will emerge in travel, shopping, advertising, and infrastructure and the many more use cases that will emerge that I haven’t discussed in this piece.

If you’re building for the future of agentic commerce, please reach out. Our team would love to meet you.

Open AI launched its first large-scale brand campaign in September.

Three commercials each highlight a different ChatGPT use case: cooking, travel and fitness.

At Will Ventures, we got particularly excited about the fitness-themed ad, which features a young man asking ChatGPT for a workout plan. Why did we get excited? Because we strongly believe a new AI fitness coaching app will break out in the next few years, and we don’t think it will be ChatGPT.

Personal trainers are a $46B global industry – but they’re a luxury service. The average personal trainer in the US charges ~$60/hour, and the best trainers charge hundreds if not thousands per hour. Consumers who can afford it love it. But the TAM’s constrained by the price point.

In many ways, personal fitness is an ideal consumer use case for AI. Every consumer has different health goals, injuries, time pressures and access to equipment – and AI can personalize workout plans around those needs. Health data is increasingly abundant, as wearables grow more prevalent and diagnostics testing costs come down – and AI can synthesize that data.

AI can also create the type of continuous action-to-feedback loops that consumer operators and investors love. The consumer receives a personalized workout plan, performs the workout as it’s logged, and receives continuous feedback from their wearables (and perhaps computer vision tracking), which informs their future personalized workouts.

AI can now do most things a personal trainer does (and do some of them even better), all at a cost that’s accessible to the masses.

Open AI, Google and other large foundational model owners won’t be the companies to build this product, for a few reasons. A dedicated fitness app is more functional than a ChatGPT “everything app” where you have to sift through your cooking and travel queries. Also, branding is paramount in fitness. Consumers don’t just want to work out; they want to feel emotionally rewarded for working out – and aligned with fitness brands that speak to them. It’d be a distraction for Open AI or Google to spin up a separate fitness brand. Lastly, the scrappiest startups will win out over the giants, considering building a fitness app doesn’t require significant access to capital. It requires listening to users and iterating on product quickly.

Just last week Open AI announced ChatGPT Health, saying: “You can now securely connect medical records and wellness apps—like Apple Health, Function, and MyFitnessPal—so ChatGPT can help you understand recent test results, prepare for appointments with your doctor, get advice on how to approach your diet and workout routine, or understand the tradeoffs of different insurance options based on your healthcare patterns.” In other words, Open AI is looking to aggregate all these health-related apps, not build them themselves.

So, who will build the dominant AI-powered personal trainer app?

We think it’s helpful to look at the current market of fitness apps, which break down into roughly three categories.

1. Content library apps like Peloton and FitOn offer libraries of workout videos. You might follow a fitness influencer in a studio for a 30-minute workout. These apps win based on sleek branding and product, and you have plenty of workouts to choose from. But the workouts aren’t tailored to your specific fitness needs.

2. Exercise logging apps like Fitbod, Strong and GymVerse let you log workouts, mostly for weight training. These products are popular but don’t have a huge moat, so you’ll find a ton of exercise logging apps on the App Store.

3. Activity-based apps like Strava, AllTrails and Slopes track exercise for one specific activity. These companies have come to dominate their respective activities, largely thanks to their social features and engagement loops. But these apps don’t serve as all-in-one fitness companions.

Several apps have broken out recently by combining elements across these three categories. Runna is an AI-driven run-coaching app that personalizes training plans by pace, goals, and race calendar. They reached hundreds of thousands of users before being acquired by Strava. Ladder is a strength training app where users choose their ‘coach’, and are led through cohesive programs week-by-week with content tailored to that coach’s specialty. They’re currently the second top-grossing health & fitness app on the US App Store. Both of these apps pair great software with strong branding and social features.

We also think it’s helpful to understand that there will be real challenges in building a breakout AI-powered personal trainer app. For simplicity’s sake, we’ll focus on the three most glaring challenges, as we see them.

Challenge #1 - Product Positioning

Consumer fitness is crowded and spend is fragmented across gym memberships, online / offline coaching, at-home hardware, video content, and wearables. It remains unclear which of these categories AI training apps may be able to fully replace vs compliment. When consumers are bogged down with choices, precise product positioning is critical to drive trial and justify another subscription.

Challenge #2 - Willingness to Pay

Building off of #1, the scale required to achieve venture-type outcomes at a $10/month price point is monumental. There will be numerous mass market offerings competing away margin, and LTVs are notoriously difficult in digital fitness due to the flakiness of casual athletes. If you pursue the other side of the curve, fitness nuts are more comfortable spending but have a high bar for product utility + outcomes. Can you actually deliver a “premium” software experience that justifies a $30-50/month price point?

Challenge #3 - Retention

Removing the human-in-the-loop eliminates one of the great forcing functions in fitness. Will anyone be afraid to skip their workout and have to justify it to their AI coach? Product mechanisms aimed at ongoing engagement, community, and accountability won’t be easy to layer into an AI coaching experience, but they’ll be critical for sustained growth.

How does an app overcome these challenges? In our opinion, there’s no silver bullet.

The winning app will need to combine the brand power of a Peloton, the functionality of a Fitbod, and the social & engagement loops of a Strava – and all while adding an AI personalization layer that mirrors a personal trainer. The winning team will be one that’s fast to iterate on product and obsessed with listening to users.

We’re constantly trying out new fitness apps that launch on the App Store. If you’re building an AI-powered fitness app, please reach out! We’d love to try out your product.

I think there’s an interesting misalignment between how the media talks about Kalshi and Polymarket, and how the two companies’ investors probably view them.

The media’s focused on how prediction markets are upending the sports betting industry. I’ve seen endless commentary on Kalshi’s growing NFL volumes, sportsbooks’ plummeting stocks, Kalshi & Polymarket’s NHL deals, and DraftKings’ acquisition of the CFTC-licensed startup Railbird.

Of course, sports are a large part of prediction markets’ current hype cycle. Since the start of NFL season, sports have made up around 90% of total Kalshi trading volume.

But I think Kalshi and Polymarket’s investors are paying much less attention to sports than the media thinks. Sequoia and a16z recently backed Kalshi at $5 billion – and Kalshi’s now seeking a $10-12 billion valuation. Intercontinental Exchange just backed Polymarket at $9 billion, after Founders Fund led a round – and Polymarket’s now seeking a $12-15 billion valuation.

The world’s most prestigious megafunds have high bars for investing anywhere outside AI. On every investment, they have to underwrite a venture-scale return (i.e. 5-10x minimum) to help return their megafunds. And if they’re backing Kalshi and Polymarket between $5 - $15 billion valuations, the sports betting TAM simply isn’t large enough. DraftKings, the largest US sportsbook, has a $15 billion market cap. Flutter, the world’s largest online betting company, has a $40 billion market cap – and that’s been a 25-year journey.

So what is the grand ambition of Kalshi, Polymarket and their VCs? And is it realistic?

That’s what I’ll explore in this essay: A Momentarily Comprehensive Guide to Prediction Markets. I say “momentarily” because the space is moving so quickly. But I say “comprehensive” because I’ll try to address all the most important issues at play.

In Part 1, I’ll explain what grand vision Kalshi, Polymarket and their VCs see – and why that vision is so tied up in wildly unpredictable American politics.

In Part 2, I’ll explore who’s most likely to emerge from the chaos as the dominant US sports prediction market.

In Part 3, I’ll share where I’m most excited to see innovation around prediction markets as an early-stage investor.

Part 1: What’s the grand vision, and why is it tied up in American politics?

The grand vision of Kalshi and Polymarket is for prediction markets to establish a new, massive financial asset class.

The best comps aren’t sportsbooks with $10 - $40 billion market caps. They’re financial exchanges with $50 - $150 billion market caps. As examples…

• Intercontinental Exchange, which owns the New York Stock Exchange, is worth $83 billion.

• CME Group, the world’s dominant futures & options exchange, is worth $96 billion.

• Binance, the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchange, is worth $150 billion.

These companies all make money by operating the core infrastructure of global markets. They match buyers and sellers, clear trades, and monetize data and fees from every transaction.

Kalshi and Polymarket are far from the size of these giants. In October, Kalshi and Polymarket processed $7.4 billion in combined volume. For perspective, the NYSE processed $134 billion over the same period.

But Kalshi and Polymarket believe in a future where, just like institutional and retail investors trade equities, options and crypto, they also trade event contracts. Hedge funds like Bridgewater will make macroeconomic bets on the number of Fed rate cuts. Corporates like Nike will hedge geopolitical risk by betting on new China tariffs. Retail investors will trade their own dollars on the NYC mayoral election.

Kalshi and Polymarket also believe in a future where prediction markets are a source of truth for society. If you talk with any prediction market nerd like Polymarket CEO Shayne Coplan, they’ll point you in the direction of a Nobel Prize-winning 1945 essay by FA Hayek, “The Use of Knowledge in Society.” That essay essentially argued that decentralized markets can aggregate information and drive prices more accurately than any centralized planner. Or framed as a practical example, a prediction market can predict the result of a presidential election better than any poll or media outlet. Coplan likes to emphasize that Polymarket predicted Trump’s 2024 victory well before the polls and media did.

In the not so distant future, it’s possible that consumers will view Kalshi or Polymarket odds as the ground truth probability of any major event – from the Chiefs winning the Super Bowl, to Taylor Swift having a child, to the Fed raising rates. If The Wall Street Journal writes about Tesla today, they’ll embed Tesla’s stock ticker in the article. That stock price is seen as an objective metric for company performance. If event contracts gain the same credibility, the Journal could one day include in the same article the Kalshi odds of Tesla hitting delivery quotas this quarter.

You could even imagine Kalshi or Polymarket becoming a “dictionary word company.” Just like you’d Google Taylor Swift’s tour dates, you’d check the Kalshi of when she’ll release her next album.

Long-term, sports could be the most-traded type of event contracts. If you think about it, sports are society’s largest category of events that 1) happen all the time and 2) people care about. (Side note: That’s also why sports are single-handedly propping up cable TV). But the challenge is Kalshi and Polymarket will have the hardest time legally justifying sports events as financial markets and not gambling.

Which brings us to the massive legal, political and moral question that will determine the future of prediction markets: Are event contracts financial instruments under federal CFTC regulation or gambling under state regulation?

That question is at the center of the entire prediction market hype cycle. Unlike in AI, prediction markets haven’t exploded because of new technological innovation. Sports betting exchanges have existed internationally (e.g. Betfair) and even in certain US states (e.g. Sporttrade) for years now.

Prediction markets have exploded because of regulatory arbitrage. In 2023-24, Kalshi sued the CFTC and won a federal appeal, which decided that event contracts around Congressional elections were not gambling activity. Then last November, Donald Trump won the White House, the CFTC voluntarily dismissed its appeal, and Kalshi took the bold step of launching sports contracts in January.

Polymarket’s had a slightly different path. Whereas Kalshi feels like a fintech platform – taking bank deposits and requiring KYC – Polymarket has a blockchain protocol and takes crypto deposits. But they’ve similarly benefited from Trump’s regulatory regime. Just under a year ago, the Biden administration treated Polymarket as a bad actor when the FBI raided the New York apartment of Shayne Coplan. Today, under the Trump administration, Polymarket is preparing for their reentry into the US and Coplan is the world’s youngest self-made billionaire.

If you squint, there might be some intellectual honesty behind the Trump CFTC’s green-lighting of Kalshi and Polymarket. Trump’s entire ethos is anti-establishment. Prediction markets are inherently anti-establishment, as they let the masses, not institutions, identify the ground truth. There’s also a legalistic argument for event contracts as financial markets. Just as traders can bet on future oil prices to manage risk and discover information, they should be able to bet on future events.

But that said, there’s a lot of self-dealing going on in the White House. Donald Trump Jr. is an advisor to both Kalshi and Polymarket. Trump megadonor Charles Schwab is an early backer of Kalshi, and Peter Thiel’s fund backed Polymarket. Trump’s first nominee for CFTC chair Brian Quintenz was Kalshi’s lawyer. And if that wasn’t enough, last week Trump’s Truth Social announced they’d add prediction markets to the platform. Meanwhile, the Republican-controlled Congress is following Trump’s lead and not pushing any legislation to regulate prediction markets.

At the same time, multiple state gaming boards and tribes are suing Kalshi on the grounds that sports and election contracts are unlicensed gambling infringing on their jurisdictions. Just last week New York became the largest state to enter the mix when their gaming commission sent Kalshi a cease-and-desist and Kalshi sued.

It’s impossible to know how the regulatory environment will shake out. We don’t know who will control Congress after 2026, or the White House after 2028, or the Supreme Court whenever a case lands there.

In my opinion, the even larger but less-discussed question is how American consumer and voter sentiment will respond to the explosion of prediction markets. There’s a lot to like. For example, I live in New York City where we’ve had a big mayoral race. Over the last couple months, I’ve come to appreciate Kalshi as a more accurate bellwether of Zohran vs Cuomo’s odds than any polls or reporting from past elections.

But I’d argue there are a whole lot of things that can, and will, go wrong. To name a few…

Insider trading is one major problem. For example it’s virtually impossible to police insider info around “mention markets,” where you bet on whether a public figure will say certain words. Last week on Coinbase’s earnings call, Brian Armstrong pulled up Kalshi and Polymarket’s mention markets and rattled off every word that was listed. $84K was in that market. It’s clear the CFTC doesn’t have nearly as many enforcement resources as the SEC, and Kalshi and Polymarket aren’t taking the burden on themselves to ensure fair markets.

In August, El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele retweeted a Kalshi market around El Salvador’s Bitcoin holdings and Bukele commented “I could do the funniest thing right now…” Kalshi’s CEO retweeted that, saying “World leaders are using Kalshi and you’re bearish?” Imagine if Tim Cook joked about tanking Apple stock or Patrick Mahomes joked about tanking the Super Bowl.

The NBA gambling ring investigation just showed the world how insider trading could penetrate a walled garden with huge incentives to stop it. In non-sports events, insider trading gets even harder to police.

Market manipulation by bad actors is another major risk. During the 2024 election cycle, Trump constantly pointed to Polymarket odds as a sign of voter support for his campaign. In the future, a well-funded actor could take an enormous position – e.g. buying millions of dollars’ worth of “Candidate X to win” shares – to artificially drive the market in one direction and influence undecided voters. You could see parallels with how Russia manipulated American social media during the election.

Lastly, gambling addiction is another major problem. Kalshi is available to Americans ages 18+ in all 50 states – whereas online sportsbooks are available to ages 21+ in 38 states. All of a sudden, every college kid can freely bet. And worse, Kalshi has run ads calling their product “kind of addicting.” Imagine if DraftKings ran an ad saying parlays were so fun they’re addicting, with gambling addiction a growing epidemic.

Just one of these things needs to go wrong for Americans to sour on the rise of prediction markets and lack of regulation – and that could drive political blowback.

But in the meantime, Kalshi and Polymarket are moving at warp speed to raise more money, acquire more customers, and establish a massive asset class before regulatory tailwinds change. The longer Trump and his allies are in office, and the more Americans get used to prediction markets in everyday life, the harder it will be to put the cat back in the bag.

Part 2: What happens to the American sports betting industry?

So, what do Kalshi and Polymarket’s rise, and all these regulatory questions, mean for the American sports betting industry? And who’s best positioned to emerge from this chaos as the dominant US sports betting brand?

It’s important to note: there’s a real chance that courts eventually rule that sports event contracts are gambling activity outside the CFTC’s jurisdiction. In which case the sports betting industry would revert to the old status quo of state-licensed sportsbooks.

But let’s imagine the current regulatory environment holds.

In that case, the $14 billion US sports betting industry will undergo a total paradigm shift – with value shifting from state-licensed sportsbooks to federally licensed exchanges. Rarely does so much economic value shift hands so quickly.

It might not happen overnight. But bettors will eventually move from sportsbooks to exchanges. Why? Sportsbooks have business models that are inherently adversarial to bettors. Bettors bet against the house, which makes money by baking a margin (a “vig”) into every line. Hence sportsbooks kick winning bettors off their platforms.

But exchanges have a more bettor-friendly model. Bettors bet against each other, which sets the lines, and the house makes money by taking a transaction fee on all trades. Over time, prediction markets will offer better-priced odds, which will migrate bettors over from sportsbooks.

It’s also critical to understand that sports betting and prediction markets are both inherently winners-take-most businesses.

Sports betting is winners-take-most because it’s all about customer acquisition and retention. Larger companies fuel larger marketing budgets, which fuel more revenue, which fuel larger marketing budgets, and so on. That’s why since PASPA’s repeal in 2018, two early movers, FanDuel and DraftKings, have dominated two-thirds of market share. Only recently have other brands like Fanatics started to eat away at their duopoly.

Prediction markets are winners-take-most because they’re all about liquidity. Liquidity powers tighter spreads, which attracts more traders, which attracts tighter spreads, and so on. That’s why Kalshi and Polymarket collectively comprise 98% of all volume traded on prediction markets.

Given these winners-take-most dynamics, only a few companies will emerge as the dominant sports prediction markets. So who will they be?

There’s a case that Kalshi and Polymarket will win sports. Today they have by far the most liquid sports markets, and that advantage will continue to compound. They also have head starts on customer acquisition; Kalshi’s already started flooding social media with sports ads.

But there are also reasons to doubt their long-term success in sports.

First, Kalshi and Polymarket aren’t sports betting-native companies. Compared to sportsbooks, they lack years of experience around bonusing, VIPs, personalization, and creating engaging products for sports fans. Last month Kalshi CEO Tarek Mansour said “To be completely honest, last year I didn’t know how many points a touchdown was worth.”

Second, Kalshi and Polymarket don’t just want to be sports brands; they want to host markets for macroeconomic, political, cultural and other events. It’s hard to be an everything brand but still engage sports fans. A great case study is The New York Times. They had a sports page. But as an everything brand, they had to acquire a different brand in The Athletic to engage sports fans.

The next most interesting players are the incumbent sportsbooks, like FanDuel and DraftKings. These sportsbooks have everything that Kalshi and Polymarket lack: huge user bases of sports fans and all the core competencies of sports betting businesses. They also have cheaper and more stable costs of capital as public companies.

A couple weeks ago, DraftKings made a splash by acquiring Railbird, a CFTC-licensed startup. In August, FanDuel (owned by Flutter) announced a joint venture with CME Group, the giant CFTC-licensed derivatives exchange. Flutter’s CEO also said they assigned talent from BetFair, the European betting exchange they own, to evaluate US prediction markts. Theoretically, DraftKings or FanDuel would just need to pivot their core products from sportsbooks to prediction markets.

But here’s the problem. Multiple state gaming boards have warned licensed sportsbooks that launching prediction markets, even in other states, could mean the suspension of their OSB licenses. So it’s a classic innovator’s dilemma. FanDuel and DraftKings would need to risk billions in sportsbook revenue to pursue prediction markets revenue. It’s still TBD how aggressively and how soon these sportsbooks move.

I think there’s one other category of companies with a plausible case to become the dominant sports prediction market. These are growth-stage sweepstakes and daily fantasy companies.

Underdog, PrizePicks, Fliff and others have similar advantages to sportsbooks: large user bases, core competencies needed for sports betting, and even more beloved brands. Go to any college campus and you’ll hear more students talking about Fliff than FanDuel. But these businesses have been growing in regulatory gray areas, and they’re increasingly under fire. In June New York’s AG sent cease-and-desist letters to sweepstakes operators. In October California passed a bill banning sweepstakes operators. Many other states are on similar paths.

Underdog, the DFS operator, announced they’re partnering with Crypto.com to offer sports event contracts in Underdog’s app. Novig, the sweepstakes sports exchange, said they’re going to seek CFTC approval.

I expect a wave of growth-stage sweepstakes and daily fantasy companies will raise $50 - $150 million growth rounds to pursue a CFTC license and launch as prediction markets. I wouldn’t be surprised if we see the same from state-licensed and/or international exchanges like Sporttrade and ProphetX.

The challenge is these companies will compete against better-resourced players in Kalshi, Polymarket and the major sportsbooks. And maybe more fundamentally, they can’t guarantee how long it will take to get a CFTC license. It took Railbird 2.5 years to get theirs. With a new CFTC chair nominee announced last week, it’s hard to know how loosely he’ll dole out new licenses.

So to summarize, I think the sports prediction market throne is up for grabs between Kalshi & Polymarket, incumbent sportsbooks, and growth-stage sweepstakes and daily fantasy companies. It would be near impossible for any net-new company to enter the rat race and emerge as the go-to sports prediction market.

But even with that race played out, I think there are plenty of venture-scale prediction market businesses that haven’t been started yet.

Part 3: Where do I see room for new startups to emerge?

As an early-stage investor, I see multiple opportunities to build new venture-scale businesses around prediction markets, and I’ll dive into them.

You’ll notice a theme: the vast majority of innovation in prediction markets so far is coming from the crypto community. There are a couple reasons for this.

First, there’s a deep ideological overlap between prediction markets and crypto. Both stem from libertarian, anti-establishment worldviews that value transparent, decentralized systems over hierarchical, institution-led systems. If crypto seeks to decentralize money, prediction markets seek to decentralize truth and information. That’s why a lot of crypto enthusiasts have started building around prediction markets.

Second, there are practical synergies between the two. Most prediction markets have launched offshore and with crypto, not fiat, in order to avoid uncertain regulations in the US and other countries. Additionally, as we’ve seen from the success of Stake.com and other crypto gaming platforms, crypto and betting go together really well. Betting gives crypto holders utility for their currency, and crypto gives betting platforms efficient payment rails.

So you’ll see a lot of web3 companies mentioned below.

I’ll break down the areas I’m excited about into two parts: B2C and B2B.

B2C

I think a wave of companies will take prediction market infrastructure and build net-new B2C entertainment experiences on top.

A good comp is the evolution of the US sports betting industry. In 2018, FanDuel and DraftKings quickly established themselves as the dominant sportsbooks. But in the seven years since, we’ve seen startups like Underdog, Fliff, PrizePicks and Sleeper take betting infrastructure and build highly-engaging experiences for sports fans. These companies consider themselves gaming and social companies as much as betting companies.

Similarly, I think we’ll see Kalshi and Polymarket complemented by new prediction market experiences.

On the sports side, one product I’ve enjoyed is Football.Fun. It’s a crypto-based fantasy soccer game built on prediction market odds. You rip open player card packs, build your squad, compete in tournaments, and track your ranking. They launched in August and already have $40 million in volume on the platform. Another interesting product is Overtime. It’s an on-chain sports prediction market that focuses on parlays, with much more intuitive UI than Kalshi and Polymarket parlays. Overtime has $77 million in volume on the platform.

Outside of sports, I think casino-style games are an interesting opportunity. Eilers & Krejcick wrote an interesting blog about this. If you reduce the resolution window of any event – for example if you bet on whether Bitcoin will go up or down in the next five seconds – that essentially becomes a randomly-determined casino game. Online casino handle is roughly 20% of online sports betting globally, but a lot more profitable, so I expect more platforms to lean into casino-style games. Limitless, an exchange with $274 million in volume, already offers 30 minute resolution windows on markets and plans, and the company plans to expand to 15-, 10- and 1-minute resolution windows soon.

We could also see engaging prediction experiences built around cultural events. Maybe consumers would enjoy betting on People Magazine-esque celebrity events like they bet on sports. Last summer a Polymarket market around Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce getting engaged did $385K in volume. Maybe consumers would enjoy betting on their favorite digital creators. You could create a market. Here’s a Kalshi market around how many YouTube subs MrBeast will hit this year. These types of markets could benefit from sitting under a unique brand.

One relevant startup is Kizzy, which wants to let users bet on events like what IShowSpeed will say in his next stream. I think creators in particular are a particularly interesting distribution channel because you could incentivize them with a revshare to promote specific markets. But as mentioned above, these types of contracts also bring risks around insider information.

It’ll be interesting to see which regulatory path these new prediction market startups pursue. Some will definitely stick with an offshore, crypto approach. Others might pursue a DCM (the license Kalshi has), or an FCM (another license that essentially lets you route trades to a DCM). This will depend on how the regulatory environment shakes out.

But the bottom line is: large businesses will emerge by building new consumer-facing entertainment experiences around prediction markets.

B2B

If the B2C opportunity is about creating experiences for retail traders, the B2B opportunity is about creating tools for institutional investors.

As highlighted above, prediction markets live or die by liquidity. That’s why Kalshi and Polymarket are now heavily incentivizing hedge funds to make large bets and market makers to boost liquidity on their exchanges. (For context, market makers are specialized trading firms that constantly fill buy and sell orders, make a small spread on each trade, and keep markets liquid).

In every asset class, institutional investors rely on a large suite of tools. They pay for market data feeds to help traders make informed decisions; execution management systems to route orders across exchanges efficiently; risk management software to monitor overall firm exposure; compliance software to ensure compliance with regulations; and much more. Many of these tools are built for other asset classes (e.g. the equities market) but not for prediction markets.

One relevant startup from this YC batch is Dome. They’re building “the ultimate API for prediction markets,” providing access to prediction market data across multiple exchanges. A hedge fund or market maker could use Dome to get real-time market prices, historical data and order tracking in order to optimize their trading strategy. It’s worth noting that Kalshi and Polymarket are built on more modern tech stacks and APIs than older exchanges like the NYSE that are built on dated tech stacks, so it’ll be interesting to see how much value tools like Dome can capture.

Another interesting opportunity is in selling data feeds and predictive algorithms around event contracts. As the US sports betting industry emerged, Sportradar and Genius Sports built large businesses brokering game data and providing odds suggestions and pricing models to sportsbooks. Prediction markets have a unique set of needs around datasets and modeling. How do you price the odds of Jerome Powell raising rates, or Taylor Swift announcing a new album? Institutions will try to answer these questions with all the data sources and predictive tools they can get their hands on.

The big question for B2B is how quickly and aggressively institutional firms will enter prediction markets. Some firms like Susquehanna are known for being more creative, and they’ve already spun up desks for sports and event contracts. But I’d bet that large managers like Citadel and Bridgewater will be in wait-and-see mode. For them to enter a new asset class – and invest in new infrastructure, teams and operating methodologies – they must have confidence they’ll be able to deploy large sums of capital over years.

But right now, the prediction market space is in regulatory flux. Investors like Citadel see how quickly the Trump administration opened the door to prediction markets, and how quickly a court ruling or White House election could reverse course. That said, if prediction markets do emerge as a major asset class, major investors will enter the space and drive demand for B2B tools.

##

That brings us back to the very crux of this essay. Prediction markets are exciting because they have the potential to emerge into a massive new asset class, like the equities or options markets. And outside of Kalshi and Polymarket, there’s plenty of room for innovation across both B2C and B2B. But the entire category depends on how regulation shakes out, which only time will tell.

In the meantime, I’m paying close attention to the rise of prediction markets, and the Will Ventures team is actively investing in the space, both B2C and B2B.

If you’re building around prediction markets, please reach out. Our team would love to meet you!

If you’re a sports fan, you’ve seen the AI commercials.

The NFL and Microsoft Copilot are helping coaches make on-field decisions with AI. The NBA and AWS are bringing AI-powered advanced stats to fans. The MLB and Google Cloud are using AI to engage consumers better in stadiums.

As a fan, it’s near-impossible to know what all this AI talk actually means – versus what’s just Big Tech spending on brand marketing.

It’s hard to know what’s real versus what’s hype.

As an investor, it’s a pretty similar experience. At Will Ventures, we’re confident that AI will significantly impact the sports industry, like most industries. But we’re also aware that many AI applications are either overhyped or too early to invest.

So we spoke with several dozen executives at major sports leagues and teams to understand what AI tools they’re actually using today. (We focused our conversations on off-field rather than on-field applications, which are a whole different ballgame).

We think there are several reasons that AI will impact the sports industry even more than other industries.

First, the sports industry’s largest revenue driver is content – and AI video & image models will transform content creation and consumption habits. (We wrote a longer essay on that here).

Second, the sports industry is really just a collection of small- and mid-sized businesses – i.e. the teams – which hire for dozens of roles that can be automated or supercharged by AI.

Third, sports properties have some of the richest consumer datasets – spanning tickets, merchandise, content, gaming and more touchpoints – which can be used to predict preferences and engage fans better.

As a proxy for where AI can drive the most value, it’s helpful to look at how sports leagues make money. Leagues have four main revenue buckets:

1. Media

2. Ticketing & Gameday

3. Sponsorships

4. Merchandise & Licensing

Some leagues index more on certain buckets. For example MLB is more of a ticketing-driven business, while the NFL’s more media-driven. But all leagues have more or less the same software needs across these buckets, and therefore the same AI use cases.

All that said, there are reasons to be skeptical of AI startups selling into sports.

As has been well-reported, 95% of enterprise Gen AI pilots are failing. This wouldn’t be the first time a tech hype cycle took the sports industry by storm. Remember when NFTs were going to revolutionize the fan experience, or when VR was going to reimagine live game viewing?

It’s also clear that AI giants like Google and Microsoft (which already have existing sports partnerships) will capture a lot of value that new startups won’t. We still don’t know which use cases will be served by ChatGPT vs a new vertical-specific application.

Nevertheless, here’s the hardest part of investing in AI startups selling into the sports industry: underwriting outcomes to venture-scale.

We’re confident that many AI startups will successfully sell point-solutions into leagues and teams. But in order to reach venture-scale – think a multi-billion dollar enterprise value – a startup would need to either:

1) drive massive value-add for their sports customers, or

2) use sports as a beachhead to expand into larger, adjacent industries

With that lens, we spoke with league and team executives. Coming out of those conversations, here are four AI applications they’re most excited about as operators and we’re equally excited about as investors.

Theme 1: Media Production

Sports properties and their broadcasting partners have huge content production needs – and the explosion of short-form video and international content has only increased those needs.

Platforms like Greenfly and ScorePlay are already automating large parts of the media workflow, helping to ingest raw game footage, tagging key moments using computer vision, and directly publishing short and long-form media. Both sports-specific tools like Magic Hour and generalist tools like Midjourney are also being used for design inspiration and special effects.

Simultaneously, in 2025 every sports property is looking to expand their fanbase internationally. International games have become a core part of this strategy. Just this season, the NFL will play games in Brazil, Ireland, Germany, Spain and the UK. But the truth is the NFL will drive the bulk of its engagement through content that speaks to local fans who won’t attend the games in-person.

The challenge with localized content is it’s time-intensive and expensive. If the NFL wants to post Portuguese highlights on its YouTube, it needs to hire local commentators, rent a studio, and pay a production team. And that’s all just for one language. Furthermore, monetization in these countries hasn’t yet scaled and leagues like the NFL struggle to invest in content production with limited ROI.

Recently AI startups like LingoPal and Camb.AI have begun offering real-time content translation specifically for sports use cases. Outside of sports, Eleven Labs has built a significant content dubbing business for premium IP holders. Of the dozens of sports executives we spoke with, real-time translation was one area they were most excited about.

With this technology, an English sports broadcast can plug into their API and get a broadcast translated into another language with near zero latency. This is a really tough technical challenge. Ideally translation shouldn’t just be real-time. It should also be emotionally-aware and context-based. For example, if an American commentator screams “Mahomes is crushing it” the model must know how to capture that vernacular and tone and translate it to multiple languages.

In addition to these real-time translation tools, leagues are also increasingly interested in dubbing and closed captioning tools. Together, these tools are critical to grow international viewership and fan development.

Theme 2: Sponsorship

Sponsorship is another major revenue driver for sports properties, who hire large partnership sales and activation teams. The sponsorship sales motion in particular is slow and analog. Teams spend weeks putting together lists of prospects, doing cold outreach, and manually building pitch decks.

AI tools can’t replace these teams entirely. Sponsorships are often multi-million-dollar deals that include different ad inventories & VIKs, which requires a human in the loop. But sports properties could use copilots for sponsorship sales. Imagine a tool that could ingest first-party fan data, triangulate which brands are the closest demographic fit, and contact the CMOs of which brand with a customized pitch deck.

Some of this is already happening. For example, CRED is working with multiple NBA and European soccer teams to combine their internal and external data, provide a new CRM for sponsorship sales, and automate outreach to brands. Wolfcycle is helping multiple teams qualify high-quality leads for sponsorship and premium ticket sales.

If a startup can nail sports sponsorship workflows, they could leverage the same tech to expand into other industries. Music festivals, trade shows, media companies, and live experience businesses (e.g. casinos and theme parks) all have similar sponsorship sales functions.

Theme 3: Ticketing

For the NHL, MLB, and MLS, ticket and suite sales are the largest revenue driver. Despite this, teams’ sales functions have seen remarkably little tech innovation. Most teams still rely on large, commission-driven sales teams making cold calls, manually qualifying leads, and logging activity in outdated CRMs.

Several teams we spoke to have begun experimenting with AI-powered sales tools. Some are running pilots with industry-agnostic tools like Bland AI to automate sales outreach. These teams are using AI agents to handle initial touchpoints, while human reps can still focus on closing sales. Some more sophisticated teams are actually building their own internal copilots that can handle things like lead scoring, campaign automation, and retention.

Data enrichment, in particular for season ticket and suite sales, is another area we’ve seen innovation. For example, Minerva has helped the Miami Dolphins, F1 and other sports properties build datasets of potential high-value customers, thereby making sales outreach more effective.

When discussing ticketing, it’s also mandatory to mention that the entire experience is fundamentally broken for fans. With Ticketmaster controlling most venues, fans have to pay high (and hidden) fees. They also don’t get engaged in any personalized way. Ideally fans should get personalized pricing options, seat upgrade and merchandise offers, and personalized notifications in their app. But Ticketmaster’s legacy tech stack fails to leverage fan data and leaves fans treated like anonymous transactions rather than valued members of a community.

Jump, a Will Ventures portfolio company, is building an entirely new, AI-native tech stack. Jump’s vision is to unify fan data, team ticket inventory, and team CRM in one-place. Instead of a general transactional checkout page, you can imagine an AI that might know your past attendance, budget, favorite player, etc. and proactively offer you the best ticket for you. Over time, this AI could even automate some of the sales process. We’re excited for Jump’s launch with the Minnesota Timberwolves this season.

Theme 4: IP Management

The last category we’ve seen sports executives most excited about is IP management. As we wrote about in depth in “The NBA x Open AI deal,” athletes, leagues and teams are increasingly seeing their IP appear in AI-generated content. They’re eager for tools to both protect and monetize their IP in this new age of AI content creation.

We’ve seen several startups help IP holders monitor unwanted AI-generated content online and issue takedown notices to social media platforms. For example Loti provides this service for celebrities including Keanu Reeves.

However, as AI models continue to improve, we could see a near-future where it’s almost impossible to identify AI-generated content vs real content. We believe the larger, longer-term opportunity is in helping IP holders manage and monetize their IP via AI content.

Jake Paul’s activity on Sora in the few weeks is an interesting case study. Paul (who’s an investor in OpenAI) encouraged fans to use his likeness in Sora videos and got significant engagement on the platform. See below the engagement results he posted on X.

Also check out how Mark Cuban used Sora to drive awareness around his low-cost prescription drug company.

Leagues, teams, and individual athletes can start licensing their archives and likeness in entirely new ways. Imagine a world where creators on Sora and Veo can legally generate derivative content built on official licensed footage – and sports properties get compensated for every usage. This model could work across verticals – not just sports but also music, TV/film, and other IP.

–

To recap, there’s a lot of hype around AI startups selling into the sports industry. But there are multiple ways that this technological platform shift is already impacting the space – from media production to ticketing to sponsorships to IP management.

If you’re excited about AI’s impact on the sports industry – and building around any of these four areas or others – we’d love to hear from you!

Week One of college football delivered. We watched Arch Manning vs Ohio State, two other top-ten matchups, and a full Saturday of action.

As fans, we’re fired up about the college football season.

But as investors, we’re deeply concerned about the future of college sports.

At Will Ventures, we’ve closely tracked the shifting college sports landscape. Here’s an article we published one year ago, making an early case for private capital’s entrance into college sports.

Since that article, a lot has happened…

In May 2024, terms were reached for the House vs NCAA settlement. The plaintiffs agreed to the settlement for the immediate payday. They got $2.8B backpaid to former athletes, and a framework that lets schools share up to $20.5M of revenue annually with current and future athletes. Meanwhile, the NCAA and conferences took the deal to cap their downside. A final judgment could have forced not $2B, but up to $20B in backpay to former athletes. Simultaneously, the NCAA and conferences held out hope for Congress’ help. They hoped Congress would pass legislation protecting the House settlement’s framework and controlling revenue-sharing around $20.5M per school. (Otherwise, as we’ll explain, the framework has little chance of holding up in court and costs will push higher).

But Congressional action hasn’t come yet. House Republicans have pushed the SCORE Act. The bill would block student-athletes from being classified as employees, provide a federal antitrust exemption for the NCAA, and protect the $20.5M cap from future legal attack. In short, the bill would put the genie back in the bottle to protect the industry’s old ways of under-compensating athletes. The bill hasn’t reached the floor of the House yet. But even if it passes the House, the bill has little chance in the Senate, where 7 Democrats would need to cross the aisle.

The SCORE Act is likely the NCAA’s last hail mary, because focus will soon shift towards the mid-term elections and away from college sports. By the time focus shifts back to college sports in late 2026, the Democrats could control the House. It’s also worth noting in July, Trump signed his “Saving College Sports” executive order, which had few enforceable mechanisms. And more importantly, Trump getting involved probably made bipartisan cooperation even less likely. It’s clear the government isn’t coming to the rescue.

Now here’s the issue: In the absence of Congressional intervention, college sports is left with a massive cost problem.

The House settlement introduced a $20.5M revenue-sharing cap. But that cap isn’t collectively bargained – and therefore isn’t binding. So top athletic departments are using booster collectives to blow past the $20.5M cap. This season, Ohio State football will reportedly pay its players $35M, and Texas football might be spending up to $40M.

Athlete compensation is putting serious financial pressure on the system. As a result, fewer schools are able to truly compete in football and basketball – and more schools are slashing budgets for all other sports/

With everything that’s happened in the last year, one thing is increasingly clear to us: The current trajectory of college sports is unsustainable.

In part one of this essay, we’ll dive into why the college sports landscape is breaking post-House settlement. In part two, we’ll lay out a path forward for saving college sports.

Subscribe now

Part 1: Why the college sports landscape is breaking

From a revenue standpoint, college sports is a massive business. D1 athletic programs drove $17.5B in revenues in 2022, thanks to major media and sponsorship deals. But from a cost standpoint, college sports never had to deal with its largest line item: player salaries. Whereas the NFL and NBA both share ~50% of revenue with players, universities historically got away for free. Since NCAA vs Alston in 2021, that’s changed. Costs are now ballooning, and there’s no system to control them.

Let’s break down this cost problem piece by piece.

First, revenue-sharing – starting at $20.5M per school and growing 4% annually – is about to put serious strain on schools. College sports might be a huge business. But most athletic departments are unprofitable or break-even. That’s because three sports make money and 30+ varsity sports lose money.

Take the University of Alabama. In 2023-24 Alabama drove $234M in revenue. About 70% of that came from football and basketball, which both turned a profit. But Alabama supports 27 varsity sports. So the athletic department ran a $30M deficit. An additional $20.5M from revenue-sharing is a big bump to that deficit.

On top of revenue-sharing, booster collective payments aren’t stopping. Before NIL, donors padded athletic departments’ bottom lines by paying for new facilities, scholarships, coaching endowments, and season ticket packages. But now, donors have to put that money towards recruiting a competitive roster. Fielding an SEC football team costs roughly $20M - $30M, and a men’s basketball team is another $5M - $8M. Few donor bases have unlimited funds (donor fatigue has become a buzzword). So as donors spend more on rosters, they’ll spend less on everything else – and that’ll further hit schools financially.

But that’s all just today’s problem. The cost problem is very likely to get worse. Further litigation is likely to push the costs of maintaining an athletic program even higher.

First, schools could soon get stuck paying all student-athletes a minimum wage. That’s the subject of the pending Johnson vs NCAA case. The plaintiffs are arguing that student-athletes fit the definition of an employee from the Fair Labor Standards Act. It’s hard to argue against it. Student-athletes have to show up on time for practices and games, follow schedules set by supervisors (coaches), and perform duties that generate revenue. If Johnson wins, then schools will have to pay minimum wages, payroll taxes, workers’ comp, and overtime for all its athletes. The average D1 school has ~500 athletes, so that could be upwards of $10M per school.

Second, we’re bound to see legal battles about whether the $20.5M cap is legal. Already, multiple groups have appealed the House settlement arguing the cap is wage-fixing. That’s a strong antitrust case: The settlement put an artificial cap on how much schools can spend, preventing athletes from earning their true market rate. Compensation caps are only lawful in the US when they’re negotiated through collective bargaining (i.e. how the NFL & NFLPA negotiated a salary cap) or granted via a federal antitrust exemption (which isn’t coming anytime soon). So if the cap’s thrown out, schools will end up sharing well north of $20.5M with athletes.

Third, we’ll likely see litigation around the regulation of booster collective payments. The House settlement established NIL Go, a clearinghouse to review all NIL transactions above $600. Its goal is to confirm payments are tied to “real value exchange” – and not straight pay-for-play. But the system is flawed from the start. It’s impossible to fairly evaluate every NIL deal of 190K D1 athletes. It should also be indefensible in court. Telling an athlete how much they can charge for an appearance is like telling any American how much they can charge for selling their house. Already athletes are complaining that they’re waiting weeks for deals to be approved and losing out on opportunities. If the guardrails on collective payments get shot down, collectives will effectively be another uncapped pool of player payments.

As a thought exercise, consider salaries in the NFL, where player salaries aren’t capped. The highest-paid coach Andy Reid makes $20M/year, and the highest-paid QB Dak Prescott makes $60M/year. That’s because a QB is more valuable than a coach, and market forces drive salaries. But today in college football, the highest-paid coach Kirby Smart makes $13M/year, and the highest-paid QB Darian Mensah makes $4M/year. In a free market where player payments aren’t capped, a top QB’s salary alone could push into the tens of millions.

So to summarize the cost problem: schools could soon be on the hook for paying athletes 1) minimum wages and employee benefits, 2) an uncapped amount of revenue-sharing, and 3) an unlimited amount via collectives.

To make things even worse, schools lack any major revenue levers to make up for these costs. The largest revenue lever, media rights, is unavailable – because all the Power conference, CFP and March Madness TV deals are locked up through 2030-35. Schools have solutions on the margins, like optimizing ticket sales, signing new sponsors, or (our favorite) re-releasing the NCAA Football video game. Some schools have also launched creative, new revenue streams with their collectives; for example check out Fanstake. But schools ultimately don’t have a real path to cover ballooning costs in the near term.

So how does the college sports landscape break? With the current trajectory, here’s what we believe will happen.

Schools will spend as much as possible to compete in the two revenue sports: football and basketball. SEC and Big-10 schools will dominate. ACC and Big-12 schools will struggle to keep up. Mid-majors will become much less competitive. And every school will angle themselves for the next wave of conference realignment and media rights paydays. Every school wants to avoid the fate of Oregon State and Washington State, who got stranded in the Pac-12.

Meanwhile, schools looking to compete in football and basketball will trim budgets (or outright cut) all other sports. As examples, Washington State consolidated its track and field program, and University of Louisiana Monroe slashed women’s tennis – both citing the House settlement.

We’re heading for a future where far fewer schools can compete in football and basketball, and far fewer schools can support dozens of sports programs.

Part 2: Here’s how we fix things

How do we save college sports as we know it? We believe two things are key to the solution: 1) external capital, and 2) collective bargaining.

ADs, coaches and other powerbrokers rejected both things at the start of the NIL era. But post-House settlement, these stakeholders are feeling the budget squeeze we laid out above. Increasingly, industry insiders view collective bargaining as the only way to get us off the litigation hamster wheel that college sports has been on for a decade now. And they view external capital as the only way to get college sports out of its current rut. Collective bargaining and external capital are also intertwined because investors would want to model out long-term costs and rules of the road via collective bargaining.

College sports is fortunate that it has many characteristics of a premium financial asset. College sports has cultural staying power; college football’s been the 2nd most-watched sport in the US since the 1980s. It has deep customer affinity; many alumni bases treat their fandom like religion. And it has large, diversified and recurring revenue streams; schools can monetize media rights, ticket sales, sponsorships, merchandise and more.

That’s why so many financial institutions have come around the table to propose different solutions. We’ve seen all of the above offered…

• Private credit: RedBird and Weatherford Capital co-launched Collegiate Athletic Solutions, discussing credit packages of $50M - $200M with individual schools.

• Private equity: CVC and the Big 12 discussed a $800M - $1B investment for a 15-20% equity stake.

• Restructuring: Smash Capital has done a roadshow for “Project Rudy,” a $9B capital infusion to restructure the entire FCS. College Sports Tomorrow is a consortium of pro team owners and sports executives that proposed a similar package.

The challenge with private capital at the school or conference level is that the cost problems we laid out above will continue to compound, and schools still don’t have major short-term revenue levers. It would also be a zero sum game for any one school or conference. If Ohio State or Texas raised capital, its Big 10 and SEC rivals would quickly follow suit. It’d simply accelerate the arms race for everyone without addressing the deeper structural problems.

That’s why we believe a restructuring of college sports is the only viable solution.

We believe the best option for everybody would look something like this:

1. First, we reorganize the business of college sports. One entity representing the schools consolidates the rights to D1 college sports and serves as the financial and governance backbone of the system. This could be the NCAA, the CSC or even the CFP. This entity honors previous commercial agreements, but pools all media rights and other revenue streams under one roof. Media rights are the crux of all value creation, but it requires a centralized entity to optimize matchup quality and sell bundled rights. This could even be accomplished in the near-term by focusing only on postseason rights which are already aggregated (and not on conference rights which are locked up for now).

2. Next, we establish collective bargaining. The entity representing the schools (mentioned above) negotiates with another entity that represents the athletes. These two entities negotiate a single master agreement covering core issues like player revenue-sharing, eligibility, transfers and benefits. They could adapt rules to the different realities of football, basketball and Olympic sports (think different pay scales, roster sizes, etc). The result would be cost certainty for schools, fairness and protection for athletes, and a system of rules that’s negotiated and enforceable long-term.

3. Lastly, we bring in external capital and expertise. An outside investor injects capital into the entity representing the schools, in exchange for a minority equity stake. This multibillion-dollar investment is used to cover near-term financial obligations – including revenue-sharing, back-pay from the House settlement, and preservation of non-revenue sports. At the same time, the investor will offer operational support to optimize the next round of football and basketball media rights, and also build revenue streams for Olympic sports that have historically been neglected. Within a decade, schools will transition out of the current financial crisis and into a sustainable model where football and basketball thrive without hollowing out every other program. Note: A very specific investor profile would be required here. They’d need a massive balance sheet, an indefinite hold period, and interest in a premium asset.

We believe these three steps would establish a healthy college sports ecosystem.

Athletes would get a seat at the table and a voice in the future of college sports. They’d also get compensated for performing on a field or court, where billions of dollars in entertainment value is being produced.

Universities and conferences would get financial stability, an end to the litigation hamster wheel, and (finally) the ability to pick their heads up to start thinking about revenue growth and the next wave of media rights renewals.

And lastly, fans would get a competitive college football and basketball landscape – and 50+ varsity sports keeping their lights on.

Whether the powerbrokers of college sports are saying it publicly or not, they are increasingly discussing such possibilities. This future could be a lot sooner than the American public thinks.

We’re looking forward to seeing how the future of college sports plays out. And in the meantime, we’re excited for Week 2 of college football.

Earlier this year, nearly 60,000 people finished the London Marathon, setting a new world record for total finishers. Athletes from around the world flocked to London to race. The London marathon is emblematic of a broader trend, traditional tourism is being amplified by a new breed of traveler who views their trips as personal missions rather than passive tourism.

The numbers validate this shift.

The global sports tourism market, which is already at $500B+, is on track to more than double in the next few years. Younger travelers are opting for more active forms of tourism than the legacy tourism model. Travelers are prioritizing participatory, community-driven, and difficult-to-replicate moments.

Adventure tourism bookings surged nearly 40% last year and research shows that 70% of millennial and Gen-Z travelers will pay a premium for experiences that actually align with their personal values and goals. Unlike price-sensitive tourists looking for deals, this generation of travelers is a high-intent customer spending a significant amount to pursue their passions.

Travel associated with sports - both fandom and recreational travel has a few tailwinds relative to traditional vacation travel.

1. This type of travel is higher intent - driving better unit economics and repeat behavior

2. Built in fandom & passion around a hobby makes targeting these travelers more effective and efficient

3. There are organic network effects that traditional tourism lacks. Sports fans and participants typically organize travel as a group. This makes scale much easier to achieve and maintain

In this essay, we’ll look at the rise in sports-related tourism across 2 key categories.

Spectator Sports Tourism: More people are traveling to visit their favorite athletes and teams than ever before.

Participatory Sports Tourism: A growing emphasis on health and wellness is driving an increase in participation for outdoor activities. The younger generation is moving away from sightseeing to experience-based travel.

Part 1: Spectator Sports Tourism

In 2024, there was nearly $50B in direct spending in the US sports travel sector. Globally, spectator sports tourism generated $115B+ in economic impact with millions of overnight sports travelers. This spend is expected to grow at ~16% until 2030.

Younger fans are at the heart of this spend. Two-thirds of millennial and Gen-Z fans indicated an interest in traveling to a sports event. And this travel is predictable. Unlike traditional tourism that is affected by weather, cultural trends, etc. - sports fandom drives repeat travel, usually from price-insensitive customers.

This rise in sports event travel is happening across leagues. The NBA hit record attendance in the 2023-2024 season. The same can be said about the NWSL, WNBA, MLS, and NHL. In the MLB, more than one-third of fans traveled to attend games from outside the designated market area (150 mile radius of the stadium).

Yet while teams and athletes are responsible for driving this travel spend, they don't participate in the economic value they generate.

This represents one of the more significant value capture gaps in modern entertainment. While fans are spending thousands of dollars per game on tickets, lodging, flights, and entire experiences, the economic benefits are highly fragmented across platforms and industries that have little connection to the sports properties driving the demand.

Let’s consider some of the economics. Fans are dropping as much as $20,000 to see their favorite teams or athletes. The value leakage is staggering.

When 50,000 fans travel to see the Super Bowl, they are generating $200-$300M in local economic impact. The NFL captures maybe 10-15% of that through ticket sales and official partnerships. The remaining 85-90% flows to airlines, hotels, restaurants, and local businesses that have no structural relationship with the leagues or teams driving the demand.

Super Bowl economic impact

Some sports properties are able to capture travel spend through site fees to host events in certain locations (Saudi Arabia reportedly paid millions of dollars to bring UFC there for the first time). These site fees are nearly pure profit for these leagues.

However, most sports properties are effectively subsidizing travel companies without participating in the upside. At the same time, fans are paying premiums for a fragmented experience that requires them to visit multiple platforms with no coordination or optimization across the user journey.

This market structure is ripe for disruption. While media rights, sponsorships, ticket sales, and concessions have traditionally driven team economics, it is time for properties to capture travel spend as well while also creating a superior fan experience.

At Will Ventures, we see 2 major opportunities related to spectator sports tourism.

1. Sports-first Travel Platforms

2. Fan Data Infrastructure and Personalization Engines

Sports-first travel platforms

The fan experience to attend a game today is broken. Online travel agencies (OTAs) like Expedia and Booking.com don’t treat sports uniquely. They don’t optimize for the sports fan, such as making it easier for group coordination, creating an itinerary centered around sports, etc. While there are premium solutions (i.e., On Location) in the market, these solutions are only targeted towards a small segment of the population with a very high willingness to pay.

At Will Ventures, we believe that a platform that puts the fan at the center of travel can create a super experience that captures value across the entire travel stack. The goal isn’t to build another OTA, rather it is to build infrastructure for sports properties to finally monetize the demand they generate.

This kind of innovation is already happening in general travel. Journey recently raised ~$8M to create a more personalized loyalty experience for independent hotels. It would be interesting to see more startups specifically targeting the sports fan.

Key characteristics of startups that would be compelling in this space:

1. The ability for groups to book / coordinate travel together

2. Access to exclusive experiences centered around the team / game

3. Direct relationships with athletes and teams to enhance experience

4. Integrated ticket inventory

5. Proper tech (i.e., pricing algorithm, P2P sharing, etc.)

While there are existing platforms that allow for sports fans to book packages, they 1) have poor economics (operating on traditional OTA margins), 2) don’t share data with teams, 3) are more reactive than proactive, and 4) don’t optimize for group travel coordination.

The big unlock for a sports-first travel platform would be to get buy-in from major leagues and teams. If those properties can capture some of the upside, they will be more incentivized to open up exclusive inventory and experiences

On top of league and team buy-in, we think integrating athlete partnerships, creating a fan community flywheel, and introducing a better pricing engine would create a much more compelling user experience vs. traditional OTAs.

Fan data infrastructure and personalization engines

Sports fan data is highly fragmented today. Sports properties have massive amounts of fan data (game attendance, merchandise purchases, digital engagement), but it is barely monetized and often only focused on the local experience. Meanwhile, travel and hospitality companies collect a wealth of data when fans travel, but they don’t have direct relationships with properties. These companies don’t know if a guest staying at their hotel is a fan or what brands they admire and engage with.

In turn, the current system is highly inefficient. There’s no infrastructure in place that can connect fans' sports behavior, travel patterns, and preferences. A data infrastructure company that can be a bit of the connective tissue between teams/leagues and travel companies can create a lot of value for the properties, advertisers, and fans as well.

We think that creating B2B platforms that can help these teams monetize their fan data and also help travel companies access high-intent customers is compelling.

While many B2B companies have tried to monetize fan data historically - there are a few things that have changed.

1. There is higher economic pressure on sports properties - as talent costs continue to rise, media revenue is projected to slow (especially for local deals), and more cost-conscious ownership groups

2. The value of first-party fan data is increasing. As LLMs become more mainstream, the value of FB / Google data will decline. Being able to access sports fan behavior directly is enticing.

Some characteristics of startups that would be compelling in this space:

1. Real-time personalization: A product that can process real-time customer feedback in the stadium (i.e., concession purchases, sports bets, etc.) to deliver as much of a curated experience as possible

2. Cross-platform convergence: A platform that can track user behavior across platforms (both physically and digitally). Social media, websites, restaurants, hotels, and stadium activity all need to speak to one another.

3. Significant network effects: The data is much more valuable with each sports property that joins and offers their local fan data. Building a database across teams / leagues will be paramount to be able to monetize

A platform like this could monetize through sports properties and travel & hospitality companies. These travel & hospitality companies are already paying hundreds of millions of dollars for access to highly targeted audiences (similar to what TradeDesk and LiveRamp have been able to facilitate).

The sports fan travel experience can be significantly improved and solving the gaps that exist today is a big opportunity in the industry. We’re excited to back founders that can create the platforms and infrastructure that make travel more personalized for fans, while generating incremental value for teams.

Part 2: Participatory Sports Tourism

While fandom drives one side of the sports travel boom, the other is powered by participation. From destination marathons, Scottish golf tours, heliskiing to pickleball camps, travelers are increasingly building entire trips around their own athletic pursuits rather than watching others compete.

The scale is already massive. In 2023, 56 million Americans traveled to be active, up from 45 million pre-COVID. These trips generated $52B in direct economic impact, and that doesn’t even include indirect impact on lodging, food, retail, and experiences. Globally, the numbers are even larger. The adventure tourism market alone (which includes hiking, cycling, skiing, and water sports) is expected to hit $1.8T by 2030.

This shift is largely being driven by Millennials and Gen Z who are prioritizing wellness, activity, and meaningful group experiences over traditional sightseeing. Similar to fandom-based travel, the way these trips come together make for them to be highly attractive business models. These trips are often high-intent, group-oriented, and repeatable.

Unlike fandom based travel however, these travelers aren’t just buying flights, hotels, and tickets. They’re also spending a ton of money on gear, guides, training, and content. And these consumers are more price insensitive as they turn their hobbies into full-on experiences that drive real spend.

Yet the infrastructure remains fragmented. Most coordination happens across email chains, text, and offline operators. Few companies are taking a vertically integrated, technology-forward approach to capture value across the entire experience stack.

At Will Ventures, we think participatory sports tourism is one of the most underrated and underbuilt areas of travel infrastructure.

There’s a clear opportunity to build platforms, marketplaces, and tooling that:

• Help travelers discover and plan experiences aligned with their sport or activity

• Unlock hard-to-access inventory (i.e - guided trips, international races, backcountry permits, gear rentals)

• Bundle travel with coaching, community, or exclusive content

• Offer group-friendly booking, logistics, and pricing

• Track and personalize the experience over time (via wearables, training platforms, etc.)

We’re particularly interested in opportunities at the intersection of community and commerce where user engagement deepens over time, and where real-world activity drives digital value and vice versa.

Companies that can build a home for specific sport-based communities (running, fishing, skiing, etc.) and then monetize through commerce, memberships, or curated travel products are well-positioned. The tightness of this community would drive even more of a network spend across the board.

In many ways, the opportunity is similar to what Airbnb was able to do for housing or ClassPass did for fitness classes. Both were able to use technology to unlock latent supply and demand in a fragmented market.

Participatory sports tourism benefits from stronger network effects, higher customer LTV, and an ability to naturally expand across adjacent activities.

Beyond this clear venture-scale opportunity to build participatory travel infrastructure/platforms from scratch, there’s also a play to roll up the existing fragmented ecosystem of high-end travel operators already serving these communities.

Many customers have deep-pockets and are being served by a long tail of mom-and-pop operators who plan their trips (often with little tech and no cross-channel strategy). A PE travel rollup could unify vertical agencies under one brand, centralize operations to improve margins, and layer on technology to better understand the customer/cross-sell between activities. A traveler who books a guided elk hunt this fall could just as easily be marketed a heli-ski trip in February. But that only happens with shared infrastructure and a solid understanding of how these passions overlap.

This fragmented landscape is actually good validation of the market opportunity. While there is clearly demand and willingness to pay premium prices, the infrastructure isn’t at a point to serve it efficiently. Whether through venture-scale software companies or PE style roll-ups, it is clear that the sports travel industry needs some change.

–

Sports tourism is uniquely attractive compared to other travel categories. The emotional attachment around a team, community-driven behavior, and predictable demand patterns are all natural moats.

Unlike leisure travel which fluctuates dramatically depending on economic cycles, sports tourism is more consistent.

Still, there are risks that must be taken into account. Teams and leagues can be slow to adopt new revenue models and are protective of fan relationships. Traditional OTAs have massive marketing budgets that will be tough for new players to compete with. And finally, the seasonal nature of sports may create lumpy revenue cycles that startups will need to manage.

Despite this, at Will Ventures, we think the sports travel market is ready to be disrupted.

The next wave of sports travel - both fan and recreational - will be built by startups that truly understand the behaviors and needs of these new kinds of travelers.

And we’re actively looking to back founders in this space! If you’re building, investing, or operating at the intersection of sports, travel, and technology, we’d love to meet you!

PART 1: The longevity gold rush

The longevity space is having a moment. Personalities like Bryan Johnson are breaking into the mainstream. Startups like Function Health are normalizing $500/year preventative blood tests. And VCs are piling into the category; last year, investment in longevity tech doubled to $8.5 billion.

But lately we’ve noticed a trend that’s pretty unusual for a buzzy Silicon Valley category:

Longevity’s early winners are launching brand-new offerings through M&A and partnerships.

Function Health, the blood testing platform, added an MRI offering by acquiring Ezra. Oura Ring integrated CGM data by partnering with Dexcom. Fountain Life, the concierge longevity clinic, moved into hospitality by announcing a resort chain with the real estate developer SBE. Superpower, Prenuvo, and InsideTracker have also made aggressive M&A and partnership plays.

In our opinion, there are two reasons behind all this inorganic growth.

Reason #1 is: The entire promise of the longevity space hinges on multi-dimensional health data.

Here’s the ethos of the longevity space in short: “Modern-day healthcare is flawed. Consumer health data is scattered, and doctors work by treating specific sicknesses reactively. The longevity movement takes a different approach. Consumers can use blood tests, gut tests, wearables, body scans, and other tools to holistically assess their health -> receive personalized feedback -> proactively make lifestyle changes, take supplements, get treatments, etc -> and improve their health outcomes.”

But that process works best if you own multiple data points. Let’s say you’re experiencing fatigue. A Function blood panel might show low iron. Your treatment regimen is to take iron pills. But add a Whoop, Levels CGM and Prenuvo MRI. You might see poor sleep quality, glucose crashes, and visceral fat. The treatment regimen changes to a full protocol across diet, sleep, exercise and supplements. That’s a major upgrade in diagnosis and outcome – thanks to connecting more datapoints. That’s the first reason longevity startups are aggressively expanding into new offerings.

Reason #2 is: Now is the time to build in longevity, and it’s a land grab.

In 2025, longevity startups have a clear “why now.”

On the demand front, consumers increasingly understand the subpar state of US healthcare. The US spends more per-capita on healthcare than any other country on Earth, but ranks last among high-income countries in life expectancy, access and preventable deaths. Obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and more chronic diseases are on the rise. And, especially post-pandemic, people have less faith in traditional healthcare to fix things. Public trust in the US healthcare system plummeted from 72% in 2020 to 40% in 2024. Meanwhile, health & wellness is at peak zeitgeist. Bryan Johnson went on “The Kardashians” to talk about biohacking. Better-for-you snacks are dominating CPG. Ouras and Whoops are ubiquitous in large cities.

Simultaneously, on the supply front, multiple massive breakthroughs are happening in parallel. AI models are rapidly improving, making it possible to a) synthesize complex health data into actionable insights, and b) replicate and scale clinician-level guidance. Also, high-fidelity sensors (e.g. wearables) and omic testing (e.g. genomic testing), which were once locked in research labs, are much cheaper.

At Will Ventures, we believe generational longevity companies will be started in the next decade. We see a future where consumers can proactively track their biomarkers, sleep, diet and more; receive personalized, actionable insights; make corresponding changes; and drive meaningful health outcomes – all under one roof. The end-goal is improving human lifespan and healthspan. The companies that reach that goal will command no shortage of dollars.

The challenge is knowing which companies will win. Investors have funded all types of longevity startups: virtual clinics like Function and Superpower, in-person clinics like Neko Health and Biograph, wearables like Oura and Ultrahuman, and supplement brands like Elysium and Tally.

Below is our market map of the longevity space.

In this article, we explore: Who will build the next great, generational longevity company?

• In Part 2, we ask which longevity businesses are best-positioned to win long-term

• In Part 3, we share the investment criteria we’d use to evaluate any longevity startup

PART 2: Which longevity businesses are best positioned to win

VCs have mainly backed four categories of consumer longevity startups. Each has an end-goal of owning as much of the data stack and consumer journey as possible. We’ll analyze the pros & cons of each model:

1. Digital clinics

2. In-person clinics

3. Wearables

4. Supplements

Digital Clinics

Digital clinics are probably the hottest consumer longevity category. Last summer, the three-year-old Function Health reported 50K paying members and 200K waitlisted. Fully activated, assuming $500 ARPU, that’s $125M annual revenue. I wouldn’t be surprised if revenue’s doubled since. Another player, Superpower, raised $28M after driving 150K waitlist signups in just six months. Most digital clinics are essentially white label testing, analyzing the results, and providing feedback through an AI-generated report or telemedicine. The largest players have started with genomic testing, but others are focusing on different parts of the omic stack like epigenetics (e.g. TruDiagnostic) and microbiome (e.g. Viome).

The big unlock of digital clinics is the 10x better user experience. If you wanted to test 100+ biomarkers through traditional healthcare, you’d have to visit your doctor, get them to bill insurance, and probably not even get clear feedback on all your results. (E.g. it’s possible that you heard about Lp(a) levels linked to heart disease on Peter Attia’s podcast, but your doctor isn’t familiar with it). However, products like Function let you visit any one of 2,000+ Quest outposts, get your blood drawn, and receive insights through a sleek digital report. All for $500/year. That isn’t affordable for all Americans but still cheaper than other longevity products we’ll discuss later. Digital clinics are simply convenient – and that’s allowed clinics like Function to build their customer base and brand quickly.

Two major trends are propelling digital clinics. One is the growth of telemedicine; some startups like Lifeforce are leaning into virtual clinician care. But the more novel trend is AI-powered care. LLMs, trained with the right datasets, will soon be able to provide clinician-level care. Already, Reddit’s filled with stories like this one – of someone researching symptoms on ChatGPT and discovering something that doctors missed. Superpower is leaning heavily into their concierge chatbot. Last week, their new product lead wrote a great substack about why he left medicine to try to build an AI doctor.

All that said, the existential question for digital clinics is: How effective can AI doctors be? For every person who was helped by Dr ChatGPT, there are probably dozens who got told false information. If you comb through Reddit/Biohackers, you’ll see a lot of people complain that their Function reports feel too AI-generated and lack actionable insights. The bottleneck probably isn’t model quality. Rather, it’s the ability to get hands on the right medical datasets and build consumer trust.

Another question is how instructive a blood panel or saliva test can be. Many people are going to sign up for the novelty. But once that wears off, years 2 & 3 retention could become a problem. At the end of the day, if digital clinics cannot drive real health outcomes, they’ll struggle to retain customers. Digital clinics might have built impressive waitlists and headline ARR numbers to date, but their durability is still to be seen.

Lastly, it’s worth asking how large the moat is for a digital clinic. Superpower was founded after Function but quickly built a waitlist half the size of Function’s customer base. The barriers for entry for a new digital clinic are (reductively) establishing a partnership with Labcorp or Quest and then building an AI chatbot, which is proving easier and easier. Maybe the winning companies will build healthier gross margins as they add more add-ons and gain more pricing power. But at the end of the day, if the barriers to entry are low, more digital clinics will emerge and compete away already slim margins.

In-person clinics

While digital clinics win on scalability, in-person clinics win on depth of care.

In the US, there are ~800 concierge longevity clinics. Several have raised VC funding, including Remedy Place, Biograph and Next Health. Note: There’s no single definition of a longevity clinic – largely because most blur the line between healthcare, wellness and aesthetic medicine. Arguably female-focused medspas like Ever/body and male-focused TRT mills like Gameday Men’s Health could be considered longevity clinics.

But the throughline between all the emerging in-person clinics is the following: They offer a luxury, high-touch, and comprehensive brick-and-mortar experience. Members visit a clinic, do comprehensive testing, get feedback from a clinician, and receive a mix of therapies on-site. Members pay anywhere from $10K-$50K/year upfront, not including additional a la carte treatments. Most clinics have opened in wealthy markets like New York, San Francisco and South Florida.

There’s a lot to like about this model. Firstly, in-person clinics are hands-down the most likely to drive real health outcomes today. Clinics combine multiple tests and regimens under one roof – with human clinician guidance. Furthermore, these clinics are one-stop-shops and can upsell throughout the customer journey. Lastly, when consumers visit a brick-and-mortar site, they’re likely to build brand affinity and stickiness.

On a related note: An interesting segment to watch - similar to in-person clinics - are gyms. Last year, Equinox launched Optimize by Equinox, a $40K/year service that includes a series of blood, V02 Max, strength and other tests – combined with a personalized health program. The challenge is Equinox’s core competencies are 1) building four-wall experiences, and 2) marketing. Not healthcare or software. Equinox has notoriously struggled with software like its digital fitness app and its exercise bikes. However, gyms already tap into a meaningful share of consumers’ wallets, and people visit them multiple times a week, so gyms could become interesting players.

All that said, the in-person clinic model also has challenges. First, clinics are prohibitively expensive. As a result, most clinic members are wealthy individuals, ages 45-60, and customer acquisition costs are exorbitant. In order to reach the masses, clinics will need to significantly scale down price (which would require insurance integration).

Second, brick-and-mortar clinics are high CapEx. They take more time and capital to scale than most VC investments. Modern Age, which raised $33M and opened a flagship New York Flatiron clinic in 2022, shut its doors in 2024 because it ran out of runway.

Lastly, many of the tests and treatments done by these clinics are controversial within the medical community. For example, there’s widespread doubt that preventative full-body MRIs improve health outcomes, and a lot of pushback against unproven stem cell treatments. (Here’s Andrew Huberman recently talking about the dangers of stem cells).

Wearables

Wearable companies are another interesting segment to watch. Oura doesn’t just want to sell a ring. It now offers a meal logging tool, an AI advisor chatbot, and integrations with Dexom’s glucose monitor and menstrual cycle apps like Flo. Ultrahuman, an India-based Oura competitor, is also expanding its product offerings. It cross-sells its ring with a CGM and a Home product that monitors things like air quality and temperature.

Wearable companies have a few advantages. First, they’ve reached far greater scale than digital or in-person longevity clinics. 44% of Americans owned a wearable health tracking device as of 2023 (up from 21% in 2019). Winners like Oura – which has sold 2.5M+ rings – have strong national brands and balance sheets to grow in other verticals. Second, people are accustomed to checking their wearables every single day. Many Oura owners check their sleep score first thing in the morning. Third, wearable companies have pretty large barriers to entry, as both hardware, software and supply chain businesses. It’s harder to build a new Oura than a new Function. Fourth, and arguably most important, wearables collect health data every single day. Whereas a clinic might collect your vitals twice a year, wearables know your sleep, HRV and other biometrics every day. That’s critical data that only they own.

One challenge is wearable companies definitively are not healthcare companies. Skeptics argue that most consumer-grade sensors aren’t yet diagnostic-grade, even if they’re directionally accurate. And most physicians still view wearables as lifestyle devices, not healthcare tools. Last week, the FDA sent Whoop a warning letter saying it’s marketing a new blood pressure feature without proper approvals. Another challenge is device abandonment. Consumers often buy wearables for the novelty, stop using them, and watch them collect dust. About one-third of Americans stop using their wearables within the first six months.

Supplements

The last market segment we’ll mention are supplements. Startups like Elysium Health and NOVOS have raised VC funding to sell pill stacks made of ingredients like NAD+ boosters, spermidine and urolithin A. These ingredients and others are often tied to aging in academic research and loosely backed by preclinical data – but rarely have definitive clinical results. Some companies like Bryan Johnson’s Blueprint and Peter Attia’s Tally Health bundle supplements with age testing kits.

Supplements’ main advantage is that they’re supremely easy for consumers. About three-quarters of Americans consume dietary supplements. Especially with DTC, many Americans are accustomed to keeping their Athletic Greens subscription on automatic reorder and taking it every day – even if the effect is more placebo than anything. It’s much lower effort to take supplements than going to the gym or changing your diet. And consumers have willingness to pay because of the (real or perceived) effect on health. Another positive is supplements are a high gross margin business (often 70-90%).

The question is how effective supplements actually are. Most compounds cited in longevity stacks are linked to promising animal data, but aren’t supported by large-scale, long-term human trials. The whole category lives in a gray zone between validated science and wishful thinking. In fact, in recent years the FDA’s cracked down on NMN, a popular anti-aging supplement. If any one pill is going to hit venture-scale, it will likely come from one of the deep BioTech companies raising billions to fund decade-long drug development cycles, targeting aging at the cellular level. For example, in 2022 Altos Labs emerged from stealth with $3B in funding and a wildly ambitious plan to reverse aging. If one of these drugs works, then we’ll probably see rapid society-wide adoption, similar to GLP-1s.

PART 3: Our investment criteria for the longevity space

Each model discussed above has its own pros and cons. But we believe that a common set of criteria can be used to evaluate any longevity startup, regardless of model.

Below are the five questions we’d ask when evaluating any investment in the consumer longevity space.

1. Do they create sticky feedback loops that drive behavior change?

The best longevity platforms will have the same consumer loop: test → intervene → improve → retest. Today, the two stickiest loops are 1) sleep trackers, and 2) CGMs. With Oura, you check your sleep score, see you slept poorly, make adjustments the next night, and improve. With Levels, you eat a meal, see your blood sugar spike, change what you eat the next day, and try again. But feedback loops get harder as testing grows less frequent and interventions more holistic. Take a gut microbiome test. You might receive a set of personalized diet recommendations. But to really assess the intervention, you’d have to track everything you eat and drink over the next 6-12 months. It gets even more difficult if you layer on exercise, stress and other inputs. A major blind spot is that some longevity products track your body’s outputs (e.g. bloodwork), but not inputs. Slight aside, but I’m personally curious to try the OpenAI x Jony Ive consumer device, rumored to be a screenless, audio-based device. A device that tracks environmental inputs just through audio (e.g. detecting you’re at the gym, or hearing what you ordered at a restaurant) could be an effective form factor for inputting behavior.

2. Can they prove real health outcomes that build trust?

Longevity startups can acquire customers by promising health outcomes. But the only way they will retain customers is by delivering meaningful, measurable health outcomes. Otherwise, customers will churn from their $500/year bloodwork or $30K/year clinic membership. Biograph claims that since opening its first clinic, more than 15% of members have reported they have discovered urgent or life-altering health insights – from cancer to cardiovascular and neurodegenerative diseases. I haven’t vetted that number, but if true that’s exactly the result needed to drive customers back. The longevity space is full of salespeople that blur the line between medical professional and social media influencer. It’s also filled with therapies and products that have not been clinically tested. Long-term, the best longevity companies will be the ones that drive real health outcomes.

3. Do they own a proprietary, multi-modal and longitudinal dataset?

AI investors have repeated it to death: data is a critical moat. The most valuable longevity companies will have data that is three things: proprietary (not owned by third parties), multi-modal (across blood, sleep, scans, etc.) and longitudinal (tracked over time). One common misconception is confusing data with the infrastructure that collects it. I’ve heard critics write off Function as a Quest Diagnostics wrapper. Sure, Quest sells biomarker testing for $250-400 and Function marks it up for $500. But the testing infrastructure is a commodity. The real value is in owning the data layer and downstream consumer applications. When one company owns larger data sets, it can spot patterns no one else can. It can connect bloodwork to sleep, or glucose crashes to exercise. That unlocks better recommendations, better outcomes, and a system that gets smarter with every user.

4. Do they have an asymmetric go-to-market advantage?

The best longevity startups won’t win on paid ads; they’ll have unfair marketing advantages. Many of the best-funded startups in the space are led by creators and thought leaders. Bryan Johnson, the space’s best-known influencer with 4M followers, sells white-labeled supplements and testing kits, thanks to his reach. (It’s worth nothing that the other day he tweeted about looking for a CEO & CTO to develop software too). Interestingly, many longevity creators in this space aren’t just entertainers, they’re clinicians. Function’s co-founder Mark Hyman previously ran Cleveland Clinic’s Center for Functional Medicine. He also has ten published books, 1.4M YouTube subs, and appearances on every major health & business podcast. In this substack, I wrote about investing in creator-led CPG brands. Many of the same principles apply here: the creator’s ability to convert product, the creator’s right to win in their market, etc. Another hack that we’ll see more of is marketing a product towards a sub-sect of the market, instead of marketing to the general health-conscious consumer. Take Eternal, Alex Mather’s new startup targeting former elite athletes. It’s not trying to serve everyone. It’s building credibility with one pocket of the market, then expanding from there.

CONCLUSION

To wrap up, here’s what what we believe at Will Ventures:

• Now is the time to build the full-stack longevity platform of the future.

• Each model – from in-person clinics to digital clinics to more – has its own pros & cons.

• But every longevity business will need sticky feedback loops, real health outcomes, a data moat, and an unfair GTM advantage.

If you’re building in the longevity space, we would love to hear your thoughts and get to know you.

The match was viewed by more people than the Super Bowl, NBA Finals, Stanley Cup Finals, and World Series combined.

Note: World Series, NBA Finals, and Stanley Cup are averages of series

Source: Will Ventures analysis; League-reported data; Nielsen

This milestone is more than just a reflection of cricket’s dominance. It is a signal that India is capable of supporting scaled, world-class businesses in sports, media, and entertainment. While much of the value created to date has concentrated around cricket, there are clear indicators that the broader landscape is evolving.

A few long-term trends excite me about India’s potential:

• India will have 900 million internet users in 2025 - this number is growing by 10% every year

• India’s middle class is expected to grow from 30 percent of the population today to 60 percent over the next 2 decades

• More than 40 percent of Indian sports fans are Gen Z, mostly consuming sports content digitally

Source: Deloitte / Google Unlocking India’s $130B Sports Potential

Now, India is not without its challenges. There are several challenges that investors, operators, and founders must contemplate:

1. Over-concentration on cricket: Cricket drives ~85% of domestic sports sponsorship revenue and media coverage. Other sports are underfunded and have minimal exposure

2. Monetization: ARPU numbers in India are weaker relative to other countries, given lower household income. Users are less willing to spend on subscription while ad monetization is much lower than in Western markets.

3. User retention and engagement: Given the myriad of entertainment options, new apps often see an initial spike in users but then struggle with retention. Content fatigue is a real-risk as users quickly grow tired of repetitive or low-quality content. While this is not unique to India, India’s LTV being lower than other markets makes retention more important

4. Regulatory and legal risks: The policy environment can change quickly in India with shifts in political party. Recently, for example, real money fantasy sports and online gaming startups have faced increasing regulator scrutiny, including a new 28% GST tax.

Despite these hurdles, several companies have shown that leading businesses can be built in sports & media in India. In just the past few years, we’ve seen major successes across categories:

• Fantasy Sports: Dream11, India’s leading real money fantasy sports platform, raised $840M in 2021 at a $8B valuation. As of FY 2023, the business generated $750mm+ of revenue and was profitable

• Media and Apparel: FanCode, a sports streaming and commerce company, raised $50M in 2021 from parent company Dream Sports

• Music: The 2018 merger between Jio Music and Saavn created a $1B+ subscription music product similar to Spotify

• Live Events: BookMyShow, an online platform for ticketing purchases, raised $100M from TPG Growth in 2018 and has reportedly had discussions with KKR on a minority investment between $250-$300M

These outcomes provide an extremely strong foundation for the next wave of builders. Looking ahead, I believe four areas will drive the next phase of growth in Indian sports and media.

1. Emerging sports leagues

2. Recreational participation in sports

3. A new generation of media companies

4. Gaming and fantasy sports platforms

This article will focus on the first two: the rise of new domestic leagues and recreational participation in sports.

1) Emerging Sports Leagues

The IPL has arguably been the most successful launch of a new sporting league ever. The success of IPL creates a very compelling model for other emerging sports leagues to consider in India.

Now re-creating the success of the IPL isn’t easy - if it were, several of the other emerging sports leagues that have started in India would have fared better. The IPL had 3 major things going for it:

1. Star Power and Entertainment Value: The IPL was immediately able to attract Bollywood celebrities like Shah Rukh Khan and Preity Zinta who immediately put the league onto the map. The level of buy-in these owners brought will be tough for other leagues to replicate. The IPL was also one of the first leagues in India to merge sports & entertainment, incorporating Bollywood celebrities, music, and cheerleaders for the first time.

2. Innovative Format: The IPL was launched in part to grow the game of T20 cricket in India. A more dynamic, fast-paced (20 overs vs. 50 overs), and accessible form of cricket capitalized on a built-in audience and grew it significantly. This format allowed for matches that were more engaging and also better suited for broadcasting.

3. Day 1 Commercial Model: The IPL had a very thoughtful franchise structure, immediate media rights deals, and built-in brand sponsorships that created a profitable business model quickly. Coupled with deep-pocketed ownership groups, the IPL was able to create a sustainable economic structure almost instantaneously.

Despite the unique factors that led to the IPL’s explosion (highly recommend the Acquired Podcast on IPL’s origin), I think some of that success can be replicated. Nearly 20 years after the IPL was first founded, I think it is time for India to create the next great domestic sports league.

Any successful new league in India will need to approach things a little differently. To that end, I believe the next generation of successful Indian sports leagues will share three characteristics:

• Digital-focused distribution: Given the scale of India’s digital audience, especially on platforms like YouTube, it is important to optimize for maximum distribution and not keep content behind a paywall or on legacy broadcast distribution. This means making all media free-to-air, including full matches, behind the scenes content, and original series related to players.

• Innovative formats focused on virality and gamification: Similar to how the IPL spearheaded a new cricket format, new leagues will need to optimize for shorter matches (designed for shorter attention spans) with entertainment at the forefront of gameplay, while not compromising competition.

• Leverage celebrities & creators to drive awareness: New leagues will need to tap into existing fanbases of Bollywood stars, YouTube creators, and other influencers to generate early momentum. Having them as owners and ambassadors for these leagues will allow for cross-promotion and drive awareness and distribution from day 1.

Here are 2 thought-starters I have for Indian sports leagues (would love to hear what new leagues in India would excite you):

• Creator driven cricket league

• A new combat league (MMA, Kabaddi, etc.)

Creator Driven Cricket League

As mentioned earlier, YouTube is India’s biggest media platform (500M MAUs, 120M DAUs averaging an hour a day on the platform). The proliferation of YouTube has created a network of top digital creators and influencers - many of whom are already massive sports fans.

While the IPL has innovated on the game of cricket, it is still only a 2 month tournament aimed at existing cricket fans. The popularity of cricket is actually declining among younger fans (a 2020 survey showed that only ~30% of Indians under 25 are very interested in cricket), many of whom are used to consuming media in new formats.

A shorter format cricket league that is owned and operated by India’s top digital creators and influencers would solve some of these issues. Imagine a 6-8 team league with matches optimized for digital-first consumption. Teams would be run by India’s biggest YouTubers and Bollywood stars, which would allow for built-in distribution and engagement.

With creators serving as team owners, match commentators, and league marketers, the league would be an intriguing blend of competition and entertainment. The league could further innovate on format, reducing to 10 or 15 over matches with modified rules and gamification, similar to what Kings League has done in soccer in Spain and around the world.

The league could air for free on YouTube, maximizing distribution for an audience that is hesitant to pay for content. This would also maximize commercial and sponsorship potential.

Obviously, the tradeoff between quality of play and entertainment value would be critical for an Indian audience where cricket is taken seriously. However, if a league is able to land on the right mix, it will be able to unlock a new generation of Indian fans and potentially expand geographically into other markets where cricket is popular or growing - think other parts of Asia, UK, Australia, South Africa, and the Middle East.

Emerging leagues have been targeting new generations of fans: TGL in golf, Kings League in soccer, The Snow League in winter sports. Similarly, a creator-owned cricket league that merges entertainment and competition can be India’s next big sports property.

A new combat league (MMA, Kabaddi, etc.)

There has been growing interest in combat sports across India, especially among younger male consumers. This momentum is real and has been driven largely by support from major Bollywood actors and creator involvement.

Still, this growth must contend with the fact that combat infrastructure is lacking in India, including a lack of gyms (MMA gyms only present in major markets), minimal government support, and grassroots interest paling in comparison to other sports. Furthermore, there have been no big Indian MMA stars, which historically has been a leading indicator of whether a country will become fanatical about MMA.

Regional properties like ONE Championship have tried to make inroads in India, but they have struggled to create local interest. This is primarily due to a lack of buy-in from regional athletes, a cultural connection, and grassroots infrastructure.

While many of these issues need to be solved, I think creating a new combat sports entity that combines Kabaddi, MMA, and other combat sports is interesting. A new league could build on the Pro Kabaddi League’s franchise model (built around regional teams in underserved markets) and layer in athlete and creator ownership, a hyperlocalized marketing strategy, and a focus on digital-first, viral content..

Imagine a league that heavily involves Bollywood celebrities, other prominent Indian athletes and top creators. The league could consider a team-based format anchored around regional cities in India, with each team having athletes competing in MMA, Kabaddi, and other sports. The league, similar to the IPL, would operate on a tight 2-3 month season which would maintain interest and allow top athletes to compete around the world. Finally, similar to the new cricket league I proposed, this league should be free on YouTube vs. behind a PPV paywall. Monetization should focus on sponsorships and advertising, with initial funding coming from team sales and naming rights.

This league would build on the popularity of Kabaddi and growing interest in other sports like MMA. Leveraging the deep history of combat sports in India, I think this new league could generate significant early momentum, especially in Tier 2 Indian Markets that have been neglected in professional sports.

While mass fandom through new leagues can power the flywheel, recreational participation is essential to building the sports base in India. That is why tools, platforms, and infrastructure that increase participation in sports in India are so necessary.

2) Recreational participation in sports

Participation in sports across India has grown rapidly, especially among younger generations. Disposable income has increased, health and wellness have become more mainstream, and new government programs have been established to drive more sports participation.

In addition to cricket, racquet sports (pickleball, padel, tennis), running, and soccer are all growing quickly in participation. Still, while 70% of young Indians participate in sports, only 10% of adults are active participants. This gap needs to be addressed and is quickly closing due to investment by the public and private sector.

Government support will continue to play a central role in scaling access. Khelo India, a government initiative, now has 1,000+ training centers around the country with a goal of building long-term infrastructure in preparation for a 2036 Olympic bid. The government is also increasing budget allocation towards sports considerably. Moving forward, local community and school-level partnerships will be critical in driving sustained participation.

As support across India improves and participation rates improve as well - athletes, coaches, and facility operators will have more complex needs. There will be increased demand for tools that improve training quality, reduce logistical complexity, and increase access to facilities.

This shift creates a wide range of investment opportunities:

• Personalized coaching and performance tracking platforms

• Discovery, booking, and facility management tools

• Infrastructure access and enablement in underserved regions

Personalized Coaching and Performance Tracking Platforms

As recreational participation in sports grows, I expect Indian consumers to increasingly seek structured, tech-enabled coaching solutions. Several startups have emerged, such as GameTheory and KheloMore, that have proven the demand for digital coaching and discovery platforms. That being said, there is an opportunity to improve personalization as smartphone penetration continues to increase and AI makes individualized training and real-time feedback much more feasible.

Subscription models remain challenging in India due to lower ARPU and consumer resistance, but freemium models and B2B partnerships with schools, academies, and community organizations show promise. Internationally, Strava’s recent acquisition of Runna, an AI-powered platform for personalized running plans, signals growing global interest in this category. A similar approach could be localized effectively for India across a range of sports.

Beyond coaching, there’s a significant opportunity to build a community-first performance tracking platform. India could use a product that looks a lot like Strava and allows users to track progress, build digital communities around their sport of choice, and benchmark performance. India already has deeply built-in social-first behavior and a platform like this could unlock network effects that will allow a company like this to improve monetization, which has been difficult to achieve in India thus far.

Platforms focused on discovery, booking, and facility management

While the demand for coaching and training services will increase in India, there needs to be significant improvement in the tech infrastructure that makes it easy for participation. The process of booking a pickleball court or cricket pitch is highly manual today. Many bookings are done via WhatsApp or through the phone, and there are many facilities that are underutilized due to a lack of participant awareness. Accordingly, facility operators are usually managing their scheduling manually and also don’t have basic payment tools.

There have been several startups that have emerged in this category, but the space remains highly fragmented. I believe there will be a massive business that creates a platform that makes booking courts & facilities easy for participants and scheduling & payments seamless for operators.

For operators: this platform would create tools to manage scheduling, payments, and communication to improve utilization and drive incremental revenue. This platform would make operations seamless, similar to what LeagueApps has done in the US in Youth Sports. For consumers - this would allow for better access and visibility into court / pitch availability and improve participation rates. Over time, this platform could also build in social features similar to what Strava and AllTrails have done.

Beyond private operators, this platform could integrate with public sports facilities or school infrastructure during off-hours when these spaces are unused. These partnerships could rapidly increase inventory while improving community access to sports in a convenient way.

In addition to convenience, a centralized platform would also help standardize quality and pricing across facilities. Today, consumer experience can vary widely depending on location or operator and there is often no formal rating mechanism. Introducing reviews, verified listings, and standardized pricing tiers would help drive trust and repeat usage. Businesses like this have existed in other markets. Playtomic for example is a leading app that connects racquet sports players and clubs.

Infrastructure and access in rural areas

While India’s big cities have significantly improved their sports facilities and infrastructure, there are many parts of rural India that don’t have access to quality coaching and consistent facilities.

Existing fields and courts are not maintained or available during hours when people are most likely to play and as a result millions of potential participants cannot play organized sports. Furthermore, the majority of funds from the Indian government’s initiatives are not going to develop sports in rural areas (see below).

This lack of funding is a big opportunity. Although it is not likely that facilities can be built in every major town, there are ways to create infrastructure that is scalable. Portable pitches, nets, and multipurpose surfaces would bring just the basic necessities to areas that otherwise. Agreements between schools, housing societies, or public spaces could also unlock any inventory that exists today to be used during off-hours without any major capital investment.

Technology will be key to unlocking this. Even a lightweight platform that helps create communities around sport and coordinate group activities in nearby areas could go a long way in improving utilization. As smartphone penetration increases in rural India, digital tools that make sporting facility access more transparent will become increasingly valuable. Ultimately, for India to become the next frontier in participatory sports, the rural population must be addressed.

–

Emerging sports leagues and recreational participation in sports are just two areas I’m closely tracking in India. India is building a sports powerhouse, and I’m excited to see the many $1B+ businesses in sport that will be built in the country.

If you are operating, investing, or starting any company in India around any of these spaces or adjacent areas, please reach out! I’d love to meet you.

There’s a long-running narrative that Israel doesn’t produce great consumer startups.

Here’s the argument… Israel’s a country of less than ten million people. To get to venture-scale, Israeli consumer startups must sell internationally early on. From abroad, it’s incredibly difficult to 1) understand your customer and 2) build the right distribution relationships. Hence, most Israeli VC-backed startups cluster around B2B and hard tech industries like cybersecurity.

But Israeli B2C startups are increasingly thriving. VC funding of Israeli consumer tech startups grew 7X from 2013-2023. And in the last couple years, we’ve seen multiple large exits across categories. For example:

• Oddity, a DTC beauty and wellness company, IPO’d at $2.3B in 2023

• Resident, an online mattress and bedding retailer, sold for $1B in 2024

• eToro, a stock and crypto trading platform, IPO’d at $4.3B in May

Looking forward, we’ll likely see more success stories, thanks to a few tailwinds.

1. Israel’s early consumer successes are incubating more great founder talent to launch new startups. For example, the mobile gaming giant Playtika IPO in 2021. A few Playtika alumni left to start the studio Superplay, which they sold back to Playtika for $1.95B in 2024.

2. Digital marketing and product-building are increasingly driven by data science as opposed to intuition – and that favors Israel’s deep pools of technical talent. Consumer startups are using more A/B testing, advanced analytics and machine learning to fine-tune product features, personalize user journeys, and optimize marketing funnels.

3. As Israel grows GDP and expands trade relationships, Israelis will only become more culturally connected to the rest of the world and interested in building for international consumers. Since the 2023 Abraham Accords Israel’s significantly boosted trade with the UAE, and many are now asking what a potential Saudi Arabian normalization agreement could bring.

At Will Ventures, we’re excited by the growth of Israel’s consumer tech sector – because it’s giving rise to more startups in the sectors we cover: sports, media and entertainment.

In fact, Israel has already produced major outcomes across these sectors. Here’s a sampling of ten VC-backed startups that have all have either exited or raised large growth rounds in the last five years.

(It’s worth noting: These aren’t just B2C startups, but also B2B startups that power consumer businesses. For example, IronSource is a B2B player that provides critical infrastructure for B2C gaming companies.)

As these companies inspire the next wave of founders, we expect to see more great Israeli companies emerge across sports, media and entertainment. Specifically, I’ll highlight three spaces that I believe are primed for growth in Israel.

1. Gaming

2. Media Production

3. Sports Team Ownership

Subscribe now

1. Gaming

Around the late 80s / early 90s, Israel’s military was at the forefront of pioneering modern-day data science. Functions like signals intelligence required handling complicated datasets and extracting actionable insights. So the military trained hordes of young Israelis. Meanwhile, universities like the Technion became research hubs.

By the mid 2000s, Israel had a critical mass of talent that understood data science – and started applying their expertise to digital marketing. Think early Google and Facebook ads. Israel was never a hub for consumer goods (e.g. appliances or apparel); market size and geography made these businesses tougher. But mobile gaming was one industry where 1) distribution was fully digital, and 2) success hinged on performance marketing expertise. Essentially, the only metric that matters in gaming is the CAC-LTV ratio. Data science can help optimize that. So Israel’s human capital flowed towards gaming businesses.

By 2006, two B2B betting startups, 888 Holdings and Playtech both had major exits around $1B. Those two companies gave rise to talent pools and more massive gaming outcomes in the last twenty years.

We’ve seen more B2B tools for gaming companies emerge. SBTech, which provides a suite of tools for betting operators, merged with DraftKings as part of their SPAC at a $656M valuation in 2020. Or a much larger outcome: ironSource, which provides a UA & monetization engine for mobile game developers, went public at $11B in 2021 and was ultimately acquired by Unity in 2022.

We’ve also seen multiple successful B2C gaming operators, largely around social casino and hypercasual games. For example, Playtika and Moon Active are both developers / publishers last valued at $1.8B and $5B, respectively. (I’d caveat that Playtika IPO’d at $11.1B back in 2021, and Moon Active’s mark is from 2021).

Looking forward… For social casino and hypercasual games, growth has slowed since their 2018-2022 boom. But AI can drastically cheapen content development and boost monetization efficiency, so new developers can differentiate there. Skills-based games, which blend casual gameplay with real-money mechanics, are another niche to track. Israel’s produced the category’s top incumbent Papaya Gaming and emergents like Bring It On.

Lastly, as sports betting and iCasino industries develop in the US and other markets, there’s whitespace for new B2C operators who can do user acquisition & monetization more efficiently or target legal niches, and B2B companies that provide these tools to existing operators. One interesting B2C startup is Geckos Games, a senior team from 888 Holdings that launched Thrillzz, a sweepstakes sportsbook (a la Fliff) targeting American bettors.

Here are two articles I recently wrote about whitespaces in real-money gaming and video games.

2. Media Production

Another consumer tech niche where Israel has produced disproportionate winners is media production.

Similar to gaming, this sector grew out of the military. Israel’s military has historically been at the forefront of computer vision, the AI subsector that helps interpret real-world images and video. Computer vision’s critical to reconnaissance, missile detection and other military functions.

In the 2010s, Israeli founders started applying what they learned in the military to commercial sectors. For example, Gal Oz spent nine years in the military working on drone computer vision before cofounding Pixellot, which uses computer vision to automatically track and produce streams of sports events. Pixellot, last valued at $500M is a category leader in amateur sports video production. Another interesting B2B company is WSC Sports, last valued at $695M, which helps leagues like the NBA automatically clip highlights.

But computer vision’s applications aren’t limited to B2B. Lightricks, last valued at $1.8B, specializes in consumer-facing AI-powered photo and video editing tools. Their most popular app Facetune is wildly popular for retouching Instagram photos.

In terms of what’s next, I’d highlight a few niches of media production. Microdrama apps – i.e. short-form, vertical video apps (think Quibi 2.0) – are growing rapidly in the US and Europe; multiple Israeli teams are building in this space. Drone cinematography is another space to watch; the military’s deep expertise around drones could give Israeli founders a real edge in automating and cheapening high-quality content capture. Lastly, as AI models upend image and video production pipelines, I could see Israeli startups succeeding around data labeling infrastructure, B2B AI media production tools, and even B2C AI-powered content studios.

3. Team Ownership

This last category – pro sports team ownership – is less relevant for early-stage investors. But I think the asset class has room for growth in Israel.

Across Europe, pro teams are increasingly seen as financial assets. As of 2023, over one third of clubs in Europe’s “Big Five” soccer leagues had some form of private capital ownership. But Israeli clubs haven’t seen the same influx of capital. I’d attribute that to two reasons: 1) Israeli clubs have smaller fanbases and businesses than top European clubs, and 2) more investors are probably hesitant to invest in fixed assets in Israel given geopolitical concerns.

That said, Israel’s sports ecosystem looks a lot like those of European countries. Israel’s top two soccer divisions drove ~$220M in revenue in the 2022-23 season. That’s roughly the size of a second- or third-tier league in a Big 5 market, or the top division of a smaller market like Poland. In terms of competition, multiple clubs have qualified for the Champions League group stage in the past (most recently Maccabi Haifa in 2023). Plenty of European clubs similar in size to Israel’s have raised private capital.

Israeli basketball teams are also appealing assets. Maccabi Tel Aviv is a mainstay of the Euroleague, and Hapoel Tel Aviv qualified for the Euroleague this year. Some Israeli teams have tried expanding their fanbases by playing preseason games against NBA teams. Israeli basketball could get even more interesting as the NBA launches a new European league and commercializes the ecosystem better.

Professionalized and sports-savvy family offices could be acquirers. For example, in 2023 the Adelson family, which owns the Dallas Mavericks, bought a 90% stake in the Hapoel Jerusalem basketball team. There are many international Jews who give philanthropically to Israel; for example Patriot owner Bob Kraft has funded the amateur Israel Football League and a major sports complex in Jerusalem. And these Jews could be interested in owning a trophy sports asset in Israel. Israel also continues to produce more billionaires capable of buying a team, from the shipping mogul Idan Ofer (who owns a 33% stake in Atlético Madrid and a majority stake in Portugal’s Famalicao) to the four Wiz founders (who are each taking home $2B post-acquisition).

I think we’ll also see PE firms buy stakes in Israeli teams over the next decade. We might not see megafunds like CVC and Silver Lake enter the market. But plenty of smaller PE firms that backed second- and third-division European clubs could look to buy an Israeli soccer or basketball team. PE-backed ownership groups could inject capital into these clubs to fund more expensive rosters to compete on the European stage; stadium renovations to improve the fan engagement experience; better management teams to optimize the business, and more.

##

Gaming, media production and team ownership are just a sampling of the investment opportunities around Israeli sports, entertainment and consumer.

If you’re operating, investing or starting a company in Israel around any of these spaces or adjacent ones, please reach out. The Will Ventures team would love to meet you.

In our last article, “The $5 Billion Creator HoldCo,” we wrote about investing in the holding companies that own all of a creator’s assets, from content earnings to creator-led brands.

This next article is about investing in creator-led brands. In 2025, more creators than ever are launching their own beauty, apparel and food & beverage products — and looking to raise venture capital.

(Small note: I broadly define a creator as any YouTuber, athlete, actor or other celebrity with a large audience.)

On one hand, it’s a great time for creator brands to raise VC funding. In the last six months, CPG saw more exits than any other sector, from Poppi ($1.95B) to Siete Foods ($1.2B) to Simple Mills ($795M) to LesserEvil ($750M). Consumer VC investment activity is rebounding from its 2022-23 slump. And probably most importantly, there are major secular tailwinds: Consumers continue to spend more time on social media and put more trust in their favorite creators over corporate brands.

Hence many creator brands are thriving. A couple data points that bullish investors are recently pointing to are: Hailey Bieber’s Rhode exploring a sale around $1B, and MrBeast’s Feastables hitting $250M in revenue. So just as we’ve seen massive outcomes like Rihanna’s Fenty ($2.8B valuation) and Kim Kardashian’s SKIMS ($4B) over the last decade, we’ll likely see new household-name creator brands emerge over the next decade.

But there’s one glaring problem: In 2025, it feels like we’re at peak creator-led brand.

The Information put it well:

“On Tuesday, makeup artist Mikayla Nogueira, who has over 16 million followers on TikTok, announced a skincare line, Point of View. The same day, TikTok and Instagram star Alix Earle helped relaunch SipMargs, a line of canned margaritas. Pash, a lotion brand from reality star and influencer Harry Jowsey, started selling Wednesday, as did new iced lattes from actress Millie Bobby Brown’s coffee brand. And last week, longtime creator Brent Rivera announced his new chip brand, Levels, at a food industry conference. Have we officially hit the saturation point for creator brands?”

To make it worse: Creators are launching overlapping products and making categories more competitive. Take sports drinks… In the last three years, Logan Paul & KSI launched Prime, Messi launched Mas+ and Alex Cooper launched Unwell. Either the TAM gets subdivided; maybe Paul & KSI win Gen Zers, Messi wins soccer players, and Cooper wins women. Or, more likely, it gets harder for any brand to become a category leader like Gatorade. We’re seeing similar competitive dynamics play out across clean beauty, better-for-you snacks, and fast fashion lines.

Meanwhile, consumers feel less novelty around buying creator-led brands, and more skepticism around cash grabs – while investors are both sobered by the 2020-21 DTC boom, and increasingly aware that a creator’s massive audience doesn’t equate to a new brand’s success.

This all begs the question: How does one invest in creator-led brands, at peak creator-led brand?

Below I share my framework for analyzing creator-led brand investments, and a few predictions for where the space will go over the next decade.

Subscribe now

Here are the five most important questions I’d ask when evaluating a creator-led brand investment:

1. Does the business have strong underlying fundamentals outside the creator?

These are the table stakes. No matter how large the creator’s audience, the creator-led brand must have the same strong fundamentals that VCs would look for in any non-creator-led brand. The CEO and rest of the team must be top-caliber, with experience building in their category. (Creators often run into trouble if they’re creatives and not traditional entrepreneurs by nature, and if they hire friends instead of seasoned executives). The product must be great and differentiated from those of competitors. Otherwise consumers will trial it once for the novelty and churn. The supplier relationships must provide strong gross margins. And lastly, sales metrics should speak for themselves. LTV-CAC ratios, diversification across retail and DTC channels, sales velocity, and customer retention are all key metrics. The predominant trend of the last few years is consumer VCs are moving later-stage to have these proof points. Fewer VCs are underwriting 10-20x outcomes around pre-seed / seed, and more funds are underwriting 3-5x from Series A and beyond. One cautionary case study for investors is KSI & Logan Paul’s Prime Hydration. The drink surged to $1.3B sales in year 2, but declined 48% in 2024. It’s still likely a great outcome for the first investors. But for later stage investors, Prime is a reminder that there are many more factors at play than a buzzy, creator-led launch.

2. Does the creator convert product?

It’s insufficient for a creator to have high name recognition and a large social media following. The creator must have an ability to convert fans into paying customers. This is a function not of audience size, but of audience engagement and community. One tactic to assess this is analyzing engagement metrics (comments, likes, etc). Some A-listers have massive follower bases especially on Facebook and Instagram but get relatively little engagement on posts. Another tactic is reviewing a creator’s past endorsement deals and understanding how efficiently they converted sales for that brand. This proves that the creator doesn’t just have wide name recognition, but deep loyalty and intent from their fans.

3. Does the creator have a right to win their market?

Here’s an interesting case study of a failed creator-led brand… A few years ago, a “hype house” of teenage male Tik Tokers got pretty popular. They posted a lot of workout videos. So they decided to launch a pre-workout energy drink. Sales flopped. Turns out their most avid followers weren’t other teenage guys going to the gym, but rather teenage girls who had parasocial crushes on the Tik Tokers. That story signifies a larger trend. Too many creators have launched products that a) don’t serve their audience, and/or b) don’t solve a consumer pain point. Some venture studios spend hours reading a creator’s DMs and comments and doing follower interviews just to understand who a creator’s fans are and what product they might want. A creator must have an unfair advantage for their brand to win their product category. One example I really like is Mark Rober. His YouTube videos combine science and engineering content – and his company CrunchLabs sells $30-80 subscription boxes that provide hands-on STEM projects for kids, teens and adults and comes with explanatory content.

4. Will the creator put in the work?

Launching a brand entails a totally different workload than participating in a sponsorship or sweat equity deal. The creator can’t just record evergreen ads and sit back. They must be working 24/7 from launch and beyond to promote their product. Otherwise the brand will fall out of consumers’ minds. A good example is how Tom Holland promoted his new non-alcoholic beer brand BERO: he discussed it on podcasts and Jimmy Fallon and gave tens of interviews, on top of in-person events. Another tactic that’s growing more popular is the creator attending pitch meetings with Walmart, Target, and other large retailers. These appearances can have huge impacts on landing strong retail partnerships. Making time for all these jobs is easier said than done. Hollywood actors have demanding filming schedules, athletes have long seasons, and A-list YouTubers are just as busy. The creator must have both the time and the drive to fully promote their brand.

5. Can the creator be phased out from the brand over time?

One unique aspect of CPG is that the strategic acquirers are clearly defined. In software, it’s nearly-impossible to predict a seed-stage startup’s eventual acquirer. But in food & bev, for example, you can predict it’ll be Pepsi, General Mills, or one of ~15 other acquirers. These corporations struggle to develop new brands from the ground up, so they often acquire emerging brands. But the main question they’ll ask creator-led brands is: Can the brand itself continue thriving without the creator? Take the example of Diageo acquiring George Clooney’s Casamigos. Diageo had to be confident that if Clooney cashed out and took a step back from marketing, then Casamigos would continue to appeal to consumers. (It’s worth noting that acquirers often structure these deals with years-long performance earn-outs). Acquirers also face key man risk if the creator runs into scandals or falls out of popularity. The creator serves a critical role to bring the brand from 1-2. But to go from 1-10, the creator must eventually unwind their personal brand themselves from the product’s brand. A great example is SKIMS. Kim Kardashian appeared in the first ads in 2019, but six years later the brand has its own strong identity and a huge roster of A-list ambassadors from Rosalia to Neymar, as well as an official partnership with the NBA and WNBA. Check out the launch video for SKIMS Mens: the brand has a strong identity without even mentioning Kim.

Over the next decade, I believe investors will hold higher bars for the five criteria above.

I also have two predictions for creator-led brands over the next decade…

Prediction #1 is: Major creator-led brands will emerge in new product categories.

Creator brands have historically concentrated around the same few product categories. According to one 2022 report, beauty and apparel brands made up 63 of the top 100 creator brands. In the last few years, food & beverage brands have also become more common.

There are reasons for this category concentration. First, CPG & apparel lend themselves to creators – because these companies differentiate relatively more on marketing than on product. Second, the barriers to entry to launch a consumer goods brand have drastically decreased thanks to Shopify, Amazon, Stripe and many more e-commerce tools. Third, creator brands rarely create net-new products; rather, creators sell things consumers already want. Everything “better-for-you” has been a dominant consumer trend of the last decade. Hence many creators have launched better-for-you skincare and snack lines.

All that said, I believe we’ll see creators launch brands in new product categories – outside beauty, apparel and F&B. Creators just need to identify the right consumer trend to capitalize on.

One consumer trend I’m watching is the rise of GLP-1s weight-loss drugs. Already, 6 percent of American adults are taking GLP-1s, and that number’s expected to balloon. Weight-loss is a very emotionally-charged experience. Creators who have gone on weight-loss journeys could sell everything from muscle preservation supplements to GLP-1-compatible workout programs to GLP-1s themselves. See how Charles Barkley partnered with the GLP-1 telehealth provider Ro.

I also believe that we’ll see more creators sell not just physical goods – but software products. Why? First, software’s ceiling is higher. VCs generally underwrite CPG investments from $200M-600M, and underwrite software investments to $1B+. Creators can simply drive bigger outcomes with software.

Second, many of the same fundamentals of creator-led marketing apply. With B2C software, we’ve already seen several creators launch fitness apps; examples include Kayla Itsines’ Sweat and Chris Hemsworth’s Centr. Here, the creator’s value-add is pushing consumers to download and engage with the app.

With B2B software, similar to how a creator can attend their brand’s upfront meetings with retailers, a creator can play a role in B2B sales. For example, a couple years ago Robert Downey Jr. partnered with Aura, a unicorn cybersecurity startup. He joined as an investor, brand ambassador and board member with the goal of raising awareness among consumers about how they can protect themselves and their families online. It’s worth noting that as of last week, MrBeast is supposedly recruiting Stanford computer science students “to build something that will fundamentally transform how digital content spreads across the internet.”

Prediction #2 is: Creators will find innovative ways to promote their own brands.

On top of entering new product categories, I believe creators will find new ways to promote their products.

Historically, creators promoted their brands simply by posting on their Instagram, Tik Tok, etc. But creators are finding more innovative ways to activate their audiences.

Social media clipping is one emerging strategy. Here I wrote about how the crypto casino Stake has used clipping to flood X with its logo. Another example I love is how Drake and PartyNextDoor promoted their latest album $$$4U. Using Whop, they created a bounty program, which encouraged fans to make short-form videos with their songs, and paid out up to $1,000 per viral video. The campaign helped many of the songs become trending audio on social.

I also think creators will leverage brand-new platforms and tools to sell products. My colleague Yash recently wrote an article, “The Convergence of Content and Commerce.” He explains how AI tools can make it significantly easier to generate and test marketing assets. For example, Icon can ingest a brand’s existing media assets, generate tailored scripts, assemble ads that are 80-100% complete, and offer fine-tuning with their built-in editor. Yash’s article also touches on the growth of live-shopping platforms like Whatnot and Tik Tok Shop.

Lastly, as digital creators professionalize as businesses, I believe creators will more strategically cross-promote products across their flywheels. To return to point of “The $5 Billion Creator HoldCo,” one thing MrBeast has done extraordinarily well is promote Feastables across every channel possible – from his Amazon series to his YouTube content to his collabs with other creators. I believe more creators will follow this 360 degree marketing playbook.

##

To recap, I think it’s an exciting time to invest in creator-led brands. But in 2025, we’re living at the peak of creator-led brands. So launching and investing in the space requires a different playbook than what’s worked in the past.

If you’re building, operating or investing in creator-led brands, please reach out. I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Look no further than last week, when Apple announced it was exploring a move to AI search after searches on Safari (powered by Google) fell for the first time ever.

Today, discovery starts somewhere else. Consumers are no longer beginning their shopping journey in a search bar. They’re finding products in TikTok hauls, livestream auctions, YouTube reviews, and even chatbot conversations. The funnel has flipped — and with it, the rules of digital advertising are being rewritten. The consumer journey is no longer linear, and the path to purchase doesn’t begin with a search box — it begins with content.

The next decade will be defined by the convergence of content and commerce. Inspiration and transaction are collapsing into the same moment. Shopping is no longer a separate destination — it’s embedded directly in the content people trust, enjoy, and engage with.

Several forces are driving this shift:

• The decline of search as the default entry point: Google’s grip on product discovery is loosening, especially for high-intent queries like “best ___.” Those queries are down — and so is the ad revenue that came with them.

• The rise of content-first discovery: Platforms like TikTok, YouTube, and Instagram aren’t just capturing attention — they’re shaping desire. Users trust these environments to surface products organically, not through ads.

• The compression of the buyer journey through AI: Tools like ChatGPT are replacing traditional browsing. AI is great at answering questions — not introducing new products. In other words, it's high-intent, not high-discovery. If your brand isn’t already known, you may never get surfaced.

• The emergence of commerce-entertainment hybrids: Platforms like Whatnot are turning product discovery into a show. It’s not just about selling — it’s about entertaining while you sell, in real time.

These shifts will only accelerate. ChatGPT is now experimenting with native shopping tools, letting users find, compare, and even buy products without ever leaving the app. It’s a direct shot at Google’s high-intent search business. But here’s the problem: ChatGPT still doesn’t solve for discovery. If consumers don’t already know your brand, AI won’t magically introduce it. It just shortens the path from question to purchase — and that path is getting narrower.

This shift presents a major opportunity for creators and content publishers. As discovery moves beyond search, content is no longer just a tool for inspiration — it’s becoming the point of sale. Content will be where consumer interest is sparked and transactions can happen in the same moment. The line between storytelling and shopping is blurring, and those who create the content are increasingly positioned to drive — and capture — demand.

To unlock the full potential of content-driven commerce, the underlying infrastructure needs to catch up. Specifically, three enablers must evolve:

• Transactional platforms: Consumers need the ability to buy directly from the content that inspires them — whether it’s a video, livestream, or review. That means building seamless, in-context checkout experiences across platforms.

• A scalable ad inventory marketplace: Brands need programmatic access to this new class of content — not just through bespoke influencer deals, but through a liquid, standardized market for native placements within creator and publisher environments.

• Simplified ad creation tools: Producing content that fits these new formats — short-form video, embedded calls-to-action, interactive shoppable media — must be as easy as writing a social post or building a banner ad. Lowering the creative barrier is key to broad adoption.

Transactional Platforms

TV still drives massive consumer behavior—over $145 billion is spent in the U.S. every year on products people discover while watching television, according to eMarketer. But that influence largely stops at inspiration. Viewers are left to grab their phones, search, and buy somewhere else. It is discovery without convenience.

The same problem exists on platforms like YouTube, especially as Connected TV (CTV) becomes its fastest-growing channel—reportedly making up as much as 40% of viewership. And yet, purchasing through CTV remains frustratingly clunky. As content continues to shift from linear TV to streaming platforms and creator-driven video, the gap between inspiration and purchase has never been more obvious—or more valuable to close.

To enable the next wave of media innovation companies will need to make it seamless to purchase right at the point of engagement—allowing consumers to purchase without ever leaving the experience.

That’s why we’re excited about platforms like Diddo and ShopSense, which are building the infrastructure for shoppable content. Diddo is already working with a dozen partners and is in conversations with others, while ShopSense is already working with major media players like Paramount.

Long-term, we see these companies moving even further downstream—not just powering commerce for premium IP holders, but also unlocking new monetization tools for creators, helping them build storefronts directly into their content. Imagine Shopify, but built purposefully for content creators.

Platforms like TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube have flirted with commerce, but there’s a reason they haven’t gone all-in. Their core business still revolves around advertising, and deeply integrated commerce threatens to distract from or cannibalize that revenue.

That’s the opportunity for startups: to fill the gap these giants won’t—or can’t—close. At Will Ventures, we’re excited to invest in the platforms that turn media into a true point-of-sale.

A Scalable Ad Inventory Marketplace

The current advertising infrastructure does not fully capture demand. There is a massive opportunity to unlock demand across channels that have historically been fragmented and difficult to access.

Today, buying media from creators, embedding ads within content, or advertising as a SMB requires manual outreach, custom contracts, and inconsistent measurement. To compete with traditional digital platforms, this ecosystem needs the same ease, scale, and transparency markets have come to expect from programmatic advertising.

There are 2 key opportunities to consider.

#1: Improving SMB access to video ad-inventory

A few giants have long controlled the digital ad ecosystem. Demand-side platforms like The Trade Desk, DV360, Amazon, and Criteo have made it easy for brands to buy ad inventory at scale. On the supply side, Google, Amazon, Pubmatic, and AppNexus dominate. These platforms have made ad buying frictionless — but mostly for the biggest players. Emerging formats like Connected TV and streaming still aren’t built for the long tail. That’s a gap worth solving.

SMBs are a massive part of the ad economy, but they’re often overlooked. On Meta, for instance, the top 100 advertisers make up just 16% of revenue — meaning the other 84% comes from millions of smaller businesses. And those businesses want better tools. Video advertising is a perfect example: only 29% of SMBs run video ads today, but it’s one of the most-loved channels, scoring higher than social, display, or email.

AI is about to change that. Generative tools are making it radically easier for SMBs to create studio-quality video ads in minutes. But creation is only half the battle — the bigger issue is distribution. There are still very few platforms that make it easy for SMBs to buy video inventory on TV or streaming platforms.

A new generation of ad tech is emerging to fill the gap. Vibe.co, for example, raised $20M in 2024 to bring video ads to SMBs. With big brands pulling back on digital spend, there’s room for these challenger platforms to rewrite the playbook — putting small businesses front and center. Large companies are starting to take notice as well. Comcast recently announced the launch of Universal Ads to make buying ads on streaming easier for SMBs.

Still, more work needs to be done. What’s missing is infrastructure purpose-built for the fragmented, fast-moving needs of SMBs. Legacy DSPs were architected for media buyers with teams and budgets; they assume a level of expertise, time, and spend that most small businesses don’t have. The next generation of ad platforms won’t just simplify media buying — they’ll rethink it entirely. The winners in this space will unlock ad inventory that has been stifled by a lack of tools and innovation for decades.

#2: Directly connecting creators and influencers with brands

A similar inflection point exists on the creator side. Digital advertising in the U.S. is a $300B+ machine, yet creator and influencer marketing accounts for barely a sliver — just ~$10B, or about 3% of total spend. Yes, it’s growing fast (up 20%+ year-over-year), but it’s still dramatically underweight relative to creators' influence on modern consumers.

Creators increasingly command more cultural capital than movies, TV, or even sports — especially among Gen Z and younger millennials. As that influence compounds and their audience ages into greater spending power, creator media will become too important for brands to treat as experimental. But unlocking that growth requires solving some core bottlenecks that still make creator marketing feel bespoke, messy, and hard to scale.

1. No standardization, no scale - Running ads through creators still feels artisanal. Every campaign requires one-off negotiations, custom briefs, and back-and-forth review cycles. There’s no universal CPM or performance baseline across creators — and without benchmarks, buying at scale becomes guesswork.

2. ROI uncertainty and brand risk - Unlike traditional ad channels, creator performance can be volatile. Content style, audience trust, and platform dynamics all influence outcomes — and brands get nervous without clear attribution. Add in reputational risk from off-brand creator behavior, and big budgets tend to stay parked.

3. Broken workflows and fragmented tools - There’s no Google Ads or Meta Business Suite for creators. Discovery, contracting, payment, compliance, and measurement are all stitched together manually. Most platforms operate in silos — and creators don’t behave like interchangeable media units, which complicates automation.

4. Missing performance infrastructure - Creator content often isn’t directly trackable or shoppable — meaning brands can’t run A/B tests, apply conversion logic, or optimize in real time. Meta and Google made performance advertising seamless; creator platforms still lag behind, especially in post-click attribution.

The good news: these pain points are starting to get real attention. Agentio is reimagining creator-brand matching as a true two-sided marketplace, bringing self-serve workflows to influencer media. ShopMy is arming creators with storefront tools and monetization layers to make their recommendations instantly shoppable. These are just early blueprints. The creator economy is a multi-billion dollar ad channel waiting to be formalized — and there’s room for dozens of platforms to shape that future.

The opportunity isn’t just to help brands spend more on creators — it’s to make that spend feel as repeatable, measurable, and performance-driven as any other media channel.

Simplified Ad Creation Tools

To support the shift toward content-led commerce, brands and creators also need easier, faster ways to create native, high-impact ads. Traditional ad production is often too slow, expensive, or rigid to keep up with the speed of different platforms.

What’s needed is a new generation of creative tools — ones that let brands generate short-form videos, shoppable posts, or interactive ad units with the same simplicity as launching a search or display campaign. By lowering the creative barrier, these tools can open the door for small businesses, emerging brands, and even individual creators to participate in content-native advertising at scale

The good news is that of all the enablers discussed in this piece, this is one where real progress has already been made. Wondercraft, a Will Ventures portfolio company, makes it easy to create audio ads without ever recording. Icon, which recently went viral for their launch video plans to help brands plan, create, and run thousands of personalized ads.

These tools will be essentially to accelerate the shift in how commerce is integrated into content.

For creators and other content owners, these tools will allow them to seamlessly integrate product recommendations, branded call to actions, and affiliate links directly into their content easily.

For brands, these tools will enable rapid iteration and personalization. Tailoring ads to match different content, creators, formats, and audiences in real-time is essential to make the commerce experience as personalized as it is on e-commerce platforms today.

Digital advertising is no longer about intent - it’s about embedding commerce into the very content consumers trust and engage with. The gap between influence and transaction is closing fast - this convergence is where value will be created across the media landscape.

At Will Ventures, we’re very excited by founders that are building the connective tissue that will power this convergence. The platforms, marketplaces, and tools that will turn content into the new storefront. If you’re reimagining how commerce fits into content, we want to hear from you!

Bloomberg recently reported that MrBeast is looking to raise capital at a $5 billion valuation. At Will Ventures, we had two main takeaways from the news.

Takeaway #1 is what everyone’s been saying: MrBeast is building the ultimate creator flywheel. He drove $500 million in revenue in 2024. Interestingly, his content business lost $80 million, while his chocolate brand Feastables profited $20 million. MrBeast’s strategy is clearly to use his massive content business as a loss-leader and marketing arm for even larger businesses, starting with CPG.

It’s tempting to point to MrBeast’s potential $5 billion valuation and declare, “Creators are the future, and Jimmy Donaldson will be the first of many YouTubers turned business moguls!” But the truth is: MrBeast is a one-of-one. His 377 million YouTube subscribers are almost triple the next non-brand-owned channel. And industry executives broadly agree that MrBeast’s ruthless ambition and obsessive work ethic are unmatched. His leaked manifesto and Diary of a CEO interview show that.

MrBeast is not a fair proxy for the growth of the creator economy. That’s why we believe there’s a more interesting takeaway from the Bloomberg article - which specifically called our attention as investors.

Takeaway #2 is: MrBeast has structured his business in a highly-innovative way. Beast Industries is one central holding company that includes all of his assets – from his YouTube content, to his Amazon Prime series, to Feastables, to Lunchly, to merchandise, to new cereal and snack lines they may launch in the future. Beast Industries has raised $450 million to date, and is looking to raise another $200 million, at the HoldCo level.

Historically, creators have mostly built businesses and raised capital for individual assets. For example, Jake Paul has partnered with different CEOs and/or raised separate funding for his betting platform Betr, his grooming line W, and his boxing promotion company MVP. However, Beast Industries is leveraging one centralized entity, balance sheet, and executive team.

We believe this HoldCo model has been key to MrBeast’s success, and we predict more creators will use this model to raise capital and operate their businesses. We broke down this essay into three parts:

1. How did the creator HoldCo model emerge?

2. Why does the model appeal to creators and investors?

3. How would we evaluate an investment into a creator HoldCo?

Subscribe now

Part 1: How did the HoldCo model emerge?

From 2020-2021, VCs rushed to invest in the creator economy. Investors saw huge secular tailwinds: Gen Z spending more time on social media, brands spending more on influencers, etc. And at the start of Covid, when everyone was stuck indoors, all these trends spiked.

During this boom, VCs mostly invested in software for the creator economy. Think monetization platforms like Patreon and Cameo, and tools like Canva and Linktree. But the category saw fewer successes than expected, as most of the value accrued to the dominant platforms like YouTube and Tik Tok. So VC funding dried up. Only in the last year, creator software funding rebounded slightly, thanks to a few successes like ShopMy and Kajabi.

Although most funding went towards software, some investors took a different approach to the creator economy: investing directly in creators themselves.

What does this look like? We’ve mostly seen creators a) finance their content catalogs, and/or b) sell equity stakes in individual assets they own.

a) Financing individual catalogues: Some creators have taken on external capital to finance their content business. For example, Colin & Samir, GamingWithKev and 700+ other YouTubers have worked with Spotter, which offers creators a lump-sum payment in exchange for a license to earn a portion of their AdSense revenues. Content financing solutions like these grew common in 2020-2021. At the start of Covid, many creators found themselves in a cash crunch when brands momentarily paused ad spend. Then, as Covid became a tailwind for them, creators saw an opportunity to invest working capital in their content. Simultaneously, low interest rates helped companies like Spotter make these investments with relatively cheap debt. (Interestingly, music catalog investors used a similar arbitrage strategy).

b) Selling equity stakes in other assets: Other creators raised capital by selling equity stakes in individual brands they launched. Emma Chamberlain’s Chamberlain Coffee, Nelk Boys’ Happy Dad seltzer, and Logan Paul & KSI’s Prime Hydration headline a long list of creator-led brands that have raised capital from institutional investors recently.

The underlying rationale is similar to Hollywood celebrity-run businesses, like Rihanna’s Fenty Beauty, George Clooney’s Casamigos and Kim Kardashian’s Skims. Creators have massive marketing channels and deeply loyal communities, which translate to lower CACs and higher LTVs. Furthermore, social media distribution and commerce tools like Shopify have made spinning up a new brand easier than ever. So in the last five years, we’ve seen a rush of creators partnering with consumer VCs and incubators to launch new brands.

But as most major creators sold stakes in content or standalone brands, a few creators have taken a different strategy: allowing investors to invest across their entire flywheel. In other words, they took investment at the holding company level. Examples include:

• Last year, Dude Perfect announced a $100 million round led by Highmount Capital. The capital would fund not just content, but also live experiences, merchandise, and a new Texas HQ.

• Also last year, First We Feast sold to a group of investors for $83 million. The company includes not just the media brand around Hot Ones, but also a food licensing business.

• Last week, Good Good Golf announced a $45 million round led by Creator Sports Capital. While Good Good has nearly 2 million YouTube subscribers, ~75% of its revenue comes from apparel and licensed golf products.

Another interesting case study is Moonbug Entertainment. In 2018, Moonbug was founded and began acquiring YouTube channels in the kids/animated category. Investors funded Moonbug over various rounds through 2021, when Moonbug and its portfolio of IP were sold to Candle Media for $3 billion. Moonbug’s revenue wasn’t just ads from content, but also consumer products, licensing and music distribution.

One fund, Slow Ventures, has taken a portfolio approach to creator HoldCos. According to their website, they raised a $60 million fund to write $1-3 million checks and acquire ~10% stakes in multiple creator HoldCos. Their strategy appears to mainly target niche creators. For example, Slow invested in the holding company behind the VINWiki YouTube channel for car enthusiasts, as well as the website Vinwiki.com, a crowdsourced platform meant to be the go-to source for documenting a car’s history.

Not every HoldCo looks exactly alike. But most have the same high-level structure. Creators house their assets under one parent entity (can be an LLC or C-Corp). This parent company can raise capital, retain governance and centralize key strategic decisions. Underneath this entity, the creator can contribute tto their businesses, each of which may hire their own teams, raise capital and make key operating decisions. Beast Industries is roughly structured as such.

Part 2: Why does the HoldCo model make sense for investors and creators?

We believe more creators will structure their businesses as a holding company, like Beast Industries.

Granted, an individual creator-led brand that raises capital at the asset level can be an incredible outcome. For example, the first checks into Prime Hydration – which drove $1.2 billion in 2023 sales (though sales declined in 2024) – must be happy with their investment.

But we believe the HoldCo model has several advantages for both creators and investors.

The HoldCo model…

1. Enables a flywheel effect across verticals

Every vertical of a creator’s business should reinforce the others. For example, MrBeast’s YouTube videos plug Feastables, whose boxes include ads for Beast Games on Amazon, which drives more interest for MrBeast’s YouTube videos. This flywheel / 360 monetization concept isn’t new, and it goes back to Walt Disney’s famous flywheel from 1957. But it’s hard to nail. If each of MrBeast’s brands operated independently – and with fiduciary duties to different investors – it’d be difficult to achieve alignment across business units. But because Beast Industries has one CEO in Jeffrey Housenbold and one bottom line, all of MrBeast’s business lines can optimize synergies. Beast Industries can plan its content calendar around new product launches; coordinate cross-marketing campaigns across different products; and space out PR announcements to stay in the zeitgeist.

2. Aligns incentives between creators and investors

Every major creator has to juggle multiple priorities. For example, Charli & Dixie D’Amelio have their YouTube, Tik Tok, Instagram and Hulu content; a skin care brand ZitsAllRight; a fashion brand DAM FAM Merch; and a footwear brand D’Amelio Footwear. If I were an investor in any one brand, I’d want the D’Amelios to spend disproportionate time promoting that brand. If I were an investor in just their content, I might not want them to spend any time at all promoting their brands. The HoldCo model aligns incentives by offering investors exposure across all of a creator’s assets. As a result, no matter how creators allocate their resources across business lines, investors can trust they are acting in the interests of the same bottom line. This incentive alignment will help creators attract investors and access more capital.

3. Offers strategic support and advisory

It’s critical to emphasize: Investors should let creators run their business! Investors shouldn’t add layers of bureaucracy and unnecessary financial reporting requirements, or act like they know what fans want better than the creator does. With that in mind, the right investors can offer creators strategic support and advisory in certain categories. First, investors might encourage creators to think bigger-picture and longer-term via the fundraising process and board meetings. Second, investors might push creators to operationalize and formalize parts of their business, which could attract better executive talent. Third, investors who spend all day evaluating new businesses could help evaluate the launch of new business units. Again, it can’t be emphasized enough: An investor should stay in their lane. But with the right working relationship, an investor can provide a creator with expertise in key areas.

4. Increases creators’ financial security and risk tolerance

Some of the world’s largest creators have surprisingly illiquid net worths. This is because they spent years reinvesting any earnings in upleveling their content, hiring a team, etc. Raising capital can allow creators to take some chips off the table while still remaining incentivized to grow. The goal is not for the creator to stop working; any savvy investor will be sure to include “key man” provisions in their contracts. But once a creator gets financial security, they could have a newfound risk tolerance to swing for the fences with more ambitious businesses. This appeals to investors seeking venture-scale returns, as well as creators looking to build the largest business possible while derisking their net worth.

5. Works towards a mutually-beneficial exit scenario

Creator burnout is a real threat. A creator could run their business for 10+ years, burn out over time, lose some of their audience, and find their business in a devalued state. Taking on investment addresses this threat by forcing both creators and investors to work towards a common goal: an exit. VC and PE firms typically have holding periods of 7-10 and 3-7 years, respectively. When that period ends, an ambitious creator doesn’t need to step back; they can take on capital from other investors. But just having this timebound period and exit scenarios in sight will help protect a creator’s asset value long-term. Furthermore, with a HoldCo structure, content drives top-of-funnel awareness for business extensions that are potentially more valuable than a pure-play media asset. Having a diversified portfolio beyond just content can help with a creator’s burnout and potential for a more lucrative exit. If a creator is solely focused on content, they will have to perpetually focus on that. Building a catalog of products will allow creators to create brands that can grow beyond themselves.

Part 3: What criteria would we use to evaluate an investment into a creator HoldCo?

Here are the three most important criteria we’d analyze.

1. How does the creator convert viewers into customers?

It’s table stakes to compare a creator’s audience size and engagement, as well as their topline revenues and overhead costs. But beneath those figures, it’s critical to understand how they’ve converted fans from viewers on social media into buyers on other platforms. For their owned brands, we’d want to assess the CAC and LTV figures, as well as their ability to drive repeat business across different products. For their non-owned brands (i.e. sponsorship deals), we’d want to assess the conversion data and ROI of those deals. This will show whether a creator can both engage fans with content and also convert those fans into paying customers. It’s also important to understand a creator’s target demo. Creators with higher-value audiences (i.e. tech content vs kids content) will drive higher CPMs and larger sponsorship deals, and could also find more lucrative adjacent business opportunities.

2. Why does the creator have a right to win?

It’s essential to believe that a creator has a right to win authentically in their category. Creators have gotten flamed by fans for selling inauthentic products that feel like cash grabs. There have been many examples of this, including Haliey Welch’s (Hawk Tuah Girl’s) memecoin. Creators must have an authentic reason to launch their product, and a right to win in the larger competitive landscape. It’s worth noting that many product categories have grown increasingly crowded with creator brands: sports drinks, beauty, fashion, and food & beverage. Longevity supplements and programs have been the latest trend. That makes it increasingly difficult for any one creator to win. We see opportunity for creators to launch businesses in new categories that aren’t typically associated with creators. Just one interesting area is emerging sports leagues. Jake Paul launched Most Valuable Promotions, the boxing promotion company that’s hosted his fights including the Paul-Tyson fight. IShowSpeed and KSI are key partners in Baller League, a new six-on-six soccer league launching this month. In this other essay, we discussed how new leagues can be venture-scale outcomes.

3. Is the creator a visionary leader?

Lastly, like any venture-backed CEO, the creator must be a visionary leader with ambitions to build a massive business. As mentioned earlier, MrBeast has a level of intensity, sophistication and ambition that would rival any tech entrepreneur. That said, not every investable creator needs to fit MrBeast’s mold. After reaching $5-10 million in revenue, creators often hire a full-time CEO to manage business operations while they focus on creative. But the creator still sets the tone and serves as the figurehead for every business in their flywheel, so it’s critical for them to be charismatic leaders with big ambitions. The creator must also be able to delegate work. For example, many creators struggle to scale their content operations because they have very nuanced ideas of how to edit their videos and don’t invest time in training a larger editing team. Surprisingly, some of the world’s most-followed YouTube channels are a two or three-person editing desk. It’s critical for a creator to operationalize the creative process around them and build trust with executives to help grow their business.

##

It’s important to note: We don’t see a one size fits all definition of an investable creator.

YouTubers like MrBeast are just one category. Investable creators could be a traditional media personality like Stephen A. Smith, a Twitch streamer like Kai Cenat, or even a group of podcasters like The Fantasy Footballers. We view an investable creator as anyone with a large, passionate audience – and the desire to build large businesses off the back of it.

MrBeast might be the first $5 billion digitally-native creator. But as more billion-dollar creators emerge, we believe more will choose to structure their businesses and take on capital as holding companies.

At Will Ventures, we’re excited to explore investments in this category. If you’re a creator, operator or investor in the space, please reach out. We’d love to hear your thoughts.