I'm not saying you're wrong, just questioning whether you've done enough actual research to know if this is really the case.
An interesting related statistic: Almost twice as many people go to the theatre in London as go to all the major Premiership football games[1]. I doubt many people would guess that if they were asked.
[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/theatre/11001177/Almost-t...
The question for Netflix — and any content distributor — is whether the benefits justify the price. This calculation will be different for every organisation, based on their financial resources, expansion plans, existing market share, customer base, target customer base, etc. I suspect that, at the moment, the potential benefits from expanding into sport aren't justified for Netflix. They have a strong brand based on access to high-quality, episodic "TV-style" content, that is driving good growth already. Moving into showing live sports would be an expensive risk.
I suspect we'll see Netflix expand into streaming live events eventually, but probably not mainstream sports and news to begin with. It makes more sense for them to identify emerging sectors, such as esports, which have the potential for strong growth, but for which the rights are still relatively cheap.
Why waste a lot of money on very expensive content that does not scale and does not fit the Netflix profile?
As an example, consider Africa (I'm Kenyan): the Barclays Premiere League is watched in virtually every country, but provided by one company, known as MultiChoice. Because almost everyone wants to watch football, and there is only one option, if they can afford it, they pay.
If Netflix (or some other company) was to obtain the rights to airing the BPL, all the middle-to-upper-class families in Kenya with decent internet connections would immediately consider switching.