Not commenting on general trends, but I don't think my opinion on IP shifted massively as a result of the rise of LLMs. I can summarize it as follows:

- It seems desirable to have some system that allows creatives to be paid for their work.

- Whether current IP law is the best system we can come up with is highly debatable. But nevertheless it is the system we have, and its existence is to some extent justified.

- If we look at the "pefect case" where IP law functions as intended (for example, an author publishes a book in which they invested years of their life), then breaking IP law (sharing that author's work without their consent) in that instance seems, to me, immoral.

- Nevertheless there are plenty of excesses in the system where I would judge that the application of IP law is unjustified and breaking the law is morally justified (naturally I still don't recommend it). This includes, for example, paywalled papers from publicly-funded research, works that can no longer reasonably be purchased (for example games for old consoles), most if not all software patents, ...

So the question simply boils down to: is sports commentary justifiably protected under IP law? I think the answer is a pretty clear-cut "yes" here, I don't see how it falls under any case of IP law overreach.