Congress is taking aim at the NFL’s lucrative broadcast empire, with lawmakers from both sides of the aisle accusing the league of abusing a decades-old antitrust exemption that is forcing fans to shell out hundreds of dollars a year to watch games.
Pols described the law governing licenses for airing pro games as outdated and said pro football is taking advantage of the situation.
“We all love football, but we’re trying to ask the question: Does it work for our constituents because we know it works for the NFL,” said Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), chair of the House Judiciary Committee.
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Ohio) said it’s “fundamentally unfair that the league should get billion-dollar deals, but the fans are left out in the cold.”
Rep. Scott Fitzgerald (R-Wis.), pointed to the Sports Broadcasting Act, or SBA, of 1961, which was intended to make games widely available through free TV.
“Sixty five years later, however, it is fair for this body to ask whether the professional sports leagues have kept up their end of the bargain,” he said.
“In my opinion, they have not, and sports fans are paying the price because of it.”
While NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell declined to testify at the hearing, experts slammed his league’s broadcast practices.
Fox News contributor and OutKick founder Clay Travis argued that fans are being forced to pay ever-higher prices to follow their favorite teams.
“Every single day, sports fans are getting gouged now for the opportunity of watching their favorite teams,” he told the Judiciary Committee. “Fans now pay far more money every year for something that by law in 1961 you all guaranteed for them should be free.”
Travis also argued that the NFL’s growing reliance on streaming services runs counter to the original purpose of the SBA.
“The NFL quite clearly … is violating the plain intent of the law,” Travis said.
The hearing followed the release of a Judiciary Committee staff report that argues the NFL has stretched its antitrust exemption beyond what Congress envisioned when it passed the legislation.
Fitzgerald pointed to the growing number of streaming platforms carrying NFL games, saying fans are increasingly being forced to juggle multiple subscriptions to follow their favorite teams.
Fox Corp., whose Fox network remains one of the NFL’s largest over-the-air partners, has argued that the SBA was intended to maximize access to games through broadcast television rather than splinter audiences across a growing number of streaming platforms.
Fox Corp. is sister company to The Post’s corporate parent News Corp.
Raskin said the DOJ investigation into whether the NFL has engaged in anticompetitive tactics appears aimed at helping Fox Corp.
He cited a recent report that Fox Chairman Emeritus Rupert Murdoch personally lobbied President Trump at a White House dinner to crack down on NFL streaming deals.
“The DOJ’s investigation, like this hearing, appear to be all about helping Mr. Murdoch get a better broadcast deal for Fox,” Raskin said.
The Post has sought comment from Fox Corp.
The NFL has defended its streaming push as a lawful evolution of its media strategy, arguing that local fans still get free over-the-air access to home-team games even as more national and special-event matchups move to online platforms.
The league has framed streaming as a complement to broadcast TV rather than a replacement, saying the deals help reach younger and cord-cutting viewers while staying within the SBA’s antitrust framework.
Fitzgerald, who chairs the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform and Antitrust, noted that consumers who want access to all NFL games can spend a fortune on subscriptions and packages.
NFL games aired last year on Amazon Prime Video, Peacock, Netflix, YouTube and six other streamers — potentially costing an estimated $1,500 to watch every pro football game, the Federal Communications Commission previously said.
Fitzgerald criticized the league’s distribution model, arguing that many fans are unable to watch their favorite teams in certain markets without purchasing NFL Sunday Ticket.
“The Sports Broadcasting Act was designed to facilitate the distribution of games through free over-the-air television,” he said. “It was not intended to provide a perpetual shield for leagues to coordinate the sale of media rights across every new technology and distribution platform that emerges.”
The lawmaker acknowledged the NFL’s argument that revenue-sharing arrangements help preserve competitive balance among teams, but said the league is no longer in the precarious financial position it faced back in 1961.
He noted that the NFL’s first league-wide television agreement was worth $4.65 million annually. By comparison, the league signed an 11-year media rights package worth roughly $113 billion in 2021.
“Because they do not follow America’s antitrust laws for television agreements, they can charge consumers inflated prices that would otherwise be illegal,” the lawmaker said.
The committee plans to continue examining whether the SBA remains necessary in its current form and whether legislative reforms are needed to improve access and affordability for sports fans.
The Post has sought comment from the NFL.
Credit: Source link
