Congress is taking aim at the NFL’s lucrative television empire, with a key House lawmaker 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.
Rep. Scott Fitzgerald, chair of the House Judiciary Committee’s antitrust subcommittee, said Wednesday that the NFL and other professional sports leagues have strayed far from the original purpose of the Sports Broadcasting Act 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,” Fitzgerald, a Wisconsin Republican, said during a hearing examining the law.
“In my opinion, they have not, and sports fans are paying the price because of it.”
The hearing follows 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, including Amazon Prime Video, Netflix, Peacock and ESPN, 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.
A top Democrat on the panel said the DOJ investigation into whether the NFL has engaged in anticompetitive tactics appears aimed at helping Fox Corp.
Rep. Jamie Raskin cited a recent report that Fox chairman emeritus Rupert Murdoch personally lobbied President Trump at a White House dinner to crack down on the 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,” the Maryland Dem said.
The Post has sought comment from Fox Corp.
Fitzgerald noted that consumers who want access to all NFL games can spend hundreds of dollars a year on subscriptions and packages. He also 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.”
Fitzgerald 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.
Fitzgerald 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 is continuing to examine whether the SBA remains necessary in its current form and whether legislative reforms are needed to improve access and affordability for sports fans.
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 platforms such as Amazon, Netflix and Peacock.
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 Sports Broadcasting Act’s antitrust framework.
The Post has sought comment from the NFL.
