A group that is not used to losing was shocked by previous year’s$ 4.7 billion judge conviction against the NFL in the Sunday Ticket group activity.
But the game is n’t over yet.
The NFL did hope that the lawful system’s version of instant replay in the upcoming weeks, months, and possibly years will reverse or at least relax a decision that, left unchangeable, will fundamentally change how NFL teams broadcast games and how much out-of-town fans can enjoy their favorite team play.
The idea of In Re: NFL’s” Sunday Ticket” Antitrust Litigation is simple. NFL team are competing companies. Competent companies are supposed to thrive under antitrust rules. Consumers, the subject of antitrust law’s focus, are usually in better shape when businesses compete because it typically results in lower prices, more product and service choices, and more innovation by businesses that may develop or face extinction.

When NFL teams coordinate, their cooperation does not cause more economic damage than monetary benefit. The outcome of the case largely depends on whether the two organizations ‘ cooperation in the area of radio right is, overall, beneficial or detrimental.
NFL teams agree to share their television privileges in agreements that allow local viewers to watch matches on-demand and for free (unlike local supporters of NBA, NHL, and MLB team ), which they typically have to pay to watch via a subscription activities cable channel. It would be difficult to argue that the NFL’s method to television is harmful to people who reside close to their favorite team. The NFL is likewise wildly, and vastly, popular with British viewers: Last year NFL games accounted for 93 of the year’s 100 most- watched TV broadcasts in the U. S., a category that includes popular TV shows, the Olympics and social programming. There’s something to be said for do n’t fix what’s not broken.
But for out- of- town fans, the situation is n’t so priceless. The Sunday Ticket, which is accessible to residents via YouTube TV, allows NFL teams to share their broadcasting rights. The cost for residents is$ 349/year ( or less with discounts ) while bars and restaurants, through DirecTV, pay thousands of dollars a year depending on fire code occupancy.
The upside is that fans who live outside of their own city can watch their favorite team on TV every week from the comfort of their home. This is true for fans who live outside of their own city.
The downside? paying a sizable fee for a lot of content that some viewers are against.
That Bears fan might not care enough to watch the Dolphins or other AFC games, and that Dolphins fan might not care enough to watch rival Buffalo Bills and New York Jets games. Fans probably prefer having a much lower price to watch their team, which is what they want. Instead of a Sunday Ticket, a” Bears Ticket” or” Dolphins Ticket” that costs, say,$ 50 instead of$ 350, would be better.

The class action plaintiffs—who represent more than 2.4 million residential subscribers and more than 48, 000 restaurants, bars and other commercial establishments that purchased Sunday Ticket from June 17, 2011 to Feb. 7, 2023—insist the Sunday Ticket reflects competing businesses ( NFL teams ) illegally conspiring to not compete and thus manipulating prices.
However, the league has repeatedly reaffirmed that economics are not so simple. Teams and the league would need to reevaluate broadcasting agreements for both local and out-of-town fans if teams ca n’t combine their out-of-town broadcasts through the Sunday Ticket. The NFL has also emphasized that the Sunday Ticket is a guarantee that games will be aired. What’s the likelihood that the Bears will find a broadcasting partner to play games in San Diego or that the Seahawks will think it’s financially wise to broadcast games in New England Patriots-owned territory? Some fans who live in rural areas might still be left out, even if all 32 teams land TV deals in all the major markets.
In order to appear before U.S. District Judge Philip Gutierrez on July 31, the NFL will likely file several motions. A certain one is a judgment despite the outcome or JNOV. The NFL will argue that the jury misapplied the law and acted unreasonably in light of the evidence presented at the trial. Unfortunately for the NFL, judges rarely grant JNOV motions. Judges are typically hesitant to rule that the jury’s decision should be rejected because Gutierrez occasionally appeared unconvinced about the plaintiffs ‘ case at times throughout the trial. Because the jury system is fundamental to the American legal system, judges are prone to respect jurors, even in complex antitrust cases.
In terms of an appeal, Gutierrez denying a JNOV motion would have an impact on the NFL procedurally. The league is unable to file a petition with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit arguing that the jury misled the case because that is not a common ground for appeal in the American legal system. Instead, the NFL would need to show that Gutierrez erred by using the law, such as ( the league’s contention ) by denouncing a JNOV motion or by accepting or rejecting certain evidence and testimony.
The NFL might also request that Gutierrez lower the damages award ( also known as “remittitur” ) and change how the ruling will require the league to alter broadcasting practices. The league might argue that keeping that amount in place would result in a miscarriage of justice because the$ 4.7 billion is unsupported by the facts.
The most intriguing aspect of the case, in my opinion, is how it will affect consumers. The league, obviously, does not want to alter its broadcasting arrangements. It produces the most well-known television show in America, which has resulted in soaring franchise valuations for owners. Since the salary cap is tied to broadcasting revenue, players also have benefited.
The NFL might request Gutierrez give it more time to research alternatives to the Sunday Ticket that do n’t require the elimination of the pooling model. The NFL might suggest a modified version of the Sunday Ticket, where fans can watch games from multiple conferences or even different divisions for less money ( but not just one team ). Although it’s unknown whether the economics will work for the teams, compromise broadcasting arrangements might be possible.
The NFL might also attempt to take a long-term approach. The league could also ask for a stay, which would delay the jury’s verdict’s implementation until after all appeals have been heard. If an appeal is denied, class members would be left unpaid, and the NFL would n’t need to alter its broadcasting practices. Ninth Circuit appeals are regarded as fairly slow- moving, sometimes taking several years, and the NFL could later appeal to the U. S. Supreme Court.
At least one justice seems very interested in the Sunday Ticket litigation, despite the Supreme Court only taking on average about 1 % to 2 % of petitions.
As Sportico detailed, Justice Brett Kavanaugh offered an intriguing statement about the litigation—which began in 2015—when the NFL sought Supreme Court review at an earlier juncture. The Court denied an NFL attorney’s request for certiorari in 2020, alleging that a lower court had erred in deciding a crucial legal issue. However, Kavanaugh put forth a claim that the Court does not” not necessarily” consider teams pooling their broadcasting rights to be problematic under antitrust law. Additionally, he emphasized that teams must work together in a certain way in order to compete in professional leagues. According to Kavanaugh,” Antitrust law” is “likely not to require that the NFL and its member teams compete against one another in terms of television rights.”
Kavanaugh has already had a significant impact on college sports law with his vehement opposition to NCAA v. Alston, in which he referred to the NCAA and its affiliated institutions as an unlawful cartel that exploits the labor of college athletes.
Perhaps he’ll play a more significant role in professional sports law.
Stay tuned.