The NFL does had lost the recent school activity jury trial for the Sunday Ticket, but it will still have a chance to win.
Step one: Attempt to persuade the prosecutor who presided to declare the result.
In a motion filed last week for wisdom as a matter of law or, in the alternative, a new trial, the group described the judge’s decision to award$ 4.7 billion in problems as “nonsensical” and “irrational” since—as the NFL sees it —jurors badly miscalculated the prize by, among other things, getting” the connection between actual prices paid and possible overcharges exactly forward”.
The NFL likewise harshly criticized U.S. District Judge Philip Gutierrez for allowing a jury to stand despite the jury having” an poor economic stake in the outcome of the dispute.” The NFL stated that” Juror 7″ admitted to paying for a “household member’s Sunday Ticket subscription” during jury selection, but Gutierrez allowed the jury to continue since neither Judge 7 nor the family member were a part of the class action.

The plaintiffs ‘ claim that Gutierrez made an error is still true, even though Judge 7 already pays for the Sunday Ticket on YouTube. As foreperson, Judge 7 good facilitated jurors deliberations. A foreperson may influence how judges discuss, and consider on, a case.
According to the NFL, the jury hard fumbled the situation. The NFL blasts the damages awarded for representing” the total of deals that group members received” and denounces the prosecutor for greenlighting a “runaway verdict” and noting that the$ 4.7 billion conviction is “among the largest in American story.” This strategy, the NFL argues, was n’t actually proposed by the defendants, bears no rational connection to alleged damages and indicates judges were confused about applicable mathematics and statistics.
More than 48,000 restaurants, bars, and other commercial establishments that purchased Sunday Ticket between 2011 and 2023 are part of the class action, which includes more than 2.4 million residential subscribers. NFL teams broadcast their games for out-of-town fans on free TV, but those teams pool their coverage through the Sunday Ticket, which costs residents$ 349/year but is frequently purchased for less with various discounts and promotions. The plaintiffs contend that the 32 teams, which are competing organizations, agreeing to not charge higher prices for consumers while the NFL maintains its system guarantees access to games anywhere in the United States and makes games free for local fans.
Among the problems in the jurors ‘ alleged deficiencies, the NFL claims they used a phone calculator to invent “its own irrational” damages model. The league contends jurors calculated what they thought was an overcharge, reflecting the$ 191.26 difference between the list price ($ 294.00 ) and average actual price ($ 102.74), and then multiplying$ 191.26 by the total numbers of residential and commercial subscribers. The problem, the NFL argues, is that the$ 191.26 difference is not an overcharge but instead a discount.

The NFL also inquires as to why the jury chose$ 294 as the list price. That price was only the list price for three of the 12 years the class was represented in, and it does not accurately reflect the actual price that many consumers paid. The NFL portrays jurors as being incredibly perplexed by the data, which also casts doubt on their ability to comprehend the underlying legal issues.
Gutierrez also receives a lot of criticism from the NFL. The judge, the league argues, compounded the jurors ‘ alleged misunderstanding by providing them with faulty jury instructions. The NFL claims that rules approved by the American Bar Association and applied by courts in similar cases demand that the plaintiffs demonstrate that” the defendants ‘ competitive harm significantly outweighs any competitive benefits.” Gutierrez omitted the word” substantially”, which the NFL says plaintiffs ‘ attorneys” capitalized on this error, arguing]in closing arguments ] that they need show only a’ 50.00000001 %” ‘ outweighing to prevail.”
The NFL also charges Gutierrez of lying by allowing the plaintiffs ‘ attorneys and experts to refer to the Justice Department’s 1950s losing antitrust cases involving NFL teams pooling broadcast rights. When President John F. Kennedy signed the Sports Broadcasting Act into law, which gives professional football, basketball, baseball, and hockey leagues an antitrust exemption when they enter a national TV deal with a network that offers free and over-the-air broadcasting, those decisions were effectively overturned in 1961.
Although the Justice Department cases were n’t discussed substantively, Gutierrez let jurors hear that the NFL lost, which the NFL contends amounted to prejudicing the jurors. For instance, an attorney for the plaintiffs said”, When the Feds came after them in’ 60, all their conduct was out in the open. The Federal Administration remained in the mix. After being found to have broken the antitrust laws, they went to Congress and used their political will to obtain an exemption. That’s the way the stuff really worked out.”
Gutierrez will hold a hearing on July 31 to review the NFL’s motion. His options include ( 1 ) ruling for the NFL, meaning he concludes the jury’s decision was irrational, ( 2 ) ordering a new trial, ( 3 ) sustaining the jury’s verdict but reducing the damages award, or ( 4 ) fully denying the NFL’s motion. In the weeks that follow, Guitierrez may make a decision that day, but it will likely be done in writing.
The league will ask that the verdict be stayed pending appeals if the judge does n’t rule for the NFL or grant a new trial. A stay would require the NFL to wait until the league has exhausted its right to file an appeal, which could end up in the U.S. Supreme Court.
The NFL’s numerous critiques of Gutierrez’s handling of the trial are crucial for the potential appellate process. The NFL must raise objections at this stage in order to be able to appeal, otherwise the NFL would lose the opportunity.
While the litigation, which began in 2015, could last several more years as an appeals process plays out, it’s also possible the NFL and plaintiffs negotiate a settlement. According to Sportico, Major League Baseball and the National Hockey League reportedly reached settlements nine years ago for class actions involving similar broadcasting issues.