The NFL is also taking steps to ensure that NFL owners do n’t have to drastically alter broadcasting arrangements or post what might be a multibillion-dollar bond in order to be able to file an appeal as it contests the jury’s verdict last month in the Sunday Ticket antitrust class action.
Lawyers for NFL team filed objections to a proposed assessment on July 2 that claimants ‘ prosecutors had proposed on Tuesday. The plaintiffs, who consist of more than 2.4 million residential clients and more than 48, 000 restaurants, bars and other industrial establishments that purchased Sunday Ticket from 2011 to 2023, need U. S. District Judge Philip Gutierrez to consider that the NFL owes the domestic subscribers$ 13.8 billion and the business establishments$ 291 million. These figures represent the tripling of the jury’s awards to residential subscribers and commercial establishments ($ 4.6 billion and$ 97 million, respectively ).

Personal claimants who successfully bring competitive claims must pay treble damages under antitrust law. The fundamental premise is to strongly deter anti-competitive behavior and chastise wrongdoers before making them pay for the harm they caused. Trebling critics claim that it is exceedingly punitive in a legitimate program that is supposed to prioritize fairness and results in gratuitous and earned windfalls for plaintiffs and their attorneys.
The NFL has made numerous explanations to Gutierrez on Monday, according to Sportico, in an effort to persuade him to uphold the jury’s verdict or at least lower the amount of damage awarded.
The NFL contends the jury misunderstood key economic terms, including by confusing “overcharge” with “discount”, and invented a mathematical formula to calculate damages that the plaintiffs ‘ attorneys did n’t even propose. In its most recent filing, the NFL asks Gutierrez to hold off on issuing an purchase until after farther discussion is had.
The NFL also argues that before judgment is entered, Gutierrez must decide how the damage amount—whatever the number ends up being, assuming problems are ordered—is apportioned among group members. Gutierrez, the NFL maintains, needs to establish appropriate formulas and concepts as to how much each group member gets. Relevant factors could be included in the number of years a person has been a subscriber to the Sunday Ticket and how much they have paid ( class members may have paid in some cases significantly different amounts due to discounts and annual price changes ).
The NFL cautions that the court has n’t specified what changes, if any, are necessary while the defendants are requesting injunctive relief that would likely require the NFL and its groups to change the Sunday Ticket so that fans can only purchase tickets to games in a meeting or division.
The NFL maintains that the same set of legal defenses use to injunctive relief and injuries. If Gutierrez issues a judgment on the damages, but not on injunctive relief until sometime afterwards, the NFL says that timing discrepancy may cause “piecemeal appeals”, with the NFL interesting damages and afterwards, differently, appealing injunctive relief. The NFL uses case precedent to discourage judges from requiring “duplication of work and needles expense” for the parties.

Lastly, the NFL is clearly worried about the role of posting a bond.
The NFL will file an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit if it is unable to persuade Gutierrez to support it. In that circumstance, the NFL will almost certainly need to post a bond, which means setting aside the amount of money it might owe in damages.
A bond’s purpose is to make sure the defendant can pay what it owes before putting forth an appeal and paying more in attorney’s fees. A bond can be extremely important in situations where the defendant defaults during an appeal because it increases the likelihood that the plaintiff is paid. Although Gutierrez has discretion in setting the value of the damages, a bond is frequently set at the value of the damages. If Gutierrez determines the total damages, after trebling, are$ 14.1 billion, he could order the NFL to post that amount.
Judgements are typically enforceable 30 days after entry, which could make things worse for the NFL. The plaintiffs could seek to collect money after 30 days if Gutierrez orders the NFL to pay an enormous sum. In other words, the NFL would need to quickly come up with a sizable sum of money in order to appeal a bond.
The NFL claims Gutierrez that this circumstance is both extremely unfair and problematic.
Given the unwarranted size of the verdict, the league writes that” the potential difficulty and actual prejudice of any bond requirement cannot be overstated” and that the premium alone would be significantly detrimental to Defendants. Along those lines, the NFL contends” the need to post a bond should never arise at all… given the many deficiencies” in the plaintiffs ‘ case, and “certainty not on an unnecessarily expedited schedule”.
On July 31 the parties will meet with Gutierrez. There are many possible ways for the case to unfold, including the parties reaching a settlement before the hearing is held.
The “best-case” scenario for the NFL would be Gutierrez agreeing that the jury fumbled the case and issuing a judgment for the NFL if they do n’t settle.
The “worst-case” scenario for the NFL? Gutierrez honoring the jury’s decision, trebling the damages and telling the NFL that if it wants to appeal, it needs to come up with$ 14.1 billion.
There are many options between those scenarios, including Gutierrez significantly lowering the damages figure and requiring the NFL to release a smaller bond. A smaller bond might be appropriate given that the NFL and its teams have sizable resources and there is a 0 % chance that the league and its teams will fail in an appeal.
NFL commissioner Roger Goodell does n’t appear too worried, at least not yet. On Thursday he told CNBC the league “obviously disagree]s ] with the jury verdict”, but added, “it’s a long process” and” we feel very strongly about our position, our policies, particularly on media, that we make our sport available to the broadest possible audience”.