For the past six weeks, sports fans have been flooding the Federal Communications Commission with testimonials about the difficulties of finding and accessing live games in the midst of the streaming boom, and while much of the commentary has been generated by private citizens, a pair of broadcast giants has recently entered the chat.
Fox Corp. and Sinclair Broadcasting last Friday submitted statements to the FCC that effectively characterized the streamers as a clear and present danger to the local TV business, with Fox labeling the digital interlopers as an “existential threat.”
In separate filings, both media outlets raised questions as to the validity of the NFL’s broadcast antitrust exemption, a provision established under the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961. Given that the statements were registered as Fox prepares to revamp its current rights deal with the NFL, the gesture—and a subsequent piece in the opinion section of Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal—should make for an interesting spring in Midtown.
“Congress provided a valuable exemption from the antitrust laws for leagues that bargain collectively for sports broadcasting,” wrote Joseph Di Scipio, Fox Corp.’s senior VP, legal and FCC compliance. “But on its face, the statute does not exempt negotiations that the leagues may have with streaming services.”
Di Scipio went on to argue that in cases where the relationship between the leagues and broadcasters “has proven to have substantial pro-consumer benefit,” the SBA exemption still “makes obvious sense.” But the exec noted that it is “less clear that [the exemption] should apply to negotiations with businesses—such as paywalled streamers—that benefit significantly already from a lack of a similar regulatory framework, or from any public interest obligations.”
As such, Fox is encouraging the FCC to take a closer look under the regulatory hood, with Di Scipio going on to note that the trend of “placing more content on less-regulated, paid streaming platforms”—a practice that raises the overall cost of fandom—makes it fair game to question whether “the legal basis and the public-policy rationale behind this antitrust exemption are appropriate to examine.”
Di Scipio’s 19-page missive was issued on March 27. On Wednesday of this week, the editorial board of the Journal amplified Di Scipio’s sentiments in newsprint. The column questioned why the NFL “would deserve an antitrust exemption,” before applying an elbow to the ribs of the 119th U.S. Congress. In a closing salvo, the WSJ board asked if the nation’s lawmakers “might consider whether that 1961 antitrust exemption has ceased to make sense,” before issuing a challenge to Roger Goodell & Co.: “Let’s hear the NFL explain why it still deserves it.”
While the Greeks invented the word “synergy” for just this sort of occasion—both the WSJ and Fox TV are owned by Murdoch, and the latter is widely believed to be next in line (after CBS) to renegotiate its NFL rights deal—the choice of the delivery mechanism for these hypotheticals is particularly apt. Last week, Di Scipio suggested that a continued squeeze on broadcast stations increases the likelihood that local TV will “follow newspapers on a path to obsolescence.”
CBS is in the midst of discussing a new deal with the NFL, and a successful renewal could wind up costing the network upwards of $3 billion per year.” That would amount to an annual increase of nearly 45% from CBS’ current deal, which sees it fork over an average of $2.1 billion for the Sunday afternoon package.
CBS’ regular-season NFL slate averaged 21.3 million viewers per week in 2025, an 11% increase versus the year-ago 19.2 million. Including its Thanksgiving Day Chiefs-Cowboys banger, which scared up a record 57.2 million viewers, the network’s national NFL windows averaged a staggering 29.6 million viewers.
Including its early Tryptophan Bowl game in Detroit, Fox’s national windows averaged 25.9 million NFL viewers last season. If nothing else, those supersized deliveries function as a sound argument in favor of keeping more Sunday afternoon football inventory on free, over-the-air TV. Per Nielsen, 74.4% of all U.S. homes access TV via linear channels, which works out to some 95.3 million households. Of these, 19.7 million homes pick up their broadcast signals via antennae. Another 32.8 million homes are designated as “digital-only” customers, a subphylum that includes Americans who subscribe to broadband services but have no access to linear/pay-TV.
As talks over the legacy TV packages continue, Netflix is in hot pursuit of the NFL’s recently floated Thanksgiving Eve carve-out, a holiday grab that may complement the streamer’s Christmas Day doubleheader. Netflix’s three-year, $145 million deal runs through this Dec. 24, and in addition to looking to re-up that Yuletide two-fer, the company is also said to be sniffing around a bonus international game.
Like fellow rightsholder Amazon, Netflix is sufficiently cash rich to unseat one or more of the NFL’s legacy partners, although the league never tires of emphasizing how much it values the reach afforded by broadcast TV.
Filed on the same day as the Fox commentary, Sinclair’s FCC overture was similarly invested in the continued relevance of the SBA’s antitrust wrinkle. “This exemption effectively allows the NFL to operate as a cartel for media rights and has resulted in a massive windfall for the NFL and teams through joint sales,” wrote David B. Gibber, the company’s executive VP president and chief legal officer.
Sinclair’s legal eagle went on remind the commission that the exemption applies exclusively to TV rights, before citing a 1999 class-action suit (Shaw v. Dallas Cowboys Football Club Ltd.), in which the third circuit of the U.S. Court of appeals ruled that the SBA “does not exempt leagues from antitrust scrutiny for paid services.”
Sinclair owns, operates or otherwise provides services to 185 TV stations in 85 markets. The company’s reach extends from Washington, D.C., the nation’s eight-largest DMA with 2.69 million TV households, to the No. 200 Ottumwa, Iowa/Kirksville, Mo., market (48,490 homes).
While the Fox and Sinclair docs are available for perusal on the FCC web site, the WSJ editorial likely commanded a much greater number of reader impressions. No punches were pulled, as the writers charged Goodell with “using the threat of an early opt-out provision to change the terms only halfway through the [current rights] deals.”
The WSJ piece went on to surmise that the commish believes he “can get more money from big tech’s streaming services than he can from his long-time TV partners.” Such a development “would hurt the networks, especially local stations, that rely on the NFL for ad revenue,” as “live sports are one of the last drivers of large audiences.”
Should Congress elect to further consider the validity of the exemption in an environment where streamers are gradually accumulating standalone rights packages, the subsequent litigation would likely keep people on the Hill busy for years. Last summer, the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation advised reps from the NBA, NHL and MLB that the government would intervene if the leagues didn’t take steps to make more of their in-market games accessible to fans.
The committee is chaired by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), a vocal fan of the Texas Longhorns and Houston’s Rockets and Astros. During last summer’s hearing, Cruz questioned the continued validity of the now 65-year-old SBA. “The SBA was intended to ensure that the needs of all sports fans were being met,” Cruz said. “I think it’s important to regularly revisit and consider whether our laws, like the Sports Broadcasting Act, are actually fulfilling their intended goals.”
The FCC got the ball rolling on Feb. 26, when it issued a solicitation for comment on “sports broadcasting practices and marketplace developments.”
Some of the civilian submissions have been enlightening. For example, a New Orleans Saints fan residing in Pensacola, Fla., included a handy breakdown of how the cost of the NFL’s out-of-market Sunday Ticket package has soared from $293.40 per season in 2022 to last year’s base rate of $378 for returning YouTube TV subscribers.