A jury recently ruled that the National Football League violated antitrust laws with its Sunday Ticket game package, resulting in a staggering $4.7 billion verdict against the league. The judgment, handed down earlier this month, concluded that the NFL had improperly conspired to keep prices high for fans wanting to watch games outside their local markets.
Legal professionals and sports law experts have varied opinions on the aftermath and future implications of the verdict. Some predict that the league has a viable avenue to appeal the decision on the grounds of alleged procedural errors and misinterpretations of evidence presented during the trial. The presiding judge has slated a July 31 hearing to consider the NFL’s motion to overturn the verdict or at least trigger a new trial.
Mark Levinstein, a Washington, D.C.–based sports antitrust attorney with Williams & Connolly, highlighted notable trial missteps that he believes could lead to a revision of the jury’s decision. He claims that multiple procedural mishaps, endorsed by the court, could incite the presiding judge to overrule the verdict to prevent the case from being contested in an appellate court with what he describes as a questionable jury decision.
Chris Deubert, another sports attorney from the firm Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, echoed similar sentiments regarding the jury’s link between the evidence and the award. He suggests that the NFL’s argument—that the award lacks a reasonable connection to the evidence—is robust. This contention formed part of the NFL’s motion made on July 3, which seeks to either overturn the decision or procure a new trial.
In its comprehensive motion following the verdict, the NFL argued a series of legal oversights, including the inappropriate seating of a juror who was supposedly biased due to having paid for a Sunday Ticket subscription for a family member. Furthermore, the NFL criticized the plaintiffs for raising the price-fixing issue only during the trial, a tactic described by the league as an “ambush.”
Legal experts particularly point to the NFL’s argument about the calculation of damages as a significant focus. The plaintiffs had originally demanded $7 billion, but the jury settled on $4.7 billion—a figure subject to tripling under antitrust law, amounting to approximately $14.1 billion. Levinstein called the NFL’s critique of how the jury arrived at the amount “compelling.”
During the trial, it was revealed that the list price for Sunday Ticket was $294, although the actual average price subscribers paid was significantly lower at $102.74, largely due to DirecTV’s promotional discounts. The NFL alleges that the jury erroneously used this difference to calculate damages across millions of subscribers. If the league’s argument holds, the damages assessment could be fundamentally flawed.
The broader implications of the case focus on the NFL’s exclusive arrangements for broadcasting out-of-market games, which the plaintiffs argue inflates prices and limits consumer choice by preventing individual teams from selling their own game broadcasts. This aspect challenges the antitrust exemption traditionally enjoyed under the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 as it pertains to deals with CBS and Fox.
As the NFL prepares its appeal, which could potentially escalate to the Supreme Court, legal discussions continue regarding the viability of the plaintiffs’ standing, as they purchased the Sunday Ticket service from DirecTV and not directly from the NFL—a distinction emphasized by Justice Brett Kavanaugh in an earlier opinion linked to the case.
With the considerable sum of $4.7 billion at stake, the outcome of this legal battle could reshape the broadcast landscape for sports in America, testing the boundaries of anti-competitive behavior and consumer rights in the expansive world of professional sports entertainment. The looming question remains whether the NFL will initiate a settlement negotiation before the appeal progresses further, amidst what has already been a high-stakes legal confrontation laden with complex arguments and substantial financial implications.