LOS ANANGELES — The National Football League is moving to strike down a colossal $4.7 billion payout awarded in a class-action lawsuit, which claims the organization historically overcharged subscribers for out-of-market game broadcasts, a verdict the NFL deems as one of the most indefensible in American legal history. In their recent legal filings, the league’s attorneys described the damages as “nonsensical,” contending that the judgment fundamentally misunderstood the pricing structure of Sunday Ticket packages.
The controversy stems from a discrepancy between the Sunday Ticket’s listed prices in 2018 and 2019 — $294 — versus the average price most residential subscribers actually paid, which was $102.74 across an 11-season period. The league insists this difference was wrongly interpreted by the jury as an overcharge in the provision of NFL games through DirecTV. The claim sparked a comprehensive legal battle focused on whether the pricing arrangements violated antitrust laws.
During the trial, NFL lawyers argued the case was plagued by the introduction of an unexpected ‘price-fixing’ accusation that claimed the NFL, along with broadcasters CBS and FOX and distributor DirecTV, conspired to set and maintain inflated prices for the Sunday Ticket service. This theory, NFL argues, was unproven and improperly presented to the jury.
In further disputing the $4.7 billion verdict — comprised of $4.61 billion earmarked for residential subscribers and $96.9 million for businesses — the NFL contends that the jury’s determinations did not match any of the financial models presented during the trial to calculate potential damages. This discrepancy, according to the NFL, points to a decision grounded more in speculation than in sound judicial reasoning.
The NFL also criticized several procedural aspects of the trial, including claims that the jury was influenced by a biased juror who had indirect personal ties to the Sunday Ticket service. Furthermore, they argued that the trial judge, Philip Gutierrez, erred by allowing evidence and testimonies that were not relevant to the case.
Legal experts following the case have suggested the verdict, if upheld, could reset the parameters for how sports content is priced and delivered in America. It could also impact broader aspects of content distribution across different media, posing risks to joint ventures and collaborative content creation and distribution models.
Considering the potential ramifications of a ruling of this scale, the NFL has highlighted the lawsuit’s threat to stifle investment and innovation in sports broadcasting and could lead to less consumer choice and lower quality in sports entertainment products.
The NFL’s campaign to overturn or at least modify the verdict will reach a critical point on July 31, when a hearing is set to determine the future course of the lawsuit. The league has signaled its intent to appeal, should the motion to vacate the judgment fails.
This legal battle not only underscores the ongoing tension between sports leagues and their broadcasting partners but also tests the boundaries of U.S. antitrust law in the context of sports broadcasting. As both sides prepare for the upcoming hearing, the outcome will likely resonate far beyond the football field, potentially recalibrating the economics of sports content distribution for years to come.