The U.S Department of Justice is investigating whether broadcast contracts held by the National Football League (NFL) violate federal antitrust laws due to the skyrocketing cost of viewership. The NFL holds USD 111 billion in contracts with broadcast and cable networks, as well as streaming services Peacock, Amazon Prime, and Netflix. The investigation comes within the broader context of competitive and antitrust concerns related to online platforms.
The inquiry appears to have support from both sides of the aisle. Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), wrote to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division in March 2026, asking them to examine whether “exorbitant prices for streaming packages” were aligned with the 1961 Sports Broadcasting Act (SBA), which granted a exemption to the NFL among others to negotiate broadcast television contracts (1, 2). Responding to a request for comment, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Rep. Patrick Ryan (D-NY) wrote to the FCC, emphasizing major concerns relating competitive harm in the sports streaming market (3). In particular, they highlighted a deal between Disney / ESPN and NFL, stating that it “harms competitors and gives the sports media giant an incentive to raise prices for viewers.”
The NFL said in a statement that its media distribution model was “the most fan- and broadcaster- friendly in the entire sports and entertainment industry.” The NFL noted that 87% of games were shown on free, broadcast television, including 100% of games in the markets of competing teams. They also noted that the 2025 season was the most viewed since 1989 (4). The statement did not mention the investigation.
Partially in response, the House Judiciary Committee has released a report in June titled “The Sports Broadcasting Act: A Special-Interest Antitrust Exemption Gone Awry”, which emphasized the “expensive, fragmented, and difficult to navigate” nature of the current broadcasting network (5). In particular, the report says that “the NFL’s claim of a fan-friendly distribution model defies the reality experienced by millions of NFL fan,” noting that while 87% of games are carried on some distributor in some part of the country, the average NFL game reaches only 39% of US households, with 113 of 256 games reaching less than 20% of US households. The report also emphasizes that “Sunday Ticket” products are purchased mainly by fans with no other viewing options for their favorite team, giving rise to concerns over economic bundling. A hearing by the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust was held on June 10, 2026, during which potential legislative remedies were discussed (6). In particular, the subcommittee considered revisions to the SBA, such as clarifying that the antitrust exemption only applies to traditional over-the-air broadcasting, and not to exclusive streaming services.
As of the writing of this article, the nature and scope of the investigation are still unknown (7). Additionally, while the investigation is ongoing, the NFL has said they’ve received no outreach from the DOJ (8).
Economic Bundling
“Bundling” or “tying” is the practice of selling two or more products or services packaged together. Customers can only purchase a product on the condition they purchase another product. For example, the “Sunday Ticket” bundles every out-of-market, regular-season Sunday afternoon game broadcast on YouTube. Fans of a particular team, or who want to watch a particular game, must purchase the bundle to access individual products.
Bundling is per se unlawful (illegal without any need to determine market impact) if courts find that (A) the seller possesses sufficient economic power with respect to the tying product to restrain free trade in the market for the tied product and (B) the arrangement affects a substantial amount of commerce in the market for the tied product (9). Failing those conditions, a Rule of Reason is applied. The bundle is considered illegal if it resulted in an unreasonable restraint on trade or has the probable effect of substantially lessening competition and consumer choice.
The 1961 Sports Broadcasting Act, Then and Now
The 1961 Sports Broadcasting Act (SBA) specifically amended antitrust laws to “authorize leagues of professional football, baseball, basketball, and hockey teams to enter into certain television contracts, and for other purposes” (10). The Act allowed NFL teams to collectively negotiate with broadcast networks for a single league-wide broadcast rights package.
The Senate Judiciary Committee at the time expressed the view that without the act, many smaller football teams would not be able to earn enough television revenue to survive, threatening the continued existence of professional football (11). American Football League Commissioner Joe Foss similarly testified to Congress that television was crucial to the survival of a professional football team, and to prevent large TV revenue disparities between teams.
The economic realities that drove the 1961 Sports Broadcasting act have since shifted. As of 2025, Forbes listed the valuation of the 32 NFL teams at an average of USD 7.1 Billion, with the least expensive team valued at 5.25 billion (12). NFL revenue sharing disbursements per-team reached USD 432.6 million in 2025 including streaming (13, 14).
In the instant matter, given the assumption that the NFL has significant market power in the market for live professional American football, the bundling of games might fail the per se or Rule of Reason tests presented above without the SBA exemption.
If the SBA’s exemption is found to cover only traditional over-the-air broadcast, either as a matter of legal analysis or by explicit “clarification” as discussed by the house subcommittee, streaming bundles may be found to violate antitrust law. Such a result would have significant implications for the current sports broadcasting market.
References
- Senator Lee Urges Probe of NFL’s Soaring Streaming Service Prices. Mike Lee US Senator for Utah, March 3, 2026.
- Steele, David. “DOJ Probes NFL TV Contracts for Anticompetitiveness.” Law360, April 9, 2026.
- Warren, Ryan Urge FCC to Protect Sports Fans from ‘streamflation,’ as ESPN’s New Arrangements with NFL, MLB Threaten Fans with Higher Costs. U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren, April 7, 2026.
- “Sources: DOJ Opens Antitrust Investigation of NFL over TV Deals.” ESPN, April 9, 2026.
- “The Sports Broadcasting Act: A Special-Interest Antitrust Exemption Gone Awry.” House Judiciary Committee, June 8, 2026.
- “Examining the Sports Broadcasting Act.” House Judiciary Committee, June 10, 2026.
- Toonkel, Jessica and Mattioli, Dana. “Justice Department Opens Investigation Into NFL.” The Wall Street Journal, April 9, 2026.
- “Examining the Sports Broadcasting Act.” House Judiciary Committee, June 10, 2026.
- “Tying Arrangement.” Legal Information Institute.
- S. Congress. “Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961.” GovInfo, September 30, 1961.
- “NFL Television Broadcasting and the Federal Courts.” Federal Judicial Center.
- Teitelbaum, Justin and Knight, Brett. “The NFL’s Most Valuable Team 2025.” Forbes, Aug 28, 2025.
- Young, Ryan. “NFL team reportedly received a record USD 432.6 million in league revenue sharing deal.” Yahoo! Sports, Jul 23, 2025.
- It is important to note that despite their connection to joint-negotiation by NFL teams, revenue sharing agreements themselves are not prohibited by antitrust law.
Author Background: Albert Zhang is a Director at Coherent Economics. Mr. Zhang has over ten years of experience at the intersection of economics and finance. These include successful large scale antitrust litigation involving FAANG companies, the valuation of multi-billion dollar tech and financial assets for Fortune 500 clients, and the live valuation of risk for hedge fund trading purposes.
The views and opinions expressed in this content are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position or views of the firm, its partners, employees, or affiliates. The information provided is for general informational purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice.