Justice Department Investigates NFL Over Anticompetitive Practices, Subscription TV Shift

The Justice Department opened an investigation into the National Football League over whether the league has engaged in anticompetitive tactics that drive up the cost for consumers watching games, adding federal pressure to a mounting regulatory campaign that already spans Capitol Hill and the Federal Communications Commission.

The probe centers on a fragmentation problem that has reshaped the cost of being an NFL fan. A generation ago, a basic cable subscription and a television covered the entire sport. Today, the NFL distributes its 272-game regular season across at least 10 platforms: Disney's ESPN and ABC, Paramount's CBS and Paramount+, Fox Corporation's Fox and Fox One, NBCUniversal's NBC and Peacock, NFL Network, Amazon Prime Video, Google's YouTube, and Netflix. Over the life of those agreements, the NFL stands to bring in over $100 billion in sports rights fees. Amazon alone pays $1 billion a year for the exclusive rights to Thursday Night Football. The bill for fans trying to follow all of it has climbed accordingly: catching all 272 NFL games requires subscribing to all six major services, adding up to roughly $867.84 for a single season. Senator Mike Lee, the Utah Republican who chairs the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights, put the figure even higher, writing in a March letter to the DOJ and Federal Trade Commission that football fans spent "almost $1,000 on cable and streaming subscriptions" to watch every game last season.

The legal question turns on the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961, which allowed sports leagues to navigate some antitrust concerns and negotiate media rights collectively. But games are now spread across many different platforms and channels, some requiring paid subscriptions, as traditional TV and cable providers contend with cord cutting and tougher competition from deep-pocketed tech companies and streamers. The exemption the league has long relied on was designed for a three-network broadcast world. Courts have recognized that "sponsored telecasting," the term at the heart of the 1961 law, refers to broadcasts financed through advertising and made available free to the public. Lee argued that interpretation creates a legal vulnerability for the NFL's current model. "The modern distribution environment differs substantially from the conditions that precipitated this exemption," he wrote. "Instead of a small number of free broadcast networks, the NFL now licenses games simultaneously to subscription streaming platforms, premium cable networks, and technology companies operating under different business models."

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr informed reporters last month that the NFL could lose its exemptions if it puts too many live games behind paywalls. The FCC opened a public comment period on the matter and received "thousands and thousands of comments," with the vast majority supporting keeping a significant portion of games on free, over-the-air broadcast television. That public record is now part of the pressure environment surrounding the DOJ investigation. The two lawmakers warned that consumers, "spurred by anticompetitive practices and corporate greed," have been "forced" to sign up for new services and pay more year-over-year for their current subscriptions.

The NFL responded Thursday, saying "The NFL's media distribution model is the most fan and broadcaster-friendly in the entire sports and entertainment industry," and the league has cited internal data showing more than 87 percent of its content remains available on free television. But critics note that figure does not capture the blackout rules still embedded in the 1961 law, which continue to restrict out-of-market viewing and push fans toward expensive add-on packages like NFL Sunday Ticket.

Michael Kelly, an antitrust and sports law expert who lectures at the University of Miami law school, said he does not believe the 1961 law ever applied to cable or streaming, and that sports leagues have essentially operated beyond the law's scope for decades. Still, Kelly does not believe the NFL is violating antitrust laws by negotiating national media rights deals with a variety of streamers. He said it would be "chaos" if every team tried to license their national media rights instead of permitting the league to do so on their behalf.

Lee said Thursday after news of the investigation broke: "Much has changed in sports broadcasting since 1961, raising new questions about the NFL's antitrust exemption. I'm glad the DOJ is tackling this important issue." The scope and nature of the DOJ probe have not been made public, but the regulatory sequence, from FCC comment period to Senate letters to a formal Justice Department inquiry, suggests the pressure on the NFL's broadcast structure is only intensifying as its next round of media rights negotiations approaches.