Examining the Sports Broadcasting Act

Subcommittee will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare

I can.

a recess at any time. We welcome everyone to today's hearing on sports broadcasting act. I will now recognize myself for an opening statement. Today we are here to examine the antitrust exemption granted under the sports Broadcasting Act of nineteen sixty-one and whether it continues to serve the interest of American consumers. The Sports Broadcasting Act was enacted at a very different time in American history. In the late nineteen fifties and early nineteen sixties, professional football was still developing into a national enterprise. At the time, each team controlled its own broadcasting rights and would negotiate with networks to televise individual games. To promote competition and ensure the success of its league, the NFL amended its bylaws to prevent teams from broadcasting in each other's territory. However, the Department of Justice viewed that restriction as anti-competitive and sued the league for violating the Sherman Act. In nineteen fifty-three, the district court largely sided with the DOJ and issued an injunction preventing the NFL from placing restrictions on televising games in the home territory of a team playing an away game. In nineteen sixty-one, the NFL moved to limit the distribution of games again, signing the first deal to sell broadcast rights for all fourteen of its teams as a single package. When the district court again said no, the NFL turned to Congress for help. And just a few months later, Congress passed the Sports Broadcasting Act of nineteen sixty-one. which allowed the leagues to pool their individual broadcasting rights for sale to a single purchaser. The rationale was simple. Congress believed that joint television agreements would help make games more widely available to the public. It also would preserve the competitive balance among the different teams, and keep the professional sports leagues financially viable. In exchange, Congress sought to maximize the public interest by limiting the exemption to only quote sponsored telecast telecasting, ensuring fans continue to have free access to their favorite sports teams. Sixty-five years later, however, it is fair for this body to ask whether the professional sports leagues have kept up their end of the bargain. In my opinion, they have not. And sports fans are paying the price because of it. The NFL, for example, boasts that one hundred percent of its quote local market games unquote, are available free over the air and that it offers the most fan and broadcaster friendly model in the entire sports and entertainment industry. But how it chooses to define local market games each week leaves fans across the country guessing whether they'll be able to see their favorite team on TV or whether they need to buy a subscription. For example, according to the NFL's distribution schedule for week three games last season, fans in southern Indiana would not see the Indianapolis Colts on their local market. Same for Houston fans in northeast Texas. Despite living in the same state as their favorite football team, fans are subjected to arbitrary restrictions imposed by the NFL that forced them into buying a premium subscription model. This is precisely why NFL Sunday Ticket is advertised to fans as necessary to ensure they could watch every regular season game of their favorite team. The NFL's claim of a fan-friendly distribution model also defies the reality experienced by millions of NFL fans nationwide. NFL fans generally have access to only three or four games on a Sunday afternoon, with the rest available only through Sunday ticket. Compare that with the current college football model, where fans can access dozens of games across various television channels on a Saturday afternoon. Since twenty twenty-one, the NFL, along with the other sports leagues, have stretched the bounds of its exemption to sign exclusive distribution agreements with streaming platforms, including Amazon Prime, Netflix, Peacock, and ESPN. This includes the Packers, the Green Bay Packers games on Thanksgiving evening and Christmas Day, which will be broadcast exclusively on Netflix outside of the local market. It has also begun shifting some programming to Saturdays, which goes against the original intent of the law, which was to preserve Friday night high school and Saturday college football. Consumers who wish to follow their favorite teams increasingly find themselves paying for multiple services, navigating fragmented viewing arrangements, and facing higher overall costs. According to Fox News, to have access to all NFL games in the twenty twenty-five season, it would cost the average sports fan at least five hundred and seventy-five dollars or upwards of eight hundred dollars for those without existing subscriptions. To which all in-market MLB games can likewise cost the consumer upwards of five hundred dollars annually according to the news site Kiplinger. A sports fan without a traditional linear TV package must now have on average four different streaming services to watch the bulk of major sporting events. The Sports Broadcasting Act was designed to facilitate the distribution of games through free over-the-air television. It was not intended to provide a perpetual shield for leagues to coordinate the sale of media rights across every new technology and distribution platform that emerges yet that is effectively what has happened. Today the major leagues, and particularly the National Football League, have used the antitrust exemption to collectively negotiate increasingly lucrative media distribution contracts that go far beyond the circumstances Congress contemplated in nineteen sixty-one. Following passage of the Sports Broadcasting Act, then-NFL Commissioner Pete Rosell signed a TV deal worth four point six five million. Nearly sixty years later, the NFL signed an eleven year media deal worth one hundred and thirteen billion dollars. The NBA, first TV contract after passage of the SBA, was for twenty-seven million. In twenty-twenty-four, the league signed an eleven year deal worth seventy-six billion dollars. While the leagues are undoubtedly more popular than they were in nineteen sixty-one because they do not follow America's antitrust laws, for television agreements, they can charge consumers inflated prices that would otherwise be illegal. The NFL argues that its distribution model is needed to maintain competitive balance and keep teams financially viable, and that's fair. I think most sports fans appreciate it when teams can compete on the merits rather than through an arms race like what we're seeing today with college football. But the NFL and its teams are not in the same financial position as they were in nineteen sixty one. Under the NFL's first media distribution contract, each team received approximately three hundred and ten thousand dollars per year. In twenty twenty five, each team received four hundred and sixteen million from the league's national media, sponsorship and licensing revenue. Not to make it personal, but Commissioner Roselle's salary in nineteen sixty one thousand dollars. Commissioner Goodell's salary today is reportedly over sixty million dollars. And in nineteen ninety nine, Dan Schneider purchased the now Washington Commanders for eight hundred million. Today, despite having only one playoff win in the last twenty-five years, sorry, Commanders fans, the Commanders are presently valued at over seven billion. The NFL now reaches hundreds of millions of fans across dozens of international markets. The NFL is not a fragile enterprise in need of special protection. It is one of the most successful and powerful entertainment businesses in the world, and it pays its players and staff accordingly. To suggest that teams could not remain competitive without an antitrust exemption is simply false. It also falsely suggests that Congress, not the NFL, controls revenue sharing, which is also inaccurate. But the question before Congress is not whether professional sports teams will continue to compete without this exemption. The question is whether consumers continue to benefit from it. The evidence increasingly suggests they do not. The NFL's ongoing Sunday ticket litigation further illustrates this point. In twenty twenty four, a jury found the NFL guilty of violating antitrust law for colluding to limit consumer choice and charged super-competitive prices for access to games through its Sunday ticket platform. The jury awarded plaintiffs a judgment of over fourteen billion against the NFL. This ruling is currently on appeal, but regardless of the litigation's final outcome, the allegations themselves reflect a broader reality. The NFL has used its unique ability to coordinate amongst otherwise competitive clubs to maximize revenue rather than expanding consumer access. Congress only grants antitrust exemptions in rare circumstances because competition remains the best mechanism for promoting innovation and protecting consumers. Exemptions should be maintained only when there are benefits that clearly outweigh the costs. When the beneficiaries of an exemption begin using it to restrict access, increase prices, and strengthen their own market power beyond what Congress intended, lawmakers, Congress, have an obligation to reconsider whether that exemption remains justified. The Sports Broadcasting Act was enacted to expand access to sports broadcasting, not to facilitate exclusive streaming arrangements that force fans to pay more for less. In my view, the NFL seems to have lost sight of the original purpose of the legislation, and in fact, they may even be in violation of the law right now. Today, I hope we can have a constructive debate about what reforms, if any, Congress should consider to ensure a marketplace that works best for consumers. I now recognize the ranking member, Mister Nadler, for his opening statement.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. Mister Chairman, for years I have been warning this committee about the dangers of unchecked consolidation in the American media industry. I have written letters, I have led oversight efforts, I have called for serious antitrust review of the deals that have steadily concentrated our newsrooms, our studios, and our broadcasting infrastructure into the hands of fewer and fewer companies. And for years, the majority has turned a blind eye to these warnings. Today we're here to examine the Sports Broadcasting Act of nineteen sixty one. And I want to be clear at the outset, this law absolutely deserves a serious re-examination. It was written for a media media landscape that no longer exists. American sports fans are paying more, getting less, and navigating a s- fragmented streaming environment that the nineteen sixty one Congress could not possibly have anticipated. Reform of this law is a legitimate subject for congressional attention. But you cannot examine the Sports Broadcasting Act in a vacuum. And that is exactly what the majority is asking us to do today. The same administration that has suddenly discovered a concern for NFL fans has over the past year waved through one of the most aggressive waves of media consolidation in modern American history. Just last summer, the FCC approved the Skydance-Paramount merger. But only after the Ellison pa- family paid the president a sixteen million dollar contribution to his presidential library, threw in millions more in free advertising, agreed to install a Trump-friendly minder in the CBS newsroom, and sought to the cancellation of The Late Show with Stephen Colbert. The result, as ranking member B- Raskin and I have warned repea- this committee repeatedly was not antitrust review, it was a shake-down. Now the same Ellison family is back, this time bidding for Warner Brothers' discovery in a deal that would give them not only CBS and Paramount, but also CNN, HBO, and one of the largest collections of sportcasting rights in the country. The president has publicly announced that he intends to be involved in the decision. The Ellisons have reportedly aler- already promised him quote " sweeping changes" at CNN. The same playbook that worked for SkyDance-Paramount is being run again, with the same beneficiaries, the same victims, and the same silence from this administration's antitrust regulators. This is a First Amendment crisis dressed up as an innocuous business deal. When this president can use the merger review process to extract edit- to extract editorial control over a major news network, it represents a significant threat to our democracy, and our constitutional liberties. When the LIC when the FCC can be used to retaliate against ABC for airing a Jimmy Kimmel monologue the White House did not like, no broadcaster in this country is safe. The story that sixty minutes was forced to delay about Lola's deportations and the firing of high profile correspondents like Scott P- Scott Pelley are a preview of the censorship regime these mergers are enabling. And all this unchecked consolidation, aided by corruption in the administration, must inform our consideration of the sports broadcasting landscape. The merger of CBS Sports and Turner Sports under one corporate roof would create a sports rights portfolio rivaled only by ESPN, encompassing rights to the NHL, the NFL, the Olympics, the UFC, the PGA Tour, the Big Ten, Big Twelve, NCAA basketball and the Champions League. Fewer competitors bidding for sports rights means higher monthly bills for every American family, sports fans or not. Last Congress, I joined my colleagues in writing to the Department of Justice about the proposed venue sports joint venture between Disney, Fox and Warner Brothers Discovery. A venture that would have given three of the largest media companies in the country control over the sports streaming market. A federal judge agreed with us, granted an injunction, and the Biden antitrust division filed a serious uh I'm sorry, filed a powerful amicus brief detailing the c- anti-competitive effects of that arrangement. Last year, the Trump Justice Department cleared Disney's acquisition of Fubo, the very company that had brought the antitrust case in the first place. The result was exactly what we warned about. A competitor knocked out, a market consolidated and consumers left with higher prices and fewer choices. And now we are here to discuss the NFL, not because the majority has introduced any legislation to address the high costs of sports viewership, but because Rupert Murdoch personally lobbied the president at a White House dinner in February, warning that the NFL's streaming deals would, quote, " kill broadcast networks like Fox." Within weeks of that dinner, the Justice Department opened the investigation That is the stated reason for today's hearing. Yes, we should reform the Sports Broadcasting Act. Fans are being asked to pay too much across too many platforms just to watch their favorite teams. But we cannot pretend we are doing the work of consumer protection when we examine the SBA in isolation, while the administration facilitates the very consolidation that is driving up the costs we claim to be concerned about. I have called for a full investigation into the corruption at this administration's Department of Justice and Federal Communications Commission, and I will continue to do so. We cannot have an honest conversation about the Sport Broadcasting Broadcasting Act, or any antitrust matter, when the agencies responsible for enforcing our competition laws have been turned into instruments of political and personal favor. Before I yield back, we cannot discuss anything related to sports today, without taking note of the most important sports story happening in this country today. And by that I mean the New York Knicks drive for an NBA championship.

Mm-hmm.

Tonight is game four, and as long as Donald Trump stays far away from Madison Square Garden,

Golly.

the Knicks should do fine. Let's go Knicks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Right to it is plugged by the member from New York for the Knicks tonight. With that, uh, I will recognize the Chairman of the full committee, Mister Jordan, for his openings.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. We have an antitrust law in America. We've had it for over a hundred years. In simple terms, you can't collude. You can't form a cartel, operate a cartel. And the reason we have that is we want competition cuz that's good for the consumer. Simple terms. Nineteen sixty-one, the NFL came to Congress and said, we need relief from this law when it comes to our TV agreement. And if we don't get, if you don't let us combine our resources to negotiate with the networks as a group, include on this, We will go out of business. That's what they told us. And their argument was a good argument. I mean, I get it. They said bigger markets will get bigger deals, better deals. New York, Chicago, LA, they'll get better deals than Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and Green Bay. And Congress bought it. Congress said, " Okay, we don't want the smaller market teams to go out of business. We want a league. We like this product. America loves this product." And so Congress enacted the Sports Broadcasting Act in nineteen sixty-one. But as the chairman and the ranking members said, the situation today is a little different. What's the situation today? What's the situation today? Sports Broadcasting Act nineteen sixty one, what's the situation today? On Sunday afternoon you can watch games on broadcast television, Fox and CBS. On Sunday night you can get the games on broadcast television NBC. On Monday night games are on satellite and cable, television ESPN. On Thursday night games are streamed on Amazon. On Thanksgiving games are on broadcast satellite, cable or streaming. On Christmas broadcast satellite, cable or streaming. and there's some I'm missing in there cuz when playoffs get different and everything else. That's the situation today. In fact, we ac- we actually we described it in our report. Here's what the fan deals with today. In our report, a Green Bay Packers fan who lives in Dallas, Texas, grew up in Green Bay, loves the Packers, wants to watch Packers, grew up in Dallas, Texas. For the twenty twenty six season, the Packers are scheduled to play eight games on Fox, two games on Amazon, Prime Video, two games on Netflix, two games on NBC, one game on ESPN, one game on CBS, and one unscheduled game that is left to be determined by the NFL. The fan will need access to Amazon Prime Video, Netflix, NBC and ESPN to see the seven games scheduled for those services. For the nine games scheduled for Fox and CBS, the fan will likely need Fox and CBS because some of the games will be on broadcast television in Dallas. The fan will also likely need Sunday Ticket just to watch some subset of the nine Fox CBS games because the fan will not know which games will and will not be on broadcast until the NFL and relevant networks release the broadcast maps the week of the games. That's what they gotta navigate. That's what they gotta navigate. And so we're here today, look. We're here today to and we're here today to deal with the fundamental question, does this still work for consumers? And maybe it does. Like, we we haven't reached any type of conclusion. We just know the situation, we know what our constituents and what fans are telling us, the folks we have the privilege of representing in our respective districts. We wanna know if it still works for and maybe it does. We all love this product. Everyone loves football. We all love to watch it. We all love the Super Bowl, the playoffs, your hometown team. We all love that. But we know one thing. We're we're asking the question, does it work for consumers? We know it's working for the NFL. We know it's working for them. Nineteen sixty-one, adjusted for inflation, fourteen teams in the league, guess what each team got paid in the TV deal? Three point three seven million dollars. Twenty twenty-five, thirty-two teams, guess what each team got in the deal? four hundred and forty-three million dollars. A hundred times more. Almost a half a billion dollars. And again, that may be just fine. But that's the TV deal. That's not counting tickets and T-shirts and in-stadium advertisement and all the other stuff. We're here to answer one simple question, because we're the Judiciary Committee, we have an antitrust law, we have to do our jobs. Does this still benefit consumers and the consumer welfare the way it's supposed to? With that, I would yield back to the Chairman and appre- well, let me just say I appreciate your witnesses being here. Sorry I'm running a little late. I was in an important hearing over in the House Administration Committee on Act Blue and all the crazy things they've been up to. But, uh, appreciate you all being here, and I yield back.

Chairman yields back, and I'll recognize the Ranking Member of the full committee, Mister Raskin, for his opening statement.

Uh, thank you very much, Mister Chairman, and, uh, thank you for taking us. I was over at an important meeting in the, uh, House Administration Committee that, um, should have been about wind red and all the crazy things it's doing. Um, I agree with my, uh, Republican colleagues that the basic framework of the Sports Broadcasting Act is worth revisiting given how much has changed since it was enacted sixty-five years ago when I was growing up and for much of the life of the Sports Broadcasting Act, there were just three networks on the airwaves and all you needed to do to watch your favorite team play on Sunday uh was all you needed was a TV and an antenna. Today, an NFL fan must spend between five hundred and a thousand dollars every single season in subscriptions to different platforms and streaming subscriptions just to effectively cheer on their home team. It seems, um, seems fundamentally unfair that the league should get billion dollar deals, the network should get billion dollar contracts, but the fans are left out in the cold. That hardly captures the spirit of the antitrust exemption that Congress passed in nineteen sixty-one. What I have trouble conf- computing, however, today is why the majority is focused on this narrow issue against the backdrop of the most sweeping and aggressive media consolidation in American history. Time and again, the administration has allowed giant media companies to merge, leaving consumers with fewer choices, higher prices, and less power. They waved through Disney's acquisition of Fubo and ESPN's acquisition of NFL Network, resulting in greater consolidation and dramatically reduced competition, in the sports rights market. They turned a blind eye to the Nexstar-Tegnam merger, which would give one company broadcast reach into eighty percent of households in the United States, and thereby lead to increased blackouts for sports fans and higher prices for everybody. And now the Paramount-Skydance-Warner-brothers-Discovery merger, which President Trump personally muscled through after breaking up a deal between Netflix and Warner is sailing through Trump's politicized executive branch review process. Last month, ranking member Pallone and I wrote to Paramount Skydance's CEO David Ellison about this pending merger. We pointed out that less than a year after Trump blessed Ellison's takeover of Paramount Global, which includes the Paramount Pictures, CBS, BET, MTV, Nickelodeon, Comedy Central, and streaming services Paramount Plus and Pluto, he's now arranging for David Ellison to add Warner Brothers, Studios, DC Entertainment, HBO, CNN, the Discovery Channel, HGTV, Cartoon Network, TBS and TNT, as well as HBO and Discovery's streaming services to this awesome media conglomerate. If this deal goes through, the Ellisons, one family of Trump mega-donors and enablers will have managed to purchase an unparalleled sports and news empire in just one year. That means the same kind of unprecedented pro-mega editorial control we've seen at CBS, news and sixty minutes, including the appointment of a full-time paid mega-minder, a government spy and censor in the newsroom. That could occur at CNN. That means American consumers who already pay an average sixty-nine dollars a month for streaming on top of a hundred a month for cable and seventy-eight for internet, paying even more for sports, news and entertainment. So, in the face of this profound consolidation and antitrust crisis, sweeping the media market, why is the majority focused just on the NFL? Why is the Trump administration through the DOJ and the FCC investigating the NFL, but not other parties in the market that threaten even far worse harm to consumers and competitive dynamics in the market? Well, it turns out that early in this administration, this is according to The Wall Street Journal, Fox Corporation Chairman Rupert Murdoch personally lobbied Donald Trump at a White House dinner to crack down on the NFL's streaming deals, streaming deals that compete directly with Fox's broadcast business. And the DOJ's investigation, like this hearing, appeared to be all about helping Mister Murdoch get a better broadcast deal for Fox. That hardly seems like a principled or methodical way for us to proceed. The majority's offered no legislation to reform the Sports Broadcasting Act. They've called no hearings on the Ellison's corrupt paramount skydance, Warner Brothers' discovery merger or the deep corruption at the heart of the Paramount-Skydance merger. They've not called a single Trump administration antitrust official to come testify before this subcommittee about the political destabilization and saturation of the antitrust process uh of review in the administration. In fact, the only Trump-era antitrust official to appear before this committee, this entire Congress, was a Democratic called witness, Roger Alford, who was fired by the Trump administration for refusing to participate in the pay-to-play corruption of the DOJ's antitrust divisions. Despite being a political appointee, including serving as the number two at DOJ's antitrust division in the second Trump administration, he was so appalled by what he saw that he bravely decided to blow the whistle on how this administration is every day selling out American consumers to mega-donors and their White House-connected lobbyists. This selective interest suggests that the majority has little interest in conducting real oversight here or promoting real competition in the economy. They're doing nothing to protect American consumers, workers, or innovation. Instead, they're siding with big corporations, striving for monopoly profits that jack up prices for everybody and depress wages while offering inferior goods and services. Commissioner Gomez, I think we are watching the alarming consequences for the First Amendment Emboldened by its efforts to capture CBS and CNN, the Trump administration has now turned its attention to ABC and its parent company, Disney, which you warned are facing a quote " sustained, coordinated campaign of censorship and control" from the Trump administration. And this is what I will ask you about. I yield back to you, Mr. Chairman.

Ranking member yields back. Without objection, all other opening statements will be included in the record. We'll now introduce today's witnesses. Mister Jim Hollers. Mister Hollers is the founder and managing partner of Tailgaters Pub and Grill and Citizens Grill, two restaurants in the Houston area, he has owned and operated more than two dozen restaurants and bars over the years. Mister Curtis Legette. Mister Legette is the President and Chief Executive Officer of the National Associates you know Broadcasters an organization that advocates on behalf of television and radio broadcasters. He previously served as the organization's Chief Operating Officer and it's executive vice president for government relations. Mister Clay Travis. Mister Travis is the founder and I think president of Outkick Media, maybe not at this point. I'm not sure. We need to update that uh text. A sports and culture news company that we're all familiar with. He previously worked as an attorney, college football analyst and commentator, and as a columnist for CBS sports. He is also half of the Clay, Travis, and Buck Sexton syndicated radio show which is broadcast across America. Miss Anna Gomez. Miss Gomez is a Commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission. She has served in the role since September of twenty twenty-three. Miss Gomez previously served in the State Department and various staff level roles at the FCC. We welcome our witnesses and thank them for appearing today. We will begin by swearing you in. Would you please rise and raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information and belief, so help you God. Let the record reflect that the witnesses have answered in the affirmative. Thank you. Please be seated. Please know that your written testimony will be entered into the record in its entirety. Accordingly, we ask you that you summarize your testimony in five minutes. Mister Hallers, you may begin.

Uh, thank you, uh, Chairman Fitzgerald and, uh, Ranking Member Nadler and members of the committee. My name is Jim Hallers and I'm the founder and managing partner of Tailgaters Pub and Grill and Citizens Grill in the Houston area. Since two thousand nine, I have uh built and operated sports bars and restaurants that today employ over four hundred team members. But before entering the restaurant business, I spent twenty-five years in information technology, working with software and technology infrastructure. That background is important because the challenge I'm here to discuss today is not just about football. It is about technology, distribution, and the unintended impact these changes have on small businesses. My restaurants are built around the game day experience. Every Sunday during football season, hundreds of customers come to watch their favorite teams while enjoying food, drinks, and time with family and friends. The NFL Sunday ticket has long been a critical part of that experience. For my businesses, Sunday ticket is not simply entertainment, it's an economic driver, it supports jobs, generates tax revenue, and helps local suppliers, vendors, and employees earn a living. In Texas, many of our customers have actually moved from other parts of the country. On any given Sunday, I may have fans of the Texans, Steelers, Packers, Eagles, Bears, Bills, and even the Cowboys all watching games in the same building. Offering every game is not a luxury for a sports bar; it is a customer expectation. Historically, we met that expectation through DirecTV's commercial Sunday ticket package. It was expensive, but it was reliable and relatively straightforward. Today, the sports media landscape has become increasingly fragmented. Games and programming are spread across multiple streaming platforms. What may seem like a simple change for a custom- consumer at home becomes a significant operational challenge for a restaurant. My business depends heavily on two seasons right now, football season and crawfish season. And while crawfish season depends on mother nature, football season depends on the NFL and the technology systems that deliver the games. When those systems become fragmented, expensive, and unreliable, it directly affects my bottom line. To deliver games across dozens of televisions, we need, today, additional streaming devices, switching equipment, network infrastructure, and extra internet capacity. A full transition can require a thirty to forty thousand dollar investment per location to show the the current version of Sunday Ticket to Everpass. But the challenge is not just cost, it is reliability. A sports bar may need to stream multiple games simultaneously while also supporting point of sale systems credit card processing online ordering, security systems, business operations, and customer WiFi. When a stream freezes during a critical play, the customers do not blame the provider. They blame the restaurant. As the industry continues moving towards streaming, I am not asking Congress to stop innovation. Technology changes and businesses adapt. What I am asking is that policymakers recognize the unique role that restaurants and sports bars play in the sports ecosystem. We are not passive viewers. We are a community ga- we are really community gathering places that invest substantial resources to bring fans together. As Congress examines the Sports Broadcasting Act and the future of sports media distribution, I encourage you to consider the practical impact that these changes have on commercial establishments. We need transitions that are reliable, economically realistic, and mindful of all the small businesses

Thank you, Mr. Hallers. Mr. Leggette, you may begin.

Good morning, Ma- Chairman Fitzgerald. Ranking members Raskin and Nadler and members of this subcommittee. My name is Curtis Legette and I'm the President and CEO of the National Association of Broadcasters. I'm proud to testify today on behalf of America's local broadcast television stations and the networks with which they affiliate. Our members serve every community in the country with trusted journalism, emergency information, weather, entertainment, and of course, sports. All available free over the air. The Sports Broadcasting Act was built on a simple public interest bargain. Professional sports leagues received a limited antitrust exemptions so they could pool and sell broadcast rights, and fans received broad public access to games. In nineteen sixty-one, Congress considered the scope of that exemption carefully and explicitly applied it only to sponsor telecasting not subscription television. Congress was clear. the law is about free over-the-air broadcasting, not paywalls. For decades that bargain worked. Fans could watch most games on free local broadcast television. Leagues benefited from the unmatched reach of broadcasting. Stations benefited from live sports programming that helped support local news, weather, and emergency coverage. And communities benefited because sports became part of our shared cultural experience. Yet today it's increasingly apparent that the public access goals of that bargain are no longer being met. Games from the four major professional leagues are now spread across Amazon Prime, Netflix, YouTube TV, and Apple TV. Fans increasingly need multiple paid subscriptions to watch their favorite teams, and survey after survey shows fans are confused and frustrated.

Mm.

accessing every NFL game over the course of a season would cost a consumer well over a thousand dollars. That's a long way from the broad free access Congress intended when it created the SBA. This is especially troubling because attending games in person has become unaffordable for many families as well. When fans are priced out of the stadium and games are moved behind paywalls, the public loses twice. Amidst all of this, Broadcast television remains the most consumer-friendly platform in America. We are free, we are local, we do not require a monthly fee, a broadband connection, or a separate app. We reach rural communities, seniors, low-income households, and casual fans who may not subscribe to multiple streaming services. This is why games on Broadcast deliver massive audiences relative to their streaming competitors. For example, NFL games on CBS, Fox, and NBC, this averaged forty four point seven million viewers per game, while Amazon's c- game the following day on Black Friday drew only sixteen million viewers. It's also why local teams that have moved games from regional sports networks to broadcast television have seen their ratings surge. Importantly, the stanks for y- your constituents extend beyond sports. The advertising encouraged delivered by live sporting events, help pay for coverage of city halls, school boards, elections, severe weather, public safety, and community events. When tornadoes, wildfires, or other emergencies threaten lives, local broadcasters are there. In contrast, big tech does not invest in local newsrooms and they are not on the ground after the storm. In conclusion, live sports on free broadcast television have served the American public Together we've built shared national moments, strengthened communities, expanded fan bases, and supported local journalism. But that model's now at risk. Fans are paying more and receiving less. And meanwhile, local stations are competing against global tech platforms that can subsidize their sports rights with revenue from entirely different businesses. In nineteen sixty-one, Congress was right to put fans first. And NAB is not asking to eliminate the Sports Broadcasting Act. But this committee should reaffirm that the SBA applies only to league-wide negotiations with media companies that will distribute games through broadcast television not block games behind streaming paywalls. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I look forward to your questions.

Thank you, Mr. Leggette. Mr. Travis, you may begin.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the invite today. Mr. Nadler, I enjoy uh, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak to all of you. My name is Clay Travis. I founded a site called Outkick in two thousand eleven. If you haven't gone yet, you should. It's the sanest site in all of sports. And a big part of what we do on that site, and what I have done for the past twenty-two years in my career, is advocate for the average sports fan. Uh, many of you are lawyers and you're familiar with the standard of a reasonable man. How would someone respond in a context in the law? I'd like to advocate here for the reasonable fan. I just asked before I started speaking today, my followers on X, what would you say if you had the opportunity today to speak to Democrats, Republicans, to everyone across the country about your experience as a sports fan? I would encourage you guys to go look at the responses there. Hundreds of them have all come in. None of them are happy. Every single day, sports fans are getting gouged now for the opportunity of watching their favorite teams. And I would say under the Sports Broadcast Act, as a very easy summation, fans now pay far more money every year for something that by law, in nineteen sixty-one, you all guaranteed for them should be free. For anyone out there who is saying, " Why is Congress involved in this?" You interjected yourself in nineteen sixty-one at the behest of these leagues, to provide them an exemption that they have now taken advantage of and they are gouging so many different fans out there across the entire sports landscape regardless of who you are a fan of. Let me hit you with just a couple of ideas. The NFL in particular, CBS, Fox, NBC, ESPN, ABC, Amazon, Netflix, the NFL Sunday Ticket, Paramount, Peacock. Most of your constituents are frustrated. They don't know how to find games and they are having to pay far too much when they have the opportunity to actually watch those games. I don't know how many of you remember back in the day when you could have one remote control in your hand and you could easily flip from any different game. Nowadays, with passwords, with sign-ins, how many of your constituents on an average Saturday or Sunday are extremely frustrated because they just can't even get logged in to watch their favorite games and these are things that they're already paying for. I hear from fans every single day about how frustrated they are with what the leagues are doing they just want to be able to watch their favorite team and not have to struggle to do so. Think about this perspective. Remember when flat screen televisions were very expensive? I spent forty-two hundred dollars in two thousand six for my first ever flat screen television. Now they are a few hundred dollars. Capitalism has worked when it comes to flat screen television. Sports fans now can watch huge flat screens in their home for a fraction of the cost that they paid in two thousand six, but they now have to pay a massive amount to be able to watch all of their favorite teams. Your investigation has actually uncovered that the NFL Sunday ticket, which is one of the most expensive packages out there, the NFL doesn't even offer to the average fan what they actually want, which is the ability to subscribe to their favorite team if they live out of market, something that many of you know all about because you travel all the time and you probably want to watch your favorite NFL team, your local constituent team. You don't have the ability to do it. They don't offer that product, even though the marketplace is telling them that's what people most want. I love college football. I love the NFL. I have three boys. We spend all day Saturday and Sunday watching games. In the college football world, You know, I get ten broadcast games for free every single Saturday. The market for college football is robust. In the NFL, at most you only get four. The NFL is gonna argue that eighty-seven percent of their games are still free. That still means that they're violating the law with thirteen percent of the games that they are putting behind streamers. It also means that the reality is, if you look at your individual constituents, none of them are getting eighty-seven percent. And let me close with this one example here, and I look forward to your questions. Buffalo Bills, great new stadium opening, eight hundred and fifty million dollars in taxpayer funds. Their very first home game is on a Thursday on Amazon. Most of the taxpayers in the state of New York who paid for that stadium are not able to watch for free a Buffalo Bills home opener. That's wrong. You guys have an important responsibility and an opportunity to apply the law fairly, freely, and help fans everywhere across the entire nation pay less and get more. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Travis. Miss Gomez, you may begin.

Chairman Jordan, Ranking Member Raskin, Chair Fitzgerald, and Ranking Member Nadler, and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. In living rooms in sports bars across the country, millions of Americans who may agree on little else will be gathered tonight to watch the NBA finals, rooting together for their respective team. There are few things left in American life that cut across every line of division the way sports does. And I say that as a proud National and Wizards fan who knows exactly what it feels like to believe that your team might actually pull it off this year. We are living through a genuinely remarkable era for sports fans. More games, more leagues, more athletes, more stories are accessible today than any previous generation could have imagined. At the same time, the economics of how fans actually watch have shifted in ways that deserve serious attention. What used to arrive through an antenna, available to anyone regardless of income, has increasingly migrated behind a growing stack of subscriptions and league-specific apps. For a family trying to follow their team through a full season, the cost of piecing together a c- across multiple platforms adds up quickly. How we ensure sports content remains accessible and available to all Americans is a question I want to situate within a much broader set of concerns about who controls the media that carries the games and what they are doing with that power. The FCC has a legitimate interest in helping gather information about how the sports broadcasting act is functioning in a changing media environment and I support efforts to ensure fans can access their teams When sports programming migrates behind paywalls, fans lose access, local broadcasters lose the revenue that keeps their stations alive, and the local journalism those stations produce loses the funding on which it depends. I also want to be candid about where the FCC's authority ends. The commission can gather information, raise concerns, and call out fouls when we see them, but any meaningful update to the sports broadcasting act will ultimately require legislative action. Despite growing public concern about the challenges facing the media ecosystem, this administration does not appear to be prioritizing consumer protection. According to reports, the scrutiny now being applied to sports leagues through government agencies like the FCC and DOJ appears to be driven less by a genuine interest in protecting fans and more by the influence of powerful media companies with close ties to this administration that stand to benefit financially from the outcome of that scrutiny. I've called this pattern the billionaire buddy bypass, where the public interest gets bypassed in favor of a powerful few, and it extends well beyond sports broadcasting into a sweeping consolidation of media power, that poses serious risks to journalism, to free expression, and to the Americans that depend on both. That consolidation is where I want to spend the remainder of my time because the stakes are high and the pattern is clear. When the FCC unlawfully waives federal law to let one broadcaster reach eighty percent of local television households, more than double the cap set by Congress by statute, it signaled it was willing to move the goal posts for the entire industry for the right relationships. When Paramount settled a baseless lawsuit just two days before its merger with Skydance was approved and that approve approval was conditioned on commitments to reshape the editorial direction at CBS News, We saw what unchecked media consolidation leaves in its wake, including the collapse of Sixty Minutes and the irreparable damage done to one of the most trusted names in broadcast journalism. And now that same ownership is seeking to add CNN, HBO, and Warner Brothers to that portfolio, financed by twenty-four billion dollars from sovereign wealth funds, controlled by foreign governments with documented records of press suppression. Nearly half of the combined company would be in foreign government hands. Paramount has asked the FCC to authorize up to one hundred percent foreign ownership of its broadcast licensees and the FCC has shown every sign that it intends to wave that through. Whether to authorize that level of foreign government control over media broadcast infrastructure, cable news, networks, and Hollywood studios is a national security a- question that demands far more than a rubber stamp. Media consolidation on this scale requires and, I mean, creates the conditions for exactly the kind of editorial control this administration has shown it intends to exercise, pursuing investigations and threatening the licenses of news organizations whose coverage it finds unfavorable. That campaign of censorship and control does not happen without the consolidated media power that enables it. The American people deserve a government whose approach to media policy starts and ends with their interests, not those of powerful companies, foreign governments, and an administration that has made clear it views media ownership as a tool of political control. I'm grateful for this committee's attention to these issues, and I welcome any questions you may have. Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Gomez. Uh, we'll now proceed under the five minute rule with some questions. I'm gonna recognize myself. Mister Travis, when the NFL came to Congress in sixty one, they warned that smaller teams wouldn't survive if the league could not pool their broadcast rights. So it would create its shared revenue. of which I'm not really concerned. I don't care how they slice up the pie. But today, professional sports leagues are amongst the most profitable businesses in the world. Um, i- is it safe to say that the survival of professional sports is no longer dependent on a special exemption from Congress?

I feel pretty good that the NFL is not gonna go, uh, start to lose money anytime soon. Um, and I and I think everybody understands that the NFL's power today is drastically different than it was. in nineteen sixty one

so to me the straw that kinda broke the camel's back was when we saw the nfl sign a contract with netflix

yeah

uh at that point i think they went from kinda pushing on the edge of the law to jumping head first through it uh given the nfl has effectively kinda thumbed its nose at sports broadcasting um is there something there that congress is missing Or are they simply flouting the the whole concept at this point?

I think the NFL, under the plain reading of the nineteen sixty-one Broadcast Act, I also have a law degree, so I'm not entirely uh out of out of scope here when I analyze it. Uh, I think the NFL quite clearly, for at least thirteen percent of its overall television package, which now has moved to streaming, is violating the plain intent of the law. And in fact, if you read the nineteen sixty-one act, uh, there's a pretty clear uh discussion in there certainly we didn't understand the concept of streaming even the idea of cable was hard to uh comprehend of where we were headed but they specifically say that they wouldn't have been allowed under that nineteen sixty one act to put this uh these games behind what was then sort of a pay-per-view concept that they understood in nineteen sixty one closed captioning style where it wasn't available for free so i think clearly if you look at that nineteen sixty one law and apply it to modern technology, the thirteen percent, Netflix, Amazon, uh, and other streaming assets clearly violate the intent of the nineteen sixty-one law, which is pretty clear. It was designed to make sure that fans get free access to games. Anything that fans are having to pay for outside a broadcast, uh, television arguably is outside the scope of that nineteen sixty-one exemption.

Very good. Thank you. Mister Hallers, As a sports bar owner, I would be I I would guess that showing your customers the games they wanna see is essential part of the business but as we have already spoken about uh unfortunately purchasing premium packages like the NFL Sunday ticket is not an option for a business like yourself and now that's changed can you just try and describe the changes that would have to be made within your own restaurants and bars to accommodate the new NFL package?

Right. Basically, I I it's still, I guess, called Sunday Ticket, but they've moved it from DirecTV, which is basically what all of the bars and restaurants that have shown football on Sundays for thirty or forty years have used. They're they're moving it to a streaming-only platform called Everpass. And it's been available on both DirecTV and Everpass for the last couple of years, but here in twenty twenty six they said, no more for DirecTV, everybody has to move to streaming. And so literally now we have to buy streaming boxes and i- in a in a typical small smaller bar where I have maybe thirty or forty TV_s with a direct TV box mounted behind every television I now have to get an Everpass streaming box, but you can't put an Everpass streaming box behind every TV. It doesn't work like that. You have to bring in like eight of these boxes and then you have to put in the wiring and the infrastructure to that signal out to all of your thirty or forty TV_s. This is because your your typical internet bandwidth at a bar can't handle thirty or forty streams. Just imagine at home if you tried to stream, you know, thirty Netflixes at once, your internet's just going to die. Well, it's the same way for for most bars and restaurants today. I buy a internet that's big enough to run my POS and to run systems and give customers some WiFi but when I put this in I'm gonna have to go get like gig fiber connections. And and I can only imagine there's bars and restaurants out there that don't even have that ability to go buy, you know, high-speed internet maybe at a reasonable price. But f- but for sure, once you bring this in with this infrastructure, you have to make sure every part of it actually works. You know, so if I need to show ten games at noon on Sunday, there's two on Broadcast TV, which I'll be watching with my direct TV boxes,

Right.

eight on the streaming boxes, And the the other problem is the eight streaming boxes. So almost all sports bars have went and bought these, even the the best sports bars, they have these video distribution systems where you bought a certain number of inputs and a certain number of outputs. Well, now we're bringing in eight new inputs and everybody's looking at their equipment going like, I don't have eight spots to plug in new boxes. Um,

Yeah.

so we're we're we're left with do we go back and buy even bigger

Yeah.

and more expensive equipment of which there's a very limited amount of in the marketplace because only so many sports bars open a year, or do we rip out direct TV boxes on Sunday or or put in some kind of switches to switch over you know imagine the typical manager in a restaurant, you know, okay, at noon switch all these boxes over, and then after that game's over, this one's gonna be on broadcast, let's switch these TV_s over, it's it's just mayhem.

Thank y- Thank you. Mister Nadler, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. Commissioner Gomez, You mentioned in a recent letter that Disney and ABC are facing a quote, sustained coordinated campaign of censorship and control from the Trump administration. Can you tell us about how the Trump administration has weaponized the FCC, and what that does to free speech? Put on your mike.

Sorry. Uh, thank you. Uh, yes, this administration has used every lever in its power, uh, including weaponizing the FCC, in order to uh wage its campaign of contr- uh ca- of uh censorship and control over any content it doesn't like. And one of the ways that it has done so is through its actions against Disney. It's clear. The White House uh issues a statement that it is unhappy with some kind of content that that is on an ABC station, and the FCC initiates a v- an investigation against that station. And most egregiously, the FCC has now called up all of the local ABC stations of Disney under the pretext of an investigation uh in order to retaliate against Disney because it has refused to capitulate this to this administration's demands that it fire Jimmy Kimmel or regulate the the content of its media reports.

And what are some of the more egregious incidents that you have witnessed at the FCC?

I think the most egregious incidents so far and I've seen a lot of egregious uh uses of our investigatory uh uh authority in order to go after content particularly

Commissioner Gomez, Commissioner Gomez, you have been outspoken about the wave of consolidation in the media market. you have been outspoken about the weight of consolidation in the media market. From the recently approved Nexstar and Tegna merger to the proposed Paramount Warner Brothers discovery acquisition. How does this kind of media consolidation impact American consumers and their monthly bills?

I uh thank you for that question. Media consolidation leads to higher prices for consumers. Uh, when it comes to the local broadcasters, what it leads to is the higher uh rates that they charge to the cable companies and the satellite companies for their content. That will directly lead to c- consumers paying higher prices. And importantly, it also leads to the loss of local journalism and local content. So communities also suffer because the news and the information that they rely on for their civic engagement for disasters becomes homogenized and it - it - and it loses the loc- loc- localism that these broadcasters provide when you become too nationalized.

And how does this media consolidation affect the ability of sports fans to watch their favorite teams without paying exorbitant amounts?

Media consolidation um always affects uh any consumers because what you get is a is a a difference in market power, um whether it's your higher re-transmission rates. Now, in the case of of sports fans, you need to look at where excess market power is actually leading to less competition which then leads to higher prices for consumers and viewers.

And finally, can you expand on how these uh large media mergers affect local journalism?

The large media mergers mergers, um, result in losses in the newsrooms, it results in loss of of a diversity of viewpoints, um, it results in fewer um, uh, local uh content less local content being provided to consumers because the larger consolidations always need synergies. These broadcasters are taking on a huge amount of debt and debt has to be settled somehow. And the ones that pay for that are the local journalists and the local communities these broadcasters are meant to serve.

Why do the local broadcasters pay for that?

Uh pardon me?

Why do the local broadcasters pay for that?

Uh well when we're talking about big consolidation of local broadcasters

Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

The gentleman yields back. We now repr- uh recognize the gentleman from North Carolina, Mister Harris, for five minutes.

Thank you, mi- Thank you, Mister Chairman, and thank you for the opportunity to uh talk with you, uh who are witnesses for us today. Mister Hallers, thank you for coming in and testifying today. It's always great to hear from business owners about how actions in Washington are affecting day-to-day operations where you are. The chairman started off with you by kind of talking about the changes that had happened. One thing I just want to give you a chance to elaborate on. On average, have these changes that you're even considering or looking to do, do you have an idea of what kind of costs are involved in those kind of changes?

Right, for a - for a - for a full-blown sports bar, we're looking at anywhere from thirty to forty thousand dollars of uh equipment upgrades and - and And we better get cracking soon because football season is coming.

Correct. And has the rise in streaming services increased or decreased the number of customers visiting your sports bars?

Yeah, I I think w- I think really we kind of fill up on Sundays, so I but in talking to the fans that have come in all week long, they're very frustrated at the difficulty they're having watching football.

Sure.

So when when they heard I was coming here, they were like You go tell them. You know, they're they're really frustrated, and I'm not just talking about the ones that are sitting in with me, just just in general.

Gotcha. Well, Mister Travis, I wanna talk for just a moment about the NFL Sunday ticket. In a briefing before this committee in twenty twenty five, an NFL representative claimed that Sunday ticket, and I quote, was meant to be a product that was available for the truly avid fan who wants every game, end quote. And did not claim that the product was meant for fans to watch every game of only their team. However, this claim seems to be contradicted by Sunday Ticket's own marketing to Americans who are attempting to find their favorite NFL teams telecast. And I say that by advertising for Sunday Ticket warns consumers, and again I quote, "even fans of the Cowboys, Chiefs, Eagles, Packers, Forty-Niners, Lions, and fans of every other team have needed NFL Sunday Ticket to ensure they could watch every regular season game of their favorite team." So due to the work of this committee, data was obtained which showed that most Sunday ticket subscribers signed up to watch one favorite out-of-market team not every game in the league. This same data also revealed that most subscribers who canceled their Sunday ticket subscription, do so because it's too expensive. So my question for you, Mister Travis, is if the committee can find this data, The NFL can find it too. And in a consumer-driven market, what reason would the NFL have to ignore this data point?

I believe, based on my experience over the last twenty years, uh, of covering the NFL, talking about the NFL daily, the vast majority of NFL fans who subscribe to Sunday Ticket do that so they can follow their single favorite team. There are also die-hards that want to have access to every single game. to me, a market-based option should be that the NFL were trying to provide exactly what the consumer wanted and not just charge everybody way more. You should be able to subscribe to guarantee yourself that you get to watch every game of your favorite team. That should be an option in the marketplace. And then if you want every single NFL game available because you're a die-hard, you love to gamble because you just maybe you're obsessed with your fantasy football team, that option should be in the marketplace as well. The fact that the NFL only provides the huge option and not the targeted option for individual teams I think is a direct refutation of what the marketplace at large actually wants.

Thank you. Great, great, great response. Mister Legette, it can be argued that the conditions that led to the passage of SBA no longer exist, and that the behavior of the leagues suggests that the spirit of the law is no longer being honored. However, the leagues would argue that

I certainly don't think the league's business model would be destroyed, but I do want to be clear that the NAB is not asking to repeal the Sports Broadcasting Act. What we are asking is for this committee to affirm its guardrails, that it is meant to govern the negotiations between the league when it's pulling rights and broadcasters. It is not meant to enable uh sports to be hidden behind paywalls.

And is there any other reforms to the SBA you would suggest for Congress to enact?

Well, I think on top of this we've got to ensure that the law is enforced. And one of the real questions here is the plain text of the law is clear, uh, as to the scope of negotiation to apply to the leagues and broadcasters, yet it's obviously being misused. Uh, so I would ask this committee to look at those enforcement tools as well.

Thank you, sir, and thank you to all the panel. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Now recognize the ranking member of the full committee again, Mr. Raskin.

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Mr. Leggett, um, you represent broadcasters. Do you agree with Commissioner Gomez that it's wrong for federal agencies to make enforcement and regulatory decisions based on the president's personal animus towards certain companies or friendship with other companies.

Okay. At NAB, I can say unequivocally we're fighting every day to ensure that our members have the ability to make programming decisions, to make newsroom decisions that are independent of any government influence.

Okay. Um, Commissioner Gomez, in your view, uh, what factors contribute to this recent intensified regulatory scrutiny of the NFL? Are there political motivations behind it?

Um, well, thank you for that question. Uh, what is appears to be reported is that in fact it was the uh uh a major broadcast network that asked the administration to look into this issue, uh which worries me because what should be motivating the administration is the actual consumers the fans themselves.

Um, so fans are indeed frustrated, as uh, mister Travis uh identifies, but while there's this, I think, kind of unserious investigation into the NFL or heckling of the NFL to satisfy Rupert Murdoch, um, the administration is waving through massive media mergers that will further consolidate sports. And I just wonder if you would say a word about what that means for fans, and then, mister Travis, I wanna get your perspective.

Yes, um these m- major mergers uh lead to in fact less competition uh particularly among the uh portions of these merged companies that actually provide the services to the fans and that's

So do does less competition mean higher prices?

Less competition means higher prices and it means more harms to consumers.

What kinds of harms are you thinking of?

Again, higher prices, maybe less choice. Um, it's the usual uh pattern that we see when we see major consolidation.

So when you see centralization, consolidation, monopoly type practices, that inevitably is going to be to the detriment of consumers, to

I-

to the people.

yes, absolutely. And importantly for local broadcasters, these revenues are very important to them and that is a large part of how they finance the local journalism that so many communities rely on.

Okay, and, Mister Travis, the same question to you. What what do you think the consequence has been for your constituency, fans across America, of these massive media consolidations and mergers?

Look, I I don't think there's any fan in America regardless of his or her politics, Democrat, Republican, or Independent, that would say the sports fan viewing experience is getting better. And that's why I contrasted it with the flat screen television experience, what the cost is there. Affordability and access are both getting worse. and in a market-based economy based on capitalism, the opposite should be occurring. We should be getting more affordable, better access, and we're not seeing that. And I think it's gotten worse. It's accelerated. Uh, so over the last twenty years, the fan experience has gotten worse. I mean, every one of you guys up there has set with a remote, trying to switch from one game to another and not been able to do it. In two thousand and eight, two thousand ten, that wasn't an issue. Uh, and so what that's what I'm concerned about is the average fan experience is degraded.

Yeah. Um, so, because th- that's your, the, the focus of your professional life, your personal life, it seems like it subsumes subsumes your whole being there. Um, what, what are, what are some of the concrete ways in which the fan experience has been degraded over the last several years?

I'll give you several and I could probably talk for hours on this, and I have. Um, just think about what goes on with streaming now. Streaming is delayed. If you're watching a game on Amazon or you're watching a game on Netflix, and you are sitting with your phone and you are texting with your friends or family about a game, you might find out what happened on the play a minute uh after it actually happened. Some of you know this experience. You've been sitting on your couch. You don't even wanna look at your phone because it's a crucible moment of the game, and your buddy might have seen it already a minute ago. That didn't happen back in the day we used to all watch games together. streaming is delayed. And I mean, that's a very minimal thing. The password situation, uh, with not being able to get logged in, you've paid for it, but for some reason you're not getting logged in. The fact that you might travel and try to watch a game and you gotta, uh, you're right, I'm obsessed with this and the average fan is not getting.

All right. Yeah, I've only got twenty seconds. I wanna ask you one other question before I go and subscribe to Outkick.

Yeah.

Um, so the NFL has said they've received no outreach from the DOJ about an in- an investigation supposedly opened months ago into the NFL. Does that suggest the DOJ is actually doing their job for consumers, or is all of this just sort of performance art and posturing for Mr. Murdoch?

Um, I'm not an expert in DOJ investigations. I do have a law degree. I would hope personally that the Department of Justice is actually looking into this on the basis of the nineteen sixty-one law and on the foundational idea across the political spectrum of sports fans should get good value and not a degraded experience that they're currently receiving across so many different sports.

Thank you very much. Yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Gentleman yields back. Uh, now recognize the gentlewoman from Wyoming, uh, for five minutes.

Thank you. Since my time in Congress, I have long advocated for the use of sunsets in much of the work that we undertake here, ensuring that issues can be revis revisited as circumstances change. The Sports Broadcasting Act of nineteen sixty-one is a perfect example of this, given that its enactment came at a time when satellite streaming and modern cable television services did not exist. Had a sunset clause been in place, Congress would have almost certainly been forced to address the problems that we are hearing about today, the moment that viewing options moved beyond free over-the-air broadcast television. Mister Travis, given the pace of change in

Yes, I think that would be incredibly important because technology is hard to predict. And I would point out that there is a discussion surrounding closed captioning. Uh, television back in the day and then I I understand to be true, back in the nineteen fifties, nineteen sixties, you could put pay-per-view for big boxing matches and they would sometimes do it. And the nineteen sixty-one act specifically says that would not be allowed here. In other words, we're moving towards a world, I think, where one day the Super Bowl might be put on Netflix or Amazon or some streaming device that requires everybody to have a subscription to be able to watch. Uh, something that unites us all. I actually agree with Commissioner Gomez on this. Sports is one of the last places where everybody can come together in common experience. things i always say somebody makes a winning shot uh you don't think about the politics or the ethnicity or the religion of anybody else around you

right

chairman nadler was talking about the knicks

so mister mister legate do you agree that there should be a sunset in whatever building we adopt

yeah in that way

may their name be blessed

go celtics uh this is a rapidly uh this is certainly a rapidly changing marketplace and i do think that that that would be wise but uh but i think as important is to reaffirm these guardrails that the piece of this ecosystem that is not changing, which is that broadcast remains freely available to all, is the medium that this act was intended to govern the negotiations with.

Well, if we do move forward with a sunset clause, what market factors would need to be considered when determining the appropriate length among other details? What are some of the market factors we need to consider in terms of identifying what that sunset clause should be? Five years, seven years, ten years, three years?

Well, I do think the the lengths of these m- uh media deals by and large, which tend to be in the five to ten year range, are are a factor here. Uh, but uh but I would also say that the nature of the professional sports leagues, the scope of leagues to which it should apply, um, for a league like the NFL, which is well established and certainly the principle of here of wanting to ensure that small market teams in Pittsburgh and Green Bay uh, have an equitable chance to succeed, reinvest in their product, benefit from the unique reach of broadcast, uh they're at a different stage in their business than a more nascent sports league.

Okay. Um Wyoming is one of just over twenty states that lacks a professional sports team with respect to the major North American sports leagues. As a result, our professional sports fan base can be highly fragmented. Additionally, with Wyoming being one of America's most rural states, access to reliable broadband and other forms of connectivity is already a challenge for many of my constituents. Taking football as an example, the most popular NFL teams in Wyoming are the Denver Broncos and the Buffalo Bills, given the popularity of Josh Allen and his time as a star quarterback for the University of Wyoming. Mister Travis, suppose a Buffalo Bill fan lives in Wyoming, well outside the team's home market. How would that fan access every Bills game during the season at home?

The Bills fan in Wyoming who loves Josh Allen, who I happen to think is the best quarterback in the NFL right now.

Ever. Yeah. Right.

in Wyoming, they may say the best ever. Uh, you would have to be an NFL Sunday ticket subscriber. Now, some Bills games, and this gets complicated, some Bills games would be carried national because nationally because they are a very popular team. But if you had a constituent come to me and say, " Mister Travis, how do I guarantee that I watch every Bills game?" You would have to be an NFL Sunday ticket subscriber. You would not be able to only buy Buffalo Bills games, which is what your constituent is asking for, they would have to buy the totality of the NFL Sunday ticket package to ensure that they were able to watch every Josh Allen game.

Well, Mister Haller, so I'll turn to you real quickly. Using the same scenario that I gave Mister Travis, what additional hurdles would a bar or restaurant in rural Wyoming need to jump through to continually display Bills games throughout the season, particularly in instances where connectivity already poses a challenge?

Uh, yes. I, and I just want to add, even if you buy the Sunday ticket, you don't get guaranteed all of the games. You may have to buy the other

Netflix and Amazon as well.

Netflix thing.

So you you're talking about having to buy everything.

So, so even though you go buy the NFL's premier product, it doesn't get you all the games. That's always been one of our gripes. It's like when we're subscribing, why not give us all of the games, um, instead of making us go negotiate or buy all of these services. But in in rural Wyoming, this is exactly what I'm talking about. You know, you you can't get high-speed streaming. So if I was a real which I'm sure there are some in Wyoming. Um, right now today they use a satellite, which is, you know, beams to everyone equally. So they they're not impeded and it's worked fine for decades.

Mm.

Um, and uh, and today if they're asked to do that.

Thank you.

So now, can you imagine in a smaller market somebody going, " I need to stream eight games, you know, and plus show my over-the-air games." Um,

Thank you.

are they gonna go buy a a gigabyte internet? connection.

Thank you.

Well, I appreciate that. Thank you and I yield back. Thank you, gentlemen.

The gentlewoman yields back. We now recognize the gentlewoman from Vermont for five minutes.

Thank you, Mister Chair, and thank you to all the witnesses for your time and from where I sit every day is a great day to talk about antitrust enforcement. Because what is at the heart of all of this is we've got fewer choices, we've got higher costs, we got services that used to be free and now they all come with a with a fee and That's the modern American experience right now, and you are right. It cuts across all political persuasions. People are angry. We all feel it. Our paychecks are not stretching as far. Prices are creeping up. Quality of the products that we're getting is getting worse. It affects everyone except the very few at the top who benefit from this. So whether you're tuning in to your favorite NFL team when you're trying to go to the doctor, whether you're trying to get online, um, on and on, whether you're going to the grocery store, you are having a a worse experience because of this exploitation of the American fan and the American worker because of from where I sit corporate greed. We got to this place because of uncontrolled media consolidation. Uh when our government does not enforce its own laws around antitrust um and we in Congress allow them to gather dust and every once in a while we have a hearing on a on a salient issue for many but we should be doing this every day. Um, then competition exists in name only, and consumers and fans get ripped off. So I'm gonna turn to you first, uh, Commissioner Gomez. I appreciate how outspoken you have been about the wave of media consolidations that we've seen including including the Paramount, Warner Brothers merger. Can you please explain how media consolidation affects fans and their abilities to watch their favorite team? I know we've been over this, but it's important that we continue to to shine a light on this.

Yes, uh, so media consolidation as a whole uh impacts local communities. Um, it impacts local communities because they actually get less community content, and that includes sports content.

Yeah.

Um, in this in the case of uh uh national sports content, what media consolidation leads to is market uh power and a lack of competition that then ends up impacting consumers um because the corporations are more worried about obviously by their bottom lines paying down debt uh than they are about the viewers themselves.

And and you talked about this earlier too right it is um driving up costs and I know fans feel like they're stuck they're absolutely stuck they have no choice uh but to pay the fees on all these different streaming serv services. Um now I wanna take a moment to drill down on the Everpass situation for a moment because This doesn't just affect everyday costs for Americans. It's it hurts small businesses, which you spoke to earlier, Mister Haller, so I was really interested in what you had to say. Um, for three decades, DirecTV sold commercial Sunday ticket to bars and restaurants. Now that's ending and starting next season, the only authorized way for a business like Mister Haller's business to show NFL Sunday ticket is through Everpass Media. And Everpass is a joint venture between the NFL and a private what does it mean for you now that the NFL holds a financial stake in the only company authorized to sell you its out-of-market games? I mean, this is like the epitome of monopoly right here.

Right, yeah. Clearly we we see more and more price increases coming our way. That's that's just what we feel. And and it's crazy that they can't offer this out or have competition. I mean, why why wouldn't you actually allow it to come out on multiple services to ensure everyone can see the game.

Yeah.

That's the the crazy part. In other words, it doesn't What what reason would there be not to let them still send it to DirecTV for everybody with the legacy systems? And then sure, and and and and by the way they could come along and give a better deal, hey switch to streaming, we'll give you a better deal, but that's, you know, fifteen percent off the first year is not exactly, you know, the promise of a better deal forever.

Yeah, and I, look, if you have ever worked in uh restaurants, as I have multiple times in my life, like your margins are very slim.

Yeah, the the for for most and that's why I'll I I've literally am out talking to different bar owners who are like we're not even gonna we don't we can't switch they don't have the money to switch, you know, from DirecTV. They're they're all praying that that DirecTV somehow still gets the deal.

Yeah. Well, I appreciate you being here. The last point I just wanna make is because I I did attend uh President Trump's uh second inauguration and saw all of the folks who were sitting behind him at the inauguration including uh Jeff Bezos and just wanna remind everybody that the the CEO of Amazon gave um tens of millions of dollars for the Melania documentary, on top of spending thirty-five million to market this, from my perspective, fluff piece. um on the first lady and this is what it's all about it's always about payback it's a quid pro quo and i just feel like these are issues that we can work together across party on and i hope that we will do that thank you and i yield back

general leonard general leonard yields back we now recognize gentleman from texas for five minutes

thank you mister uh as of today a dallas cowboys fan in dallas where i'm from the dallas area can watch all of their games for free Is that accurate, one, and is that the same for local teams and other local areas?

Thank you for the question. Uh, it's not an that that is not accurate, uh, maybe and let's let's peel this back for a moment.

Please.

So if we're talking about a Cowboy fan who lives in Dallas, um, that fan is going to have access to uh to to uh to the vast majority of games free over the air. And then for the Cowboy games that are on Thursday night on Amazon or on another streaming service, that game will be aired locally on broadcast to that fan in Dallas itself. But for the other Cowboy fans across Texas, outside of that singular DMA, uh, they are going to have to pay for the subscrime- the the subscription streaming service there will be no over-the-air option. And then certainly out of market, while certainly the Cowboys are popular enough, that they have games with a national distribution, a a a number of their games will not be available nationally, so that out of market fan is going to need to pay for the Sunday ticket, probably in addition to a number of other streaming services, as Mister Travis just referred to, Amazon, Netflix, to access those games, so the cost still adds up.

I I I something it's it's I'm not Mister NFL here, but it just seems as if the point has not been made very well, cuz I've watched everyone speak. I realize I just walked in, but I've watched everyone. And I think the point has not been greatly made that you can watch your local team in your local market. The phrase I've heard a lot of folks say is " my favorite team". But if you live in the Houston area, you can watch the Houston, Texas. You maybe can't watch the Dallas Cowboys every single game. If you live in the Dallas area, you can watch the Dallas Cowboys and you maybe can't watch the Green Bay Packers without having to jump through some of these hoops that you talk about. And whether or not we think that's right or wrong, I'd - I just wanna make the point that I have not really heard anyone else make the point today, and I think that's pretty significant, that you can watch your local team in your local area.

Yes, and - and let me say, we are exceedingly proud as local broadcasters who are the ones carrying that game in local markets across the country.

And let me ask you this, Mister Travis. One of the arguments was the NFL, the smaller teams were not going to benefit as much, or they were struggling. A Green Bay Packers team is not in a TV

Mm.

It's an excellent question, and I think the easy answer is no one knows for sure. What I would point to is I'm a die-hard football fan.

Mm.

I, like I said, I watch games all day Saturday and Sunday, way too many, asked my wife. On Saturday when I sit down, I can watch ten college football games on broadcast television for free. On Sunday I can watch four. I tend to think that the NFL would be smart enough to continue to maximize its audience and also maximize its revenue. So, I don't think we know, and, and frankly, I'm not sure how many people are saying, even in, in your world, Di- Democrats or Republicans, that the Sports Broadcast Act exemption should be removed. I think there's a lot of people who say it needs to be applied fairly in the modern era, but I'm not hearing very many people say it would be repealed. What your hyp- hypothetical is, and I think it's an interesting and a good one, is what if we repealed this, what would the marketplace look like? And more significantly, how might it impact competition going forward? And I think the easy answer is no one knows, but if you use college football a bit, as a an approximator they do not have an exemption antitrust exemption and you get more games for fewer or lower cost in college than you do the nfl

i'm with you but i can't watch my texas longhorns on saturday for free i sometimes have to go to trouble and if you also make that as a percentage you said ten free games let's say that's the number

yeah

how many college games are going on on a saturday compared to how many nfl games on a sunday the answer is a whole lot more

Yeah, a lot more. I would say your Texas Longhorns, who by the way are really good,

That example to use perhaps.

are outstanding. But they're on ABC a lot for free. Um, now it's true that ESPN, if you get into the weeds, ESPN has the exclusive rights to the SEC. You have the SEC network, ESPN, ESPN two, ABC. But an awful lot, I would argue almost all of the big Longhorn games this coming year, I haven't seen the full schedule, but I think you all will be on ABC a lot.

You're right, but if I told you my team was a smaller

Yeah.

that was playing every Saturday. They're not always on TV.

Yeah.

And those NFL teams, they always are some of the smaller town areas that I don't know I don't know what happens if they can't share the revenue.

I think it's a great question. I have faith in the NFL's ability to make money no matter what the rules are.

Let's keep talking about it. I've enjoyed having you all.

Well, thank you.

Thank you. I appreciate it.

Gentlemen yields back. I guess I would just make the point before I call on the gentlemen from California that, uh, all the professional leagues handle revenue sharing differently. Uh, very clearly Major League Baseball does. So I'll recognize the gentleman from California for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanna thank our witnesses here today. Good information. You know, I'm a person back home. I'm prefer going to the Friday night high school football games, stand on the sidelines. That's can't make, doesn't get any better than that. Hot dog and a drink. It's a great time. But not all my constituents prefer high school. And to think of a thousand dollars some people pay? What happened? Nineteen sixty-one, antitrust, fans first. What do I tell folks back home? Um, they may be watching this today. They send us up here to fix things, and I think that's what people are frustrated with back home is You guys talk a lot, like my daughter says, you guys talk a lot, so, uh, after today's hearing, d- is this gonna fix anything? After today's hearing, do we have to pass legislation to fix things? After today's hearing, do we have to get the executive to do something? And I'm - I'm asking you - I'm gonna ask each and every one of you that question or questions, and if you can be concise with your answer, I'd appreciate it. Miss Gomez, go ahead.

Uh, thank you for that question. I mean, my advice to this committee is to look at where there's an excess of market power and a lack of competition that uh leads to consumer harms.

And the answer would be legislative, administrative, what?

Well, it's definitely not the FCC that can do something about this.

So it would be us here? Mister Travis.

Um, my contention would be you've helped to create the situation at play by passing that law in nineteen sixty one so it is incumbent upon you as democrats republicans and dependents in my opinion speaking on behalf of a lot of fans out there who don't feel like the marketplace is serving them well they're paying more and getting less for you to fix the nineteen sixty one act in the context of the modern era which is very different than the way it is

you know how many times i've had to struggle to find a chargers game for my wife

you are preaching to the choir

and i lose most of those efforts not good for me

I think it's an all of the above approach. I I think first

Give me a give me a priority here, not just all of the above.

The the the committee needs to reaffirm the scope of this act, which uh as Mister Travis just said w- was enacted by Congress. We're not here to scrutinize the NFL's business practices. We're here to affirm that if they wanna take advantage of an antitrust exemption granted to them by this body, that there are certain public interest obligations that went along with that, and there's a clearly defined scope.

To live up to the spirit of the law.

That's exactly right. And so I believe that this committee is uniquely positioned to deliver that message, and I believe that the law needs to be properly enforced.

Mister Hellers.

I'd I'd just like to say that on uh Saturdays with of college football, we we actually pay for and are able to show like forty games, and it and it cost me pennies. It's - it's - it's - the charge doesn't even equate to anything that's a problem. And we now have more college fans than ever, and we see, you know, bigger crowds sometimes on Saturdays than Sundays, and you wonder why that is when they've just made the access so easy. So I'd like the NFL to just go back to being fan first rather than NFL first.

Next to high school, I love college ball and I do hope that we continue to have access to those games in a reasonable, cost-effective method. Uh, last minute I've got here. Mr. Legit, I wanna ask you this quick question. There's a proposal to pull more regional games off broadcast, uh, putting them on cable TV. Uh, would this proposal benefit local TV fans? Meaning, or not? Do you know?

I'm not familiar with the specific proposal, but I can tell you the migration that we have seen in recent years has been in the opposite direction uh which is that teams that for decade plus had had uh their local uh had reached their local fans through cable regional sports networks uh have have migrated over to back to local broadcast television and those teams across the nhl the nba and the mlb have seen their ratings surge i think it once again reaffirms the unique reach of broadcast uh i can provide you and this committee follow-up on the specifics of those deals they number now in the dozens across the major

And does that raise the price or lower the price local?

It's this is a home run for consumers because that game is available free over the air to every one of those consumers without cost.

Wanna thank our witnesses today, and if you give me that information, I would really appreciate it. And Mr. Chairman, ranking member, I hope he can continue to pursue this one because we have good information today, but still gotta fix this these problems. Thank you, and I yield.

Gentlemen yields. Gentleman from Virginia is now recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, most, Mister Leggett, uh, you've pointed out that NFL games on free broadcast draw far larger audiences than the paywalled streams. Uh, Thanksgiving games average forty-five, fifty-seven million versus about twenty-seven million for the Netflix Christmas game, and twenty-one million for Amazon's Black Friday game. If broadcast reaches twice the audience, what does it tell you that the league keeps moving marquee games behind paywalls?

I think to some degree you can take you you can take for granted what you already have. You know, the partnership between uh all of the major sports leagues, but particularly the NFL and Broadcast has been a testament, first and foremost, to the NFL's product, uh but also to the u- to the reach of Broadcast, which has built their fan base and has increased our viewership and allowed us to reinvest in journalism. And that's the magic of this partnership. And as the NFL is now looking ahead to maybe a more global marketplace, uh, they are clearly diversifying their, uh, their, the, the options that they're going to use to reach other consumers. And I would just affirm for this committee that they're making that business determination, but this antitrust exemption, which was granted to them, enables them to pool rights in a way that would clearly be a violation of our antitrust laws, but for Congress's action, uh, was intended only to govern those negotiations with broadcasters. The f- the benefit to fans was that free access, and the balance is off if suddenly that act is going to be misused to enable negotiations with Amazon, Netflix, or YouTube.

Now, reporting suggests that the NFL is seeking upwards of an additional billion dollars a year from its network partners. And your view is the fragmentation fans experience a by-product of serving fans or by-product of maximizing rights fees.

Well listen, by by by expanding the the pool of of media entities negotiating for this ri- these rights the sports leagues are are creating a a broad marketplace and we know that these global streamers uh who have a a number of other businesses as well, uh don't have the same financial constraints when it comes to bidding for sports rights. So that's driving up the price for everyone. Um, one point I would make with regard to that reported billion dollar increase, uh, that the NFL is requesting, uh, i- i- in their rights, that's w- just sim- that's just with regard to their negotiations with Paramount. Right, that i- that is not th- their negotiations with the other broadcast networks. Uh, they have said explicitly that they are looking for, uh, a fifty percent or more increase in their rights deals,

Thank you. Mister Travis, uh, Everpass, the new exclusive commercial distributor that bars and restaurants now must pay, is partly owned by the NFL's own investment arm, alongside Redbird and the owner of WWE and UFC. Uh, so the league sold the rights to a venture it has stake in, and then made that venture the only option. Uh, as someone who covers the sports business, how should fans read that?

What I would say about the NFL Sunday ticket is, in my opinion, the NFL should offer single team options in addition to the entire NFL Sunday ticket. So, in general, if an entity is not serving the marketplace what the marketplace is demanding, that would raise questions about why they're doing that. Uh, from a business perspective,

A federal jury in twenty twenty four found that the NFL had

Well, look, I mean, I think the fact that a jury and a and a court have been examining this issue again kind of speaks to your ability and uh and your opportunity on behalf of constituents across the political spectrum to try to make their favorite sport more affordable and ensure that they're not getting gouged in the process. That feels like a very legitimate perspective, given that you guys have already interjected yourself into this with the nineteen sixty-one act it feels incumbent upon Congress to address this.

I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Now recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Johnson, for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I imagine that there are some uh die-hard NFL fans out there who when they found out that there was going to be a hearing about the NFL on C-SPAN, uh they locked into C-SPAN not because they wanted to see what we or and hear what we are talking about but because it said NFL and they're just hoping that the games are gonna start the season pre-season just you know ready for it already. And it's coming soon folks. Um you know the NFL is the unders- undisputed champion of uh American spectator sports. Very popular, the model works, the American people love NFL football, you know, that's the bottom line. So, you know, they got this exemption, antitrust exemption in sixty-one, nineteen sixty-one, that allowed for collective bargaining uh between the NFL and not streaming services or cable or satellite operators, but broadcasters. And broadcasters, uh, by the way, are, um, they serve every community in this country with trusted journalism for the most part, emergency information, local sports, weather, public affairs, programming. Uh, we don't wanna see our broadcasters go away. And they were the only game in town in terms of delivering NFL content back in sixty-one. And so they got this uh exemption to competitive - to um uh collectively bargain, which has led to uh a competitive balance across the league. Teams are competitively balanced. That's one of the uh secrets I think that has led to the NFL's success. is because any team can win on any given Sunday. And uh and Mister Gooden made a great point about uh people being able on broadcast TV, free TV, to watch their local NFL team, not necessarily their favorite team, but I hear Mister Travis wanting there to be more choice offered by the NFL uh for uh viewers who are interested in teams other than their local team. They want to be able to access those teams without getting soaked financially. And I'll note at this point that when you try to go to a game, Mister Travis, if you took your three sons to an NFL game, the average uh price, average ticket price is three hundred and ten dollars, three hundred and ten to three hundred and fifty dollars in the nosebleed section. uh the uh cheapest ticket, a hundred and fifty-six dollars, so if you wanted to take your boys uh out to the uh uh to see an NFL game, that's gonna cost you six hundred and some odd dollars, uh which most families uh are not able to afford, and so you know uh we can't soak the people who enjoy football when they're watching it uh on platforms other than broadcast either but i also understand that the nfl has been expanding the antitrust exemption by collectively bargaining with uh other platforms other than broadcast is that correct mister legit

that is correct

and so uh And, mister Travis, uh, you uh believe, and and by the way, mister uh, I can't see that far over there, mister Hallers, um, you're offering it to fans who like to flock to uh to your restaurant and bars and and enjoy the game among friends. Certainly nothing wrong with that. We should be able to do that. Shouldn't be confined to the house to watch uh our football. Um, but I guess, you know, nobody is here advocating that the NFL should be offering games every each and every game for free across all platforms. Correct? Got the pay. So the question is how much and and how. And y- you know, we do have artificial intelligence available for those fans who want to uh access chat GPT or some other uh artificial intelligence vehicle and ask how can I watch my favorite team on this particular Sunday at the cheapest price but then you have to have all of these different sticks to uh to plug in and that's costing you you know more than a football game per year I mean per uh per month if you wanna get all of the sticks so you know how do we make the game uh available to as many people as possible for as cheaply as possible and sometimes if it ain't broke, don't fix it. And um

Yep. Gentlemen s

and let the technology, let let the free market system work its will. The I guess some of my folks on the other side of the aisle would uh would appreciate that particular perspective. I'm not arguing for it, but I don't know what we should do. But I do know I'm looking forward to watching NFL football coming up. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman,

Okay.

I'd like to claim the forty five extra seconds that we

Yeah. And gentlemen Gentlemen, yield's back. Now recognize the ranking member for some UC requests.

Mr. Chair, thank you. Um, Mergers, FCC, Pressure, Threat, Integrity of American Journalism from the Seattle Times.

Without objection.

Rupert Murdoch's high stakes blitz against the NFL Wall Street Journal.

Without objection.

And finally, Paramount's WBD uh takeover explained how the US hundred eleven billion dollar deal could reshape sports media from sportspro.com.

Without objection. For the record, I've never met or spoken to Rupert Murdoch, so. But now recognize the gentleman from California for five minutes.

I can't say that. I once introduced him to uh his his twin separated at birth, uh the other Murdoch, David Murdoch. They'd never met each other. They both are small with British sounding accents, and I w- I was shocked to find out they didn't know each other. That's the last time I saw him, but I do wanna Equal it by a story.

Story.

I want to note for the record as chairman that it's about ten dollars if you would like to see the Republicans and the Democrats fight it to in a baseball game at the stadium here tonight so for the ranking member of the subcommittee who left, um, hopefully he'll uh he'll invite you all, it's ten bucks, he can afford it. Um, I want to shift a little bit to the antitrust question followed by uh the current dilemma we face. uh Commissioner Gomez, if we had not granted in nineteen sixty-one an antitrust exemption, uh would the NFL otherwise be free to essentially withhold anything, all broadcast, pick and choose, do whatever they want without any congressional oversight, or another way of putting it, except for that authority that the what comes with that grant, we really don't have any leverage over the private entity. that, NATs that make up the NFL. They could choose, for example, not to broadcast at all and have everything be private.

Oh, eh, yes, that is actually true under the First Amendment, you can't force people to

Okay, so,

have speech.

we are dealing with, all of us on this side of the dais, with an authority we get by giving something. We're giving antitrust, antitrust uh exemption has allowed the NFL, as other professional sports, uh to essentially conspire to maximize their revenue. Is that in a nice way, conspire might be the least nice way, but to come together to maximize their revenue without fear of the trust laws adversely affecting them.

So my understanding of the original intent of the um of the SBA was to protect small market teams and fans uh in the negotiations for being able to actually access.

Sure, they they try to equalize it so that uh Green Bay with its vast amount of loyal people can uh in fact do at least as good a job as San Diego did when they failed to protect the Chargers and allowed them to leave for LA um that small large is kind of interesting when you have real fans in Cleveland and Green Bay and apparently not enough in San Diego but uh getting past my personal challenges on all of that, as a San Diegan Let me move the question back over to the other three. Broadcast, for example, until I get, is what created, to a great extent, a massive am- including radio in the old days more than today, created each of these sports, baseball, football, and so on, the ability to be captured even when they couldn't go to the game, whether they could afford it or not. many of them had to work, it was late at night, they had kids, whatever the reason is, isn't Broadcast in fact what created the widespread, almost universal love of these games?

This has been an incredible partnership and success. You've got the reach of Broadcast, freely available to all, in some cases nationally, always locally, delivering a product and helping to to build fan bases. I mean, that's what we've seen here and it's been remarked upon throughout this hearing, but in this very polarized environment, sports brings communities together. So it's it's a tremendous success story. This antitrust exemption helped to enable it by giving the leagues the ability to pool rights. There were pro-competitive reasons for it, but there's a public access bargain implied in it,

So

which is making that distribution available as well.

Right, so So I'm I wanna make a a point that hopefully will benefit all of us, An old story, but not that old. There was a company called Circuit City in Richmond, Virginia. It dominated consumer electronics sales. Another one in Minnesota called Best Buy and a number of others. Some years ago, Circuit City, the leader in that industry, also sold white goods like many of them did, refrigerators, washers and dryers. The CEO made the decision that they were simply going to get rid of the low-margin part of it, and concentrate on where they made the high margin. Circuit City was gone in a few years. Their bankruptcy in no small part was attributed to the lack of traffic they had in their stores. That traffic dropped off because without white goods, which were low profit, but brought in mom and dad and the kids to look at the other products that ultimately sold. That is the story that I'm c- concerned about today, from a standpoint of uh the FCC's obligation, they know and it's clear. What I'm concerned about and I'm making the point here today rather than a and a lot of questions is if NFL doesn't see that maintaining that broad appeal through markets that are not highly profitable, they may find that the product profitability drops off as the fans drop off in no small part because of each of your locations not being at the center of the ability to see the product. And, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you giving me that forty-five seconds for to opine on that. Go chargers. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. We now recognize a gentleman from Washington State.

Well, thank you, Mister Chair, and I wanna thank our panelists for this, uh, very important, uh, discussion. I'm, uh, pretty sure that, uh, this body, uh, needs to take a strong look at the nineteen sixty-one broadcast. Broadcasting Act and update it, I think, at a time that, uh, streaming wasn't even conceived of, uh, that if the underlying piece of legislation is gonna be appropriately applied, that we need to rethink through this. Uh, I'd also say I think it's to the detriment of this conversation and to the NFL, that Commissioner Roger Goodell, uh, was not here. I'm sure at some point he's either watching or listening, uh, or this message will get to him, but I think, Commissioner Goodell, you would be well served if this thing's gonna turn out in the direction you would like to come before this committee. and participate. Uh, you know, my colleague from uh from Wyoming uh com- commented how uh Josh Allen made most people in Wyoming uh Buffalo Bills fans. Uh, we in eastern Washington had a similar phenomenon with uh Gardiner Minshew. Uh, we are certainly all Seahawks fans, but when Gardiner was playing uh with Jacksonville and then with Indianapolis Colts uh we would go through the regular process of trying to find those games. Does that mean that We're entitled to watch all those games uh for free. I'm not sure, but it matters to my voters. Uh, Mister Travis, I I really appreciate you being here, I've long been a fan. Uh, both my wife and I liked reading an anonymous mailbag. I appreciate your uh evolution of political philosophy and I really admire you as just an American entrepreneur. Uh, I also know you're a big sports fan. You have boys, I have boys. Uh, and so uh a lot of what you say appeals to me. Now, You're a big SEC guy. I get it. You're from the South. You know, I'm from the West Coast, but we do play football out there, uh, a little bit as well, too. Looks like you wanna make a comment, then I'll go on. Sure.

Well, uh, yeah, I mean SEC football is the best in the country, but I appreciate other parts of the country also play college football.

Well, let me, uh, thank you, let m- and let me say that, uh, I was really good friends with, uh, Mike Leach. He was one of my, one of my best friends. We taught a class together called " Insurgent Warfare Football Strategy", traveled around, uh, the world together, and he, as he got to know you, he would tell me about his interactions with you. Um, I wanna talk a little bit about both pro and college football in my, my time here. Um, I think, would you agree that one of the things that makes pro football special and compelling is the competitive parity?

Yes.

And if the NFC East had a higher salary cap than the AFC West, that would be a product that would be less fun to watch. Is that correct?

A hundred percent.

And if the NFC East got higher TV significantly higher TV revenue distribution than the AFC West, that would make that product less fun to watch.

Look, I think the NFL's ability to share revenue and create y- the NFL is unique. The way that I would sum it up is the NFL is the business is the competition.

Okay.

If the comp- if the games are not fun, nobody watches. If they're not competitive, no one watches. So that's the essence of the sport itself.

Well And so, you know, as we turn to the college uh example and just behind me you see some graphics of how much more uh the uh nfl and the pro sports are squeezing out of tv dollars per viewer than college sports are as we deal with college sports issue and i really appreciate you talking about the buffalo bills example as a publicly funded uh entity that should be publicly regulated uh you know i am very very free market i sponsored uh uh right to work legislation when i was our state senate but when it comes to college sports you know my view is that these are highly subsidized public goods, and they should be regulated as such. And with all due respect to the SEC and the Big Ten and the large market schools, what makes that system special is the entire country. And what my school went through, Washington State University, was to get its guts ripped out through a conference realignment, and not for competitive reasons. I mean, we beat Wisconsin the last two times that we played. we had beat Oregon four times in a row, we competed at the highest levels of college sports, and then through no fault of our own, had that ripped away, had our guts ripped out. And I think the solution for keeping what's special about all sports is to adopt some of these TV revenue aspects in the name of competitive parity at the college sports level and so just in the remaining time, uh, mister Travis, you know, I know you're an SEC guy, I know you have a

This is a great question. We could probably do hours on this. First, I should say, since I'm under oath, Mike Leach belongs in the College Football Hall of Fame. I absolutely love Mike Leach, and the run that he had at Washington State I think is emblematic of why so many Uh, college football needs to be fixed. It is broken. And there's a lot of discussions about how to fix it. Um, I think that it's being under-utilized dollars-wise. I think the value of college football is second only to the NFL. And figuring out how to allocate more resources to college football that also can then support Olympic sports. Because remember, most of the money for college athletics comes in through college football a little bit for men's basketball. We have to make more money and reallocate it better to create a better quality of, of competition in college athletics, college football in particular. I agree with you. I think it's awful that Washington State was left behind, that Oregon State was left behind, uh, and that the Pac-Twelve was ultimately destroyed. In that process, we need to create, I think, a system that allows everyone to be more successful, more money, SEC, Big Ten, Big Twelve, ACC, but also provide a pathway to high level competition for outside of those four major conference schools.

Thank you.

Yeah. And thank you for being a fan, by the way.

Gentleman yields back. Um, I should ask to have his words taken down, his attack on University of Wisconsin was unwarranted. And I now recognize

But accurate.

Yeah. And and I now recognize the chairman of the full committee A former Wisconsin Badger sitting near you.

Yeah, I was gonna say. A graduate from Wisconsin. I actually

A former former always a Badger.

For five minutes.

Uh, I always I always joke I major in wrestling, but you're supposed to get a degree, so I got one uh there. Uh, um, let me go right back where uh the good the good gentleman from Washington was, uh, Mister Travis. So should the S should there be an SBA for college sports?

Oh man, I think it's a super uh fascinating question. My general perspective on it would be I don't know that it needs to be classified as an SBA. there needs to be an antitrust exemption that is created for college sports, because right now there are no rules. I don't know how many of you paid attention to what just happened, uh, in Lubbock, Texas with a star quarterback who's suddenly,

Yep.

even though he was gambling on sports, now eligible according to a federal district court.

It's not.

Judge, we can't have college sports run by different individual federal district courts all over the country. We have to have a uniform set of rules that everyone understands and follows.

of course. And I mean, uh, we had someone ask me like, wh- why is, why is Congress getting involved in college sports? He, you guys just screw everything up. And not like, I get that general point, but it's because we have an antitrust law and you gotta have some kind of relief from antitrust law if the governing body can have the ability to make rules.

E- every rule, to kind of simplify it, every rule that's put in place by any governing body is

Mm-hmm.

immediately challenged under antitrust law so without the antitrust exemption every athlete can sue and argue that they're being,

Exactly.

uh, unfairly discriminated against under antitrust law.

Yeah. So, uh, that's why we gotta pass either the SCORE Act or the, excuse me, the one that's, uh, introduced by the Senator's, um, Protect College Sports Act. We gotta get s- I think we gotta get something, to use the sports analogy, some ball in play so that we can we can address

I agree.

at least that fundamental question on the college side. Okay, on the professional side, seems to me there are two fundamental questions. One, is consumer welfare standard, is that standard being met in the current environment And two, is the statute, the nineteen sixty-one statute being followed? I mean, we're the Judiciary Committee. That's the standard in the courts is consumer welfare, and there's a statute, is the statute being followed? Um, so let's go with the first one f- uh, uh, let's deal with the first question if we can. Do cartels consolidate power? I don't know who wants to, who wants to do the economics analysis here? Mister Legat, we'll go with you, the broadcaster.

The blanket question of do cartels do

Yeah, the blanket question. Do cartels consolidate power?

they do?

Yeah, do they undermine competition?

They do.

Do they do the decreased output?

They do.

And when all that happens, what happens to price?

Prices go up.

Prices go up. So that's the concern we have for consumers. That's just fundamental economics.

I'm glad I was an economics major, by the way.

And Yeah, yeah. You were an economics major, too? See, I I I got lucky there. So, um And the way we give people choices that they want and that is that the best price is the marketplace. And so that's that's what we're we're we're trying to deal with. Now, how about the statute? Is the nineteen six I think I think Mister Travis talked about this earlier, the nineteen sixty one statute being followed.

In my opinion, no.

The title tells you.

Yes.

The Sports Broadcasting Act, not the Sports Streaming, not the Sports Satellite, the Sports Broadcasting Act. So there's a concern there, and I think when you read the statute it talks about telecast, which obviously at the time, because that's all they ba- basically had was broadcast, telecast, it's there. And maybe more importantly, did a jury find the NFL in violation of these two things, the statute and the consumer welfare standard, according to the sherman antitrust act.

They did.

They did. And what was the verdict? Do you remember?

It was a lot of money.

It was a lot of money. It's it's it's trebled, so I think it was like fourteen billion dollars. Now the judge said timeout. We didn't not necessarily agree with what the expert witnesses said, so we're gonna reevaluate this. But that's the situation we're in. We got the college sports issue, where some people are saying we need to do something with the sports broadcasting, maybe we do. We got the the the uh NFL where consumers are talking to us and we're just trying to wrestle with what's the best thing to do. So I got one minute and thirteen seconds. What's the best thing to do, Mr. Hallers?

Well, I th- I think they just for the fan's sake

Or the price for bar owners, right?

Yeah.

Whatever that is.

L- l- l- look,

Yeah.

w- I'm not here complaining about what they charge us for the programming, and you guys kno- we haven't talked about that, but for a small bar they charge for the Sunday tickets six

Yeah.

thousand a year for a b- larger bar fourteen thousand dollars a year, for that Sunday ticket for a occupancy one ninety-five bar.

Travis is probably the only fan that would ever pay that,

It's it's it's even more for the for the bigger bars.

but you've been, that's, yeah. Yeah.

But I'm we're not here, we're saying charges, just don't take away our choices, just let us get it everywhere fairly.

Okay.

And and that's what the fans want too. They just want access to the program in a fair way and don't over, you know, for the fans of course, they're like, don't overcharge.

Commissioner, I I I I will include everyone. I'm I'm being bipartisan today. I want the Democrat witness. Go ahead.

Thank you. I I think it's very important that we look at where there is market power and where there's no competition that is harming consumers. We've seen this in the consolidation of major media companies, where we have seen local communities get harmed because they lose content, they lose the local journalism, they lose diversity of viewpoints, and this really matters to the local communities that it's that these broadcasters are serving.

And the last word for Mister Legut, Mister Travis.

Look, I the NFL is saying eighty-seven percent of their games are available to uh na- nationwide consumers. That's not true in any of your markets. They they do not no market in America gets eighty-seven percent of the games for free. And my point would be, if the NFL is saying we're doing it eighty-seven percent of the time, that still means you're violating the law thirteen percent of the time, almost by your very admission. Uh, and that's why I think you guys haven't an obligation, a responsibility, and a duty to figure out how to apply this law going forward in modern era.

Okay, okay.

The the the plain text of the law, as you as you alluded to, Mister Chairman, is clear that it applies to broadcast only, those pooled negotiations. Frankly, the legislative history is even more clear that the committee considered a broader application of the law to paid services, and narrowed it to broadcast. Uh, so, very clearly here, if the league is using the antitrust exemption to negotiate with Amazon, Netflix, Google, that's not what the law contemplated. As you're thinking about college sports, um, our simple ask would be that this migration of sports away from broadcast behind paywalls is a net harm to consumers, and need to be very, very cautious as to how, uh, we w- as to how we don't further that trend as it relates to college sports.

Mr. Chairman, thanks for your good work. Uh, you're back.

Chairman yields back. That concludes today's hearing. We thank our witnesses for appearing before the subcommittee today. Without objection, all members will have five legislative days to submit additional written questions for the witnesses and additional materials for the record. Without objection, the hearing is adjourned.