“Examining the Sports Broadcasting Act”

1[House Hearing, 119 Congress]2[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]34                 EXAMINING THE SPORTS BROADCASTING ACT5=======================================================================67                                HEARING89                               BEFORE THE1011                 SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE,12                   REGULATORY REFORM, AND ANTITRUST1314                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY1516                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES1718                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS1920                             SECOND SESSION2122                               __________2324                        WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10, 20262526                               __________2728                           Serial No. 119-732930                               __________3132         Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary3334[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]3536               Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov3738                               __________3940                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE4163-977                  WASHINGTON : 202642=======================================================================4344                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY4546                        JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair4748DARRELL ISSA, California             JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland, Ranking49ANDY BIGGS, Arizona                      Member50TOM McCLINTOCK, California           JERROLD NADLER, New York51THOMAS P. TIFFANY, Wisconsin         ZOE LOFGREN, California52THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              STEVE COHEN, Tennessee53CHIP ROY, Texas                      HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,54SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin              Georgia55BEN CLINE, Virginia                  TED LIEU, California56LANCE GOODEN, Texas                  PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington57JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey       J. LUIS CORREA, California58TROY E. NEHLS, Texas                 MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania59BARRY MOORE, Alabama                 JOE NEGUSE, Colorado60HARRIET M. HAGEMAN, Wyoming          LUCY McBATH, Georgia61LAUREL M. LEE, Florida               DEBORAH K. ROSS, North Carolina62WESLEY HUNT, Texas                   BECCA BALINT, Vermont63RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina          JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois64KEVIN KILEY, California              SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California65GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin            JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida66BRAD KNOTT, North Carolina           DANIEL S. GOLDMAN, New York67MARK HARRIS, North Carolina          JASMINE CROCKETT, Texas68ROBERT F. ONDER, Jr., Missouri       SUMMER LEE, Pennsylvania69DEREK SCHMIDT, Kansas70BRANDON GILL, Texas71MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, Washington72                                 ------7374               SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE,75                    REGULATORY REFORM, AND ANTITRUST7677                   SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin, Chair7879DARRELL ISSA, California             JERROLD NADLER, New York, Ranking80BEN CLINE, Virginia                      Member81LANCE GOODEN, Texas                  J. LUIS CORREA, California82HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming             BECCA BALINT, Vermont83MARK HARRIS, North Carolina          JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois84DEREK SCHMIDT, Kansas                ZOE LOFGREN, California85MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, Washington      HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,86                                         Georgia8788               CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Majority Staff Director89                ARTHUR EWENCZYK, Minority Staff Director9091                            C O N T E N T S9293                              ----------9495                        Wednesday, June 10, 20269697                           OPENING STATEMENTS9899                                                                   Page100The Honorable Scott Fitzgerald, Chair of the Subcommittee on the101  Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust from the102  State of Wisconsin.............................................     1103The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee104  on the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust105  from the State of New York.....................................     4106The Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary107  from the State of Ohio.........................................     6108The Honorable Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the Committee on109  the Judiciary from the State of Maryland.......................     7110111                               WITNESSES112113Jim Hallers, Founder and Managing Partner, Citizen's Grill114  Oral Testimony.................................................    10115  Prepared Testimony.............................................    12116Curtis LeGeyt, President and Chief Executive Officer, National117  Association of Broadcasters118  Oral Testimony.................................................    15119  Prepared Testimony.............................................    17120Clay Travis, President, OutKick Media121  Oral Testimony.................................................    25122  Prepared Testimony.............................................    27123Anna M. Gomez, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission124  Oral Testimony.................................................    32125  Prepared Testimony.............................................    34126127          LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING128129All materials submitted for the record by the Subcommittee on the130  Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust are131  listed below...................................................    61132133Materials submitted by the Honorable Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member134  of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Maryland,135  for the record136    An article entitled, ``Mergers, FCC pressure threaten137        integrity of American journalism,'' Apr. 12, 2026,138        Seattle Times139    An article entitled, ``Rupert Murdoch's High-Stakes Blitz140        Against the NFL,'' May 7, 2026, The Wall Street Journal141    An article entitled, ``Paramount's WBD takeover explained:142        How the US $111 billion deal could reshape sports143        media,'' Mar. 25, 2026 , Sports Pro144145                 QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES FOR THE RECORD146147Questions and responses from Curtis LeGeyt, President and Chief148  Executive Officer, National Association of Broadcasters,149  submitted by the Honorable Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., a150  Member of the Subcommittee on the Administrative State,151  Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust from the State of Georgia, for152  the record153Questions for Jim Hallers, Founder and Managing Partner,154  Citizen's Grill, and Clay Travis, President, OutKick Media,155  submitted by the Honorable Darrell Issa, Member of the156  Subcommittee on the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform,157  and Antitrust from the State of California, for the record158    No response received at the time of publication159160                 EXAMINING THE SPORTS BROADCASTING ACT161162                              ----------163164                        Wednesday, June 10, 2026165166                        House of Representatives167168               Subcommittee on the Administrative State,169170                    Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust171172                       Committee on the Judiciary173174                             Washington, DC175176    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in Room1772141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Hon. Scott Fitzgerald178[Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.179    Members present: Representatives Fitzgerald, Jordan, Issa,180Cline, Gooden, Hageman, Harris, Schmidt, Baumgartner, Nadler,181Raskin, Correa, Balint, Lofgren, and Johnson.182    Mr. Fitzgerald. The Subcommittee will come to order.183Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess184at any time. We welcome everyone to today's hearing on the185Sports Broadcasting Act.186    I will now recognize myself for an opening statement. Today187we are here to examine the antitrust exemption granted under188the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961, and whether it continues189to serve the interests of American consumers. The Sports190Broadcasting Act was enacted at a very different time in191American history. In the late 1950s and early 1960s,192professional football was still developing into a national193enterprise.194    At the time, each team controlled its own broadcasting195rights and would negotiate with networks to televise individual196games. To promote competition and ensure the success of its197league, the NFL amended its bylaws to prevent teams from198broadcasting in each other's territory. However, the Department199of Justice viewed that restriction as anticompetitive and sued200the league for violating the Sherman Act.201    In 1953 the District Court largely sided with the DOJ and202issued an injunction preventing the NFL from placing203restrictions on televising games in the home territory of a204team playing an away game. In 1961, the NFL moved to limit the205distribution of games again, signing the first deal to sell206broadcast rights for all 14 of its teams as a single package.207    When the District Court again said no, the NFL turned to208Congress for help. Just a few months later, Congress passed the209Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961, which allowed the leagues to210pool their individual broadcasting rights for sale to a single211purchaser. The rationale was simple, Congress believed that212joint television agreements would help make games more widely213available to the public.214    It also would preserve the competitive balance among the215different teams and keep the professional sports leagues216financially viable. In exchange, Congress sought to maximize217the public interest by limiting the exemption to only quote,218``Sponsored telecasting,'' ensuring fans continue to have free219access to their favorite sports teams.220    Sixty-five years later, however, it is fair for this body221to ask whether the professional sports leagues have kept up222their end of the bargain. In my opinion, they have not, and223sports fans are paying the price because of it. The NFL for224example, boasts that 100 percent of its quote, ``Local market225games,'' are available free over the air, and that it offers226the most fan and broadcaster friendly model in the entire227sports and entertainment industry.228    How it chooses to define local market games each week229leaves fans across the country guessing whether they will be230able to see their favorite team on TV, or whether they need to231buy a subscription. For example, according to the NFL's232distribution schedule for week three games last season, fans in233Southern Indiana would not see the Indianapolis Colts on their234local market.235    Same for Houston fans in Northeast Texas. Despite living in236the same State as their favorite football team, fans are237subjected to arbitrary restrictions imposed by the NFL that238force them into buying a premium subscription model. This is239precisely why NFL Sunday Ticket is advertised to fans as240necessary to ensure they can watch every regular season game of241their favorite team.242    The NFL's claim of a fan friendly distribution model also243defies the reality experienced by millions of NFL fans244nationwide. The NFL fans generally have access to only three or245four games on a Sunday afternoon, with the rest available only246through Sunday Ticket. Compare that with the current college247football model, where fans can access dozens of games across248various television channels on a Saturday afternoon.249    Since 2021, the NFL, along with the other sports leagues,250have stretched the bounds of its exemption to sign exclusive251distribution agreements with streaming platforms, including252Amazon Prime, Netflix, Peacock, and ESPN. This includes the253Packers, the Green Bay Packers games on Thanksgiving Evening,254and Christmas Day, which will be broadcast exclusively on255Netflix, outside of the local market.256    It has also begun shifting some programming to Saturdays,257which goes against the original intent of the law, which was to258preserve Friday night high school, and Saturday college259football. Consumers who wish to follow their favorite teams260increasingly find themselves paying for multiple services,261navigating fragmented viewing arrangements, and facing higher262overall costs.263    According to Fox News, to have access to all NFL games in264the 2025 season it would cost the average sports fan at least265$575, or upwards of $800 for those without existing266subscriptions. To which all in market MLB games can likewise267cost a consumer upwards of $500 annually, according to the news268site Kiplinger.269    A sports fan without a traditional linear TV package must270now have on average four different streaming services to watch271the bulk of major sporting events. The Sports Broadcasting Act272was designed to facilitate the distribution of games through273free, over the air television.274    It was not intended to provide a perpetual shield for275leagues to coordinate the sale of media rights across every new276technology and distribution platform that emerges, yet that is277effectively what has happened. Today the major leagues, in278particularly the National Football League, have used the279antitrust exemption to collectively negotiate increasingly280lucrative media distribution contracts that go far beyond the281circumstances Congress contemplated in 1961.282    Following passage of the Sports Broadcasting Act, then NFL283Commissioner Pete Rozelle signed a TV deal worth $4.65 million.284Nearly 60 years later the NFL signed an 11-year media deal285worth $113 billion. The NBA first TV contract after passage of286the SBA was for $27 million. In 2024 the league signed an 11-287year deal worth $76 billion.288    While the leagues are undoubtedly more popular than they289were in 1961, because they do not follow America's antitrust290laws for television agreements, they can charge consumers291inflated prices that would otherwise be illegal. The NFL argues292that its distribution model is needed to maintain competitive293balance, and keep teams financially viable, and that is fair.294    Most sports fans appreciate it when teams can compete on295the merits, rather than through an arms race, like what we see296today with college football. The NFL and its teams are not in297the same financial position as they were in 1961. Under the298NFL's first media distribution contract, each team receives299approximately $310,000 per year.300    In 2025, each team received $416 million from the league's301national media sponsorship and licensing revenue. Not to make302it personal, but Commissioner Rozelle's salary in 1961 was303$60,000. Commissioner Goodell's salary today is reportedly over304$60 million. In 1999, Dan Snyder purchased the now Washington305Commanders for $800 million.306    Today, despite having only one playoff win in the last 25307years, sorry Commanders fans, the Commanders are presently308valued at over $7 billion. The NFL now reaches hundreds of309millions of fans across dozens of international markets. The310NFL is not a fragile enterprise in need of special protection.311It is one of the most successful and powerful entertainment312businesses in the world, and it pays its players and staff313accordingly.314    To suggest that teams could not remain competitive without315an antitrust exemption is simply false. It also falsely316suggests that Congress, not the NFL, controls revenue sharing,317which is also inaccurate. The question before Congress is not318whether professional sports teams will continue to compete319without this exemption, the question is whether consumers320continue to benefit from it.321    The evidence increasingly suggests they do not. The NFL's322ongoing Sunday Ticket litigation further illustrates this323point. In 2024, a jury found the NFL guilty of violating324antitrust law for colluding to limit consumer choice, and325charged super competitive prices for access to games through326its Sunday Ticket platform.327    The jury awarded plaintiffs a judgment of over $14 billion328against the NFL. This ruling is currently on appeal, but329regardless of the litigation's final outcome, the allegations330themselves reflect a broader reality. The NFL has used its331unique ability to coordinate among otherwise competitive clubs332to maximize revenue rather than expanding consumer access.333    Congress only grants antitrust exemptions in rare334circumstances because competition remains the best mechanism335for promoting innovation and protecting consumers. Exemptions336should be maintained only when there are benefits that clearly337outweigh the costs.338    When the beneficiaries of an exemption begin using it to339restrict access, increase prices, and strengthen their own340market power beyond what Congress intended, lawmakers, Congress341have an obligation to reconsider whether that exemption remains342justified. The Sports Broadcasting Act was enacted to expand343access to sports broadcasting, not to facilitate exclusive344streaming arrangements that force fans to pay more for less.345    In my view, the NFL seems to have lost sight of the346original purpose of the legislation, and in fact they may even347be in violation of the law right now. Today, I hope we can have348a constructive debate about what reforms if any Congress should349consider to ensure a marketplace that works best for consumers.350    Mr. Fitzgerald. I now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr.351Nadler, for his opening statement.352    Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, for years I353have been warning this Committee about the dangers of unchecked354consolidation in the American media industry. I have written355letters, I have led oversight efforts, and I have called for356serious antitrust review of the deals that have steadily357concentrated our newsrooms, our studios, and our broadcasting358infrastructure into the hands of fewer and fewer companies.359    For years the Majority has turned a blind eye to these360warnings. Today, we are here to examine the Sports Broadcasting361Act of 1961, and I want to be clear at the outset, this law362absolutely deserves a serious reexamination, it was written for363a media landscape that no longer exists. American sports fans364are paying more, getting less, and navigating a fragmented365streaming environment that the 1961 Congress could not possibly366have anticipated.367    The reform of this law is a legitimate subject for368congressional attention, but you cannot examine the Sports369Broadcasting Act in a vacuum, and that is exactly what the370Majority is asking us to do today. The same administration that371has suddenly discovered a concern for NFL fans has over the372past year waved through one of the most aggressive waves of373media consolidation in modern American history.374    Just last summer the FCC approved the Skydance-Paramount375merger, but only after the Ellison family paid the President a376$16 million contribution to his Presidential library, threw in377millions more in free advertising, agreed to install a Trump378friendly minder in the CBS newsroom, and saw to the379cancellation of the Late Show with Stephen Colbert.380    The result, as Ranking Member Raskin and I have warned this381Committee repeatedly, was not antitrust review, it was a382shakedown. Now, the same Ellison family is back, this time383bidding for Warner Bros. Discovery, in a deal that would give384them not only CBS and Paramount, but also CNN, HBO, and one of385the largest collections of sportscasting rights in the country.386    The President has publicly announced that he intends to be387involved in the decision. The Ellisons have reported they388already promised him quote, ``Sweeping changes at CNN.''389    The same play book that worked for Skydance-Paramount is390being run again, with the same beneficiaries, the same victims,391and the same silence from this administration's antitrust392regulators.393    This is a First Amendment crisis dressed up as an innocuous394business deal. When this President can use the merger review395process to extract editorial control over a major news network,396it represents a significant threat to our democracy, and our397constitutional liberties. When the FCC can be used to retaliate398against ABC for airing a Jimmy Kimmel monologue the White House399did not like, no broadcaster in this country is safe.400    The story that 60 Minutes was forced to delay about lawless401deportations, and the firing of high-profile correspondents402like Scott Pelley are a preview of the censorship regime these403mergers are enabling. All this unchecked consolidation aided by404corruption in the administration must inform our consideration405of the sports broadcasting landscape.406    The merger of CBS Sports and Turner Sports under one407corporate roof would create a sports rights portfolio rivaled408only by ESPN, encompassing rights to the NHL, the NFL, the409Olympics, the UFC, the PGA Tour, the Big 10, Big 12, NCAA410Basketball, and the Champion's League. Fewer competitors411bidding for sports rights means higher monthly bills for every412American family, sports fans or not.413    Last Congress I joined my colleagues in writing to the414Department of Justice about the proposed venue sports joint415venture between Disney, Fox, and Warner Bros. Discovery.416Eventually it would have given three of the largest media417companies in the country control over the sports streaming418market.419    A Federal judge agreed with us, granted an injunction, and420the Biden antitrust division filed a powerful amicus brief421detailing the anticompetitive effects of that arrangement. Last422year, the Trump Justice Department cleared Disney's acquisition423of Fubo, the very company that had brought the antitrust case424in the first place. The result was exactly what we warned425about.426    A competitor knocked out, a market consolidated, and427consumers left with higher prices, and fewer choices. Now, we428are here to discuss the NFL, not because the Majority has429introduced any legislation to address the high cost of sports430viewership, but because Rupert Murdoch personally lobbied the431President at a White House dinner in February, warning that the432NFL's streaming deals would quote, ``kill broadcast networks433like Fox.''434    Within weeks of that dinner, the Justice Department opened435the investigation that is the stated reason for today's436hearing. Yes, we should reform the Sports Broadcasting Act,437fans are being asked to pay too much across too many platforms438just to watch their favorite teams. We cannot pretend we are439doing the work of consumer protection when we examine the SBA440in isolation while the administration facilitates the very441consolidation that is driving up the cost, we claim to be442concerned about.443    I have called for a full investigation into the corruption444at this administration's Department of Justice and Federal445Communications Commission, and I will continue to do so. We446cannot have an honest conversation about the Sports447Broadcasting Act or any antitrust matter when the agencies448responsible for enforcing our competition laws have been turned449into instruments of political and personal favor.450    Before I yield back, we cannot discuss anything related to451sports today without taking note of the most important sports452story happening in this country today. By that, I mean the New453York Knicks drive for an NBA championship. Tonight, is game454four, and as long as Donald Trump stays far away from Madison455Square Garden, the Knicks should do fine. Let's go Knicks.456    Thank you, Mr. Chair, I yield back.457    Mr. Fitzgerald. Gratuitous plug by the Member from New York458for the Knicks. With that, I will recognize the Chair of the459Full Committee, Mr. Jordan, for his opening statement.460    Chair Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We have an antitrust461law in America, we have had it for over a hundred years, in462simple terms you can't collude, you can't form a cartel,463operate a cartel, and the reason we have that is we want464competition, because that is good for the consumer, simple465terms.466    In 1961, the NFL came to Congress and said we need relief467from this law when it comes to our TV agreement. If you don't468let us combine our resources to negotiate with the networks as469a group, and collude on this, we will go out of business, that470is what they told us. Their argument was a good argument, I get471it, they said bigger markets will get bigger deals, better472deals.473    New York, Chicago, and L.A., they will get better deals474than Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and Green Bay, and Congress bought475it. Congress said OK, we don't want the smaller market teams to476go out of business, we want a league, we like this product,477America loves this product, and so Congress enacted the Sports478Broadcasting Act in 1961.479    As the Chair and the Ranking Member said, ``the situation480today is a little different.'' What is the situation today?481What is the situation today? Sports Broadcasting Act 1961, what482is the situation today? On Sunday afternoon you can watch games483on broadcast television, Fox and CBS. On Sunday night you can484get the games on broadcast television NBC.485    On Monday night games are on satellite and cable,486television, ESPN, on Thursday night games are streamed on487Amazon, on Thanksgiving games are on broadcast, satellite,488cable, or streaming, on Christmas broadcast, satellite, cable,489or streaming, and there is some I am missing in there because490playoffs get different and everything else.491    That is the situation today. In fact, we described it in492our report, here is what the fan deals with today. In our493report, a Green Bay Packers fan who grew up in Dallas, Texas,494grew up in Green Bay, loves the Packers, wants to watch the495Packers, grew up in Dallas, Texas.496    For the 2026 season the Packers are scheduled to play eight497games on Fox, two games on Amazon Prime video, two games on498Netflix, two games on NBC, one game on ESPN, one game on CBS,499and one unscheduled game that is left to be determined by the500NFL. The fans will need access to Amazon Prime video, Netflix,501NBC, and ESPN to see the seven games scheduled for those502services.503    For the nine games scheduled for Fox and CBS, the fan will504likely need Fox and CBS because some of the games will be on505broadcast television in Dallas. The fan will also likely need506Sunday Ticket just to watch some subset of the nine Fox, CBS507games because the fan will not know which games will and will508not be on broadcast until the NFL and relevant networks release509the broadcast maps the week of the games.510    That is what they have got to navigate. That is what they511have got to navigate. We are here today to deal with the512fundamental question, does this still work for consumers? Maybe513it does, we haven't reached some type of conclusion, we just514know the situation, we know what our constituents, and what our515fans are telling us, the folks we have the privilege of516representing in our respective districts.517    We want to know if it still works, and maybe it does, we518all love this product, everyone loves football, we all love to519watch it, we all love the Super Bowl, the playoffs, your520hometown team, we all love that. We know one thing, we are521asking the question does it work for consumers? We know it is522working for the NFL, we know it is working for them.523    In 1961, adjusted for inflation, 14 teams in the league,524guess what each team got paid in the TV deal, $3.37 million. In5252025, 32 teams, guess what each team got in the deal, $443526million. A 100 times more, almost a half a billion dollars.527Again, that may be just fine, but that is the TV deal, that is528not counting tickets, and529T-shirts, and in stadium advertisement, and all the other530stuff.531    We are here to answer one simple question because we are532the Judiciary Committee, we have an antitrust law, we have to533do our jobs. Does this still benefit consumers, and the534consumer welfare the way it is supposed to? With that I will535yield back to the Chair and let me just say I appreciate the536witnesses being here, sorry I am running a little late.537    I was in an important hearing over in the House538Administration Committee on ActBlue and all the crazy things539they have been up to. I appreciate you all being here.540    I yield back.541    Mr. Fitzgerald. The Chair yields back. I now recognize the542Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Mr. Raskin, for his543opening statement.544    Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you for545taking us, I was over in an important meeting in the House546Administration Committee that should have been about WinRed,547and all the crazy things it is doing. I agree with my548Republican colleagues that the basic framework of the Sports549Broadcasting Act is worth revisiting, given how much has550changed since it was enacted 65 years ago.551    When I was growing up, and for much of the life of the552Sports Broadcasting Act, there were just three networks on the553airwaves, and all you needed to do to watch your favorite team554play on Sunday was a TV and an antenna. Today an NFL fan must555spend between $500 and $1,000 dollars every single season in556subscriptions to different platforms and streaming557subscriptions just to effectively cheer on their home team.558    It seems fundamentally unfair that the league should get559billion-dollar deals, the networks should get billion-dollar560contracts, but the fans are left out in the cold, that hardly561captures the spirit of the antitrust exemption that Congress562passed in 1961. What I have trouble computing however today is563why the Majority is focused on this narrow issue against the564backdrop of the most sweeping, aggressive media consolidation565in American history.566    Time and again the administration has allowed giant media567companies to merge, leaving consumers with fewer choices,568higher prices, and less power. They waved through Disney's569acquisition of Fubo, and ESPN's acquisition of NFL Network,570resulting in greater consolidation, and dramatically reduced571competition in the sports rights market.572    They turned a blind eye to the Nexstar-TEGNA merger, which573would give one company broadcast reach into 80 percent of574households in the United States, and thereby lead to increased575blackouts for sports fans, and higher prices for everybody.576Now, the Paramount-Skydance, Warner Bros. Discovery merger,577which President Trump personally muscled through after breaking578up a deal between Netflix and Warner is sailing through Trump's579politicized Executive Branch review process.580    Last month Ranking Member Pallone and I wrote to Paramount581Skydance's CEO David Ellison about this pending merger. We582pointed out that less than a year after Trump blessed Ellison's583takeover of Paramount Global, which includes Paramount584Pictures, CBS, BET, MTV, Nickelodeon, Comedy Central, and585streaming services Paramount Plus and Pluto.586    He is now arranging for David Ellison to add Warner Bros.587Studios, DC Entertainment, HBO, CNN, the Discovery Channel,588HGTV, Cartoon Network, TBS, and TNT, as well as HBO and589Discovery's streaming services to this awesome media590conglomerate. If this deal goes through, the Ellisons, one591family of Trump mega donors and enablers will have managed to592purchase an unparalleled sports and news empire in just one593year.594    That means the same kind of unprecedented pro-MAGA595editorial control we have seen at CBS News and 60 Minutes,596including the appointment of a full time paid MAGA minder, a597government spy and censor in the newsroom, that could occur at598CNN. That means American consumers who already pay an average599$69 a month for streaming, on top of a hundred a month for600cable, and 78 for internet paying even more for sports news and601entertainment.602    In the face of this profound consolidation, an antitrust603crisis sweeping the media market, why is the Majority focused604just on the NFL? Why is the Trump Administration, through the605DOJ, and the FCC investigating the NFL, but not other parties606in the market that threaten even far worse harm to consumers607and competitive dynamics in the market? Well, it turns out that608early in this administration, this is according to The Wall609Street Journal.610    The Fox Corporation Chair Rupert Murdoch personally lobbied611Donald Trump at a White House dinner to crack down on the NFL612streaming deals. Streaming deals that compete directly with613Fox's broadcast business. The DOJ's investigation, like this614hearing, appear to be all about helping Mr. Murdoch get a615better broadcast deal for Fox.616    That hardly seems like a principled or methodical way for617us to proceed. The Majority has offered no legislation to618reform the Sports Broadcasting Act, they call no hearings on619the Ellison's corrupt Paramount Skydance, Warner Bros.620Discovery merger, or the deep corruption at the heart of the621Paramount Skydance merger.622    They have not called a single Trump Administration623antitrust official to come testify before this Subcommittee624about the political destabilization and saturation of the625antitrust process of review in the administration. In fact, the626only Trump era antitrust official to appear before this627Committee this entire Congress was a Democratic called witness,628Roger Alford.629    Who was fired by the Trump Administration for refusing to630participate in the pay-to-play corruption of the DOJ's631antitrust divisions. Despite being a political appointee,632including serving as the No. 2 at DOJ's Antitrust Division in633the second Trump Administration, he was so appalled by what he634saw that he bravely decided to blow the whistle on how this635administration is every day selling out American consumers to636mega donors and their White House connected lobbyists.637    This selective interest suggests that the majority have638little interest in conducting real oversight here or promoting639real competition in the economy. They are doing nothing to640protect American consumers, workers, or innovation. Instead,641they are siding with big corporations striving for monopoly642profits that jack up prices for everybody and depress wages643while offering inferior goods and services.644    Commissioner Gomez, we are watching the alarming645consequences for the First Amendment, emboldened by its efforts646to capture CBS and CNN, the Trump Administration has now turned647its attention to ABC and its parent company, Disney, which you648warned are facing a quote, ``Sustained, coordinated campaign of649censorship and control from the Trump Administration,'' and650this is what I will ask you about.651    I yield back to you, Mr. Chair.652    Mr. Fitzgerald. The Ranking Member yields back. Without653objection, all other opening statements will be included in the654record. We will now introduce today's witnesses.655    Mr. Jim Hallers. Mr. Hallers is the Founder and Managing656Partner of Tailgaters Pub & Grill, and Citizens Grill, two657restaurants in the Houston area. He has owned and operated more658than two dozen restaurants and bars over the years.659    Mr. Curtis LeGeyt. Mr. LeGeyt is the President and Chief660Executive Officer of the National Association of Broadcasters,661an organization that advocates on behalf of television and662radio broadcasters. He previously served as the organization's663Chief Operating Officer, and its Executive Vice President for664government relations.665    Mr. Clay Travis. Mr. Travis is the founder, and President666of Outkick Media, maybe not at this point, I am not sure, we667need to update that text, a sports and culture news company668that we are all familiar with. He previously worked as an669attorney, college football analyst, and commentator, and as a670columnist for CBS Sports.671    He is also half of the Clay Travis and Buck Sexton672syndicated radio show, which is broadcast across America.673    Ms. Anna Gomez. Ms. Gomez is a Commissioner of the Federal674Communications Commission. She has served in the role since675September 2023. Ms. Gomez previously served in the State676Department, and various staff level roles at the FCC. We677welcome our witnesses and thank them for appearing today.678    We will begin by swearing you in. Would you please rise and679raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm under penalty of680perjury that the testimony you are about to give is true and681correct to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief,682so help you God?683    Let the record reflect that the witnesses have answered in684the affirmative. Thank you, please be seated.685    Please know that your written testimony will be entered686into the record in its entirety. Accordingly, we ask you that687you summarize your testimony in five minutes.688    Mr. Hallers, you may begin.689690                    STATEMENT OF JIM HALLERS691692    Mr. Hallers. Thank you, Chair Fitzgerald, and Ranking693Member Nadler, and the Members of the Committee. My name is Jim694Hallers, and I am the Founder and Managing Partner of695Tailgaters Pub & Grill and Citizens Grill in the Houston area.696Since 2009, I have built and operated sports bars and697restaurants that today employ over 400 team members.698    Before entering the restaurant business, I spent 25 years699in information technology, working with software and technology700infrastructure. That background is important because the701challenge I am here to discuss today is not just about702football. It is about technology, distribution, and the703unintended impact these changes have on small businesses.704    My restaurants are built around the game day experience.705Every Sunday during football season, hundreds of customers come706to watch their favorite teams while enjoying food, drinks, and707time with family and friends. The NFL Sunday Ticket has long708been a critical part of that experience. For my businesses,709Sunday Ticket is not simply entertainment.710    It is an economic driver, it supports jobs, generates tax711revenue, and helps local suppliers, vendors, and employees earn712a living. In Texas many of our customers have actually moved713from other parts of the country. On any given Sunday I may have714fans of the Texans, Steelers, Packers, Eagles, Bears, Bills,715and even the Cowboys watching games in the same building.716    Offering every game is not a luxury for a sports bar, it is717a customer expectation. Historically, we met that expectation718through DIRECTV's commercial Sunday Ticket package. It was719expensive, but it was reliable, and relatively straight720forward. Today the sports media landscape has become721increasingly fragmented.722    Games and programming are spread across multiple streaming723platforms. What may seem like a simple change for a consumer at724home becomes a significant operational challenge for a725restaurant. My business depends heavily on two seasons right726now, football season, and crawfish season. While crawfish727season depends on mother nature, football season depends on the728NFL, and the technology systems that deliver the games.729    When those systems become fragmented, expensive, and730unreliable, it directly affects my bottom line. To deliver731games across dozens of televisions, we need today additional732streaming devices, switching equipment, network infrastructure,733and extra internet capacity. A full transition can require a734$30,000-40,000 investment per location to show the current735version of Sunday Ticket through EverPass.736    The challenge is not just cost, it is reliability. A sports737bar may need to stream multiple games simultaneously, while738also supporting point of sale systems, credit card processing,739online ordering, security systems, business operations, and740customer Wi-Fi. When a stream freezes during a critical play,741the customers do not blame the provider, they blame the742restaurant.743    As the industry continues moving toward streaming, I am not744asking Congress to stop innovation. Technology changes, and745businesses adapt. What I am asking is that policymakers746recognize the unique role that restaurants and sports bars play747in the sports ecosystem. We are not passive viewers; we are748really community gathering places that invest substantial749resources to bring fans together.750    As Congress examines the Sports Broadcasting Act, and the751future of sports media distribution, I encourage you to752consider the practical impact that these changes have on753commercial establishments. We need transitions that are754reliable, economically realistic, and mindful of all the small755businesses that help deliver the game day experience to756millions of Americans.757    The restaurants and sports bars like mine create jobs,758support local communities, and provide a place where fans come759together to share experiences that are increasingly rare in760modern life. I want to thank you all for the opportunity to761testify, and I look forward to your questions.762    [The prepared statement of Mr. Hallers follows:]763    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]764765    Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you, Mr. Hallers. Mr. LeGeyt, you may766begin.767768                   STATEMENT OF CURTIS LEGEYT769770    Mr. LeGeyt. Good morning, Chair Fitzgerald, Ranking Members771Raskin and Nadler, and the Members of the Subcommittee. My name772is Curtis LeGeyt, and I am the President and CEO of the773National Association of Broadcasters. I am proud to testify774today on behalf of America's local broadcast television775stations, and the networks with which they affiliate.776    Our members serve every community in the country with777trusted journalism, emergency information, weather,778entertainment, and of course sports. All available free over779the air. The Sports Broadcasting Act was built on a simple780public interest bargain. Professional sports leagues received a781limited antitrust exemption so they could pool and sell782broadcast rights, and fans received broad public access to783games.784    In 1961, Congress considered the scope of that exemption785carefully, and explicitly applied it only to sponsor786telecasting, not subscription television. Congress was clear,787the law is about free over-the-air broadcasting, not pay walls.788For decades that bargain worked, fans could watch most games789for free on local broadcast television.790    Leagues benefited from the unmatched reach of broadcasting,791stations benefited from live sports programming that helps792support local news, weather, and emergency coverage.793Communities benefited because sports became part of our shared794cultural experience. Yet, today it is increasingly apparent795that the public access goals of that bargain are no longer796being met.797    Games from the four major professional leagues are now798spread across Amazon Prime, Netflix, YouTube TV, and Apple TV.799Fans increasingly need multiple paid subscriptions to watch800their favorite teams, and survey after survey shows fans are801confused and frustrated. Some estimates suggest that accessing802every NFL game over the course of a season would cost a803consumer well over a thousand dollars.804    That is a long way from the broad, free access Congress805intended when it created the SBA. This is especially troubling806because attending games in person has become unaffordable for807many families as well. When fans are priced out of the stadium,808and games are moved behind pay walls, the public loses twice.809    Amidst all of this, broadcast television remains the most810consumer-friendly platform in America. We are free, we are811local, we do not require a monthly fee, a broadband connection,812or a separate app. We reach rural communities, seniors, low-813income households, and casual fans who may not subscribe to814multiple streaming services. This is why games on broadcast815deliver massive audiences relative to their streaming816competitors.817    For example, NFL games on CBS, Fox, and NBC this past818Thanksgiving averaged 44.7 million viewers per game, while819Amazon's game, the following day on Black Friday, drew only 16820million viewers. It is also why local teams that have moved821games from regional sports networks to broadcast television822have seen their ratings surge. Importantly, the stakes for your823constituents extend beyond sports.824    The advertising and carriage revenues delivered by live825sporting events help pay for coverage of city halls, school826boards, elections, severe weather, public safety, and community827events. When tornadoes, wildfires, or other emergencies828threaten lives, local broadcasters are there. In contrast, big829tech does not invest in local newsrooms, and they are not on830the ground after the storm.831    In conclusion, live sports on free broadcast television832have served the American public for generations. Together we833have built shared national moments, strengthened communities,834expanded fan bases, and supported local journalism. That model835is now at risk. Fans are paying more and receiving less.836    Meanwhile, local stations are competing against global tech837platforms that can subsidize their sports rights with revenue838from entirely different businesses. In 1961, Congress was right839to put fans first and NAB is not asking to eliminate the Sports840Broadcasting Act. This Committee should reaffirm that the SBA841applies only to league-wide negotiations with media companies842that will distribute games through broadcast television, not843lock games behind streaming pay walls.844    Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look845forward to your questions.846    [The prepared statement of Mr. LeGeyt follows:]847    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]848849    Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you, Mr. LeGeyt. Mr. Travis, you may850begin.851852                   STATEMENT OF CURTIS TRAVIS853854    Mr. Travis. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the invite today. Mr.855Nadler, I enjoy, and appreciate the opportunity to speak to all856of you. My name is Clay Travis, I founded a site called OutKick857in 2011, if you haven't gone yet you should, it is the sanest858site in all of sports. A big part of what we do on that site,859and what I have done for the past 22 years in my career is860advocate for the average sports fan.861    Many of you are lawyers, and you are familiar with the862standard of a reasonable man. How would someone respond in a863context in the law? I would like to advocate here for the864reasonable fan. I just asked before I started speaking today,865my followers on X, what would you say if you had the866opportunity today to speak to Democrats, Republicans, to867everyone across the country about your experience as a sports868fan?869    I would encourage you guys to go look at the responses870there, hundreds of them have all come in, none of them are871happy. Every single day sports fans are getting gouged now for872the opportunity of watching their favorite teams. I would say873under the Sports Broadcasting Act, as a very easy summation,874fans now pay far more money every year for something that by875law in 1961 you all guaranteed for them should be free.876    For anyone out there who is saying why is Congress involved877in this, you interjected yourself in 1961 at the behest of878these leagues to provide them an exemption that they have now879taken advantage of, and they are gouging so many different fans880out there across the entire sports landscape, regardless of who881you are a fan of.882    Let me hit you with just a couple of ideas. The NFL in883particular, CBS, Fox, NBC, ESPN, ABC, Amazon, Netflix, the NFL884Sunday Ticket, Paramount, Peacock, most of your constituents885are frustrated, they don't know how to find games, and they are886having to pay far too much when they have the opportunity to887actually watch those games.888    I don't know how many of you remember back in the day when889you could have one remote control in your hand, and you could890easily flip from any different game. Nowadays, with passwords,891with sign-ins, how many of your constituents, on an average892Saturday or Sunday, are extremely frustrated because they just893can't even get logged in to watch their favorite games?894    These are things that they are already paying for. I hear895from fans every single day about how frustrated they are with896what the leagues are doing, they just want to be able to watch897their favorite team and not have to struggle to do so. Think898about this perspective, remember when flat screen televisions899were very expensive? I spent $4,200 in 2006 on my first ever900flat screen television.901    Now, they are a few hundred dollars. Capitalism has worked902when it comes to flat screen television. Sports fans now can903watch huge flat screens in their home for a fraction of the904cost that they paid in 2006, but they now have to pay a massive905amount to be able to watch all their favorite teams.906    Your investigation has actually uncovered that the NFL907Sunday Ticket, which is one of the most expensive packages out908there, the NFL doesn't even offer to the average fan what they909actually want, which is the ability to subscribe to their910favorite team if they live out of market.911    Something that many of you know all about because you912travel all the time, and you probably want to watch your913favorite NFL team, your local constituent team. You don't have914the ability to do it; they don't offer that product even though915the marketplace is telling them that is what people most want.916I love college football, I love the NFL, I have three boys, we917spend all day Saturday and Sunday watching games.918    In the college football world, you know I get ten broadcast919games for free every single Saturday. The market for college920football is robust. In the NFL, at most you only get four. The921NFL is going to argue that 87 percent of their games are still922free. That still means that they are violating the law with 13923percent of the games that they are putting behind streamers.924    It also means that the reality is if you look at your925individual constituents, none of them are getting 87 percent.926Let me close with this one example here, and I look forward to927your questions. Buffalo Bills, great new stadium opening, $850928million in taxpayer funds. Their very first home game is on a929Thursday on Amazon.930    Most of the taxpayers in the State of New York who paid for931that stadium are not able to watch for free a Buffalo Bills932home opener. That is wrong, you guys have an important933responsibility, and an opportunity to apply the law fairly,934freely, and help fans everywhere across the entire Nation pay935less and get more. Thank you.936    [The prepared statement of Mr. Travis follows:]937    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]938939    Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you, Mr. Travis. Ms. Gomez, you may940begin.941942                   STATEMENT OF ANNA M. GOMEZ943944    Ms. Gomez. Chair Jordan, Ranking Member Raskin, Chair945Fitzgerald, Ranking Member Nadler, and the distinguished946Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to947testify today. In living rooms and sports bars across the948country, millions of Americans who may agree on little else949will be gathered tonight to watch the NBA finals, rooting950together for their respective team.951    There are few things left in American life that cut across952every line of division the way sports does, and I say that as a953proud National and Wizards fan who knows exactly what it feels954like to believe that your team might actually pull it off this955year. We are living through a genuinely remarkable era for956sports fans, more games, more leagues, more athletes, and more957stories are accessible today than any previous generation could958have imagined.959    At the same time the economics of how fans actually watch960have shifted in ways that deserve serious attention. What used961to arrive through an antenna available to anyone regardless of962income, has increasingly migrated behind a growing stack of963subscriptions and league specific apps. For a family trying to964follow their team through a full season, the cost of piecing965together across multiple platforms adds up quickly.966    How we ensure sports content remains accessible and967available to all Americans is a question I want to situate968within a much broader set of concerns about who controls the969media that carries the games, and what they are doing with that970power. The FCC has a legitimate interest in helping gather971information about how the Sports Broadcasting Act is972functioning in a changing media environment.973    I support efforts to ensure fans can access their teams974without paying a fortune. When sports programming migrates975behind pay walls, fans lose access, local broadcasters lose the976revenue that keeps their stations alive, and the local977journalism those stations produce loses the funding on which it978depends. I also want to be candid about where the FCC's979authority ends.980    The commission can gather information, raise concerns, and981call out fouls when we see them. Any meaningful update to the982Sports Broadcasting Act would ultimately require legislative983action. Despite growing public concern about the challenges984facing the media ecosystem, this administration does not appear985to be prioritizing consumer protection.986    According to reports, the scrutiny now being applied to987sports leagues through government agencies like the FCC and DOJ988appears to be driven less by a genuine interest in protecting989fans, and more by the influence of powerful media companies990with close ties to this administration that stand to benefit991financially from the outcome of that scrutiny.992    I have called this pattern the billionaire buddy bypass,993where the public interest gets bypassed in favor of a powerful994few, and it extends well beyond sports broadcasting, into a995sweeping consolidation of media power that poses serious risks996to journalism, to free expression, and to the Americans that997depend on both. That consolidation is where I want to spend the998remainder of my time, because the stakes are high, and the999pattern is clear.1000    When the FCC unlawfully waived Federal law to let one1001broadcaster reach 80 percent of local television households,1002more than double the cap set by Congress by statute, it1003signaled it was willing to move the goalpost for the entire1004industry for the right relationship.1005    When Paramount settled a baseless lawsuit just two days1006before its merger with Skydance was approved, and that approval1007was conditioned on commitments to reshape the editorial1008direction at CBS News, we saw what unchecked media1009consolidation leaves in its wake, including the collapse of 601010Minutes, and the irreparable damage done to one of the most1011trusted names in broadcast journalism.1012    Now, that same ownership is seeking to add CNN, HBO, and1013Warner Bros. to that portfolio, financed by $24 billion from1014sovereign wealth funds controlled by foreign governments with1015documented records of suppression. Nearly half of the combined1016company would be in foreign government hands. Paramount has1017asked the FCC to authorize up to 100 percent foreign ownership1018of its broadcast licensees, and the FCC has shown every sign1019that it intends to wave that through.1020    Whether to authorize that level of foreign government1021control over media broadcast infrastructure, cable news1022networks, and Hollywood studios, is a national security1023question that demands far more than a rubber stamp. Media1024consolidation on this scale requires, I mean creates the1025conditions for exactly the kind of editorial control this1026administration has shown it intends to exercise.1027    Pursuing investigations and threatening the licenses of1028news organizations whose coverage it finds unfavorable. That1029campaign of censorship and control does not happen without the1030consolidated media power that enables it. The American people1031deserve a government whose approach to media policy starts and1032ends with their interests, not those of powerful companies,1033foreign governments, and an administration that has made clear1034it views media ownership as a tool of political control.1035    I am grateful for this Committee's attention to these1036issues, and I welcome any questions you may have. Thank you.1037    [The prepared statement of Ms. Gomez follows:]1038    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]10391040    Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you, Ms. Gomez. We will now proceed1041under the five-minute rule with some questions. I am going to1042recognize myself.1043    Mr. Travis, when the NFL came to Congress in 1961, they1044warned that smaller teams wouldn't survive if the league could1045not pool their broadcast rights, so it created shared revenue1046of which I am not really concerned, I don't care how they slice1047up the pie.1048    Today, professional sports leagues are among the most1049profitable businesses in the world. Is it safe to say that the1050survival of professional sports is no longer dependent on a1051special exemption from Congress?1052    Mr. Travis. I feel pretty good that the NFL is not going to1053start to lose money any time soon, and everybody understands1054that the NFL's power today is drastically different than it was1055in 1961.1056    Mr. Fitzgerald. To me, the straw that kind of broke the1057camel's back was when we saw the NFL sign a contract with1058Netflix. At that point I think they went from kind of pushing1059on the edge of the law to jumping headfirst through it. Given1060the NFL has effectively thumbed its nose at sports1061broadcasting, is there something there that Congress is1062missing, or are they simply flouting the whole concept at this1063point?1064    Mr. Travis. The NFL under the plain reading of the 19611065Sports Broadcasting Act, I also have a law degree, so I am not1066entirely out of scope here when I analyze it, the NFL quite1067clearly for at least 13 percent of its overall television1068package which now has moved to streaming, is violating the1069plain intent of the law.1070    In fact, if you read the 1961 act, there is a pretty clear1071discussion in there, certainly we didn't understand the concept1072of streaming, even the idea of cable was hard to comprehend of1073where we were headed, but they specifically say that they1074wouldn't have been allowed under that 1961 act to put these1075games behind what was then sort of a pay per view concept that1076they understood in 1961, closed captioning style, where it1077wasn't available for free.1078    Clearly, if you look at that 1961 law and apply it to1079modern technology, the 13 percent, Netflix and Amazon, and1080other streaming assets clearly violate the intent of the 19611081law, which is pretty clear. It was designed to make sure that1082fans get free access to games, anything that fans are having to1083pay for outside of broadcast television, arguably is outside1084the scope of that 1961 exemption.1085    Mr. Fitzgerald. Very good, thank you. Mr. Hallers, as a1086sports bar owner, I would guess that showing your customers the1087games they want to see is an essential part of the business,1088but as we have already spoken about, unfortunately purchasing1089premium packages like the NFL Sunday Ticket is not an option1090for a business like yourself, and now that has changed.1091    Can you just try and describe the changes that would have1092to be made within your own restaurants and bars to accommodate1093the new NFL package?1094    Mr. Hallers. Right, basically it is still, I guess called1095Sunday Ticket, but they have moved it from DIRECTV, which is1096basically what all the bars and restaurants that have shown1097football on Sundays for 30 or 40 years have used, they are1098moving it to a streaming only platform called EverPass. It has1099been available on both DIRECTV and EverPass for the last couple1100of years.1101    Here in 2026 they said no more for DIRECTV, everybody has1102to move to streaming. Literally now we have to buy streaming1103boxes, and in a typical smaller bar where I have maybe 30 or 401104TVs with a DIRECTV box mounted behind every television, I now1105have to get an EverPass streaming box.1106    You can't put an EverPass streaming box behind every TV, it1107doesn't work like that. You have to bring in like eight of1108these boxes, and then you have to put in the wiring, and the1109infrastructure to distribute that signal out to all your 30 or111040 TVs. This is because your typical internet bandwidth at a1111bar can't handle 30 or 40 streams.1112    Just imagine at home if you tried to stream 30 Netflixes at1113once, your internet is just going to die. Well, it is the same1114way for most bars and restaurants today. I buy internet that is1115big enough to run my POS, and to run systems, and give1116customers some Wi-Fi, but when I put this in I am going to have1117to go get like gig fiber connections, and I can only imagine1118there is bars and restaurants out there that don't even have1119that ability to go buy high speed internet maybe at a1120reasonable price.1121    For sure, once you bring this in with this infrastructure,1122you have to make sure every part of it actually works. If I1123need to show ten games at noon on Sunday, there is two on1124broadcast TV, which I will be watching with my DIRECTV boxes,1125eight on the streaming boxes, and the other problem is the1126eight streaming boxes, so almost all sports bars have went and1127bought these.1128    Even the best sports bars have these video distribution1129systems, where you bought a certain number of inputs, and a1130certain number of outputs. Well, now we are bringing in eight1131new inputs, and everybody is looking at their equipment going1132like I don't have eight spots to plug in new boxes. We are left1133with, do we go back and buy even bigger and more expensive1134equipment?1135    Of which there is a very limited amount in the marketplace,1136because only so many sports bars open a year. Do we rip out1137DIRECTV boxes on Sunday, or put in some kind of switches to1138switch over? Imagine a typical manager in a restaurant, OK, at1139noon switch all these boxes over, and then after that game is1140over this one is going to be on broadcast, let us switch these1141TVs over. It is just mayhem.1142    Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you. Mr. Nadler, you are recognized.1143    Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Gomez, you1144mentioned in a recent letter that Disney and ABC are facing a1145quote ``Sustained, coordinated campaign of censorship and1146control from the Trump Administration.'' Can you tell us about1147how the Trump Administration has weaponized the FCC, and what1148that does to free speech? Put on your mic.1149    Ms. Gomez. Sorry, thank you. Yes, this administration has1150used every lever in its power, including weaponizing the FCC to1151wage its campaign of censorship and control over any content it1152doesn't like. One of the ways that it has done so is through1153its actions against Disney. It is clear, the White House issues1154a statement that it is unhappy with some kind of content that1155is on an ABC station, and the FCC initiates an investigation1156against that station.1157    Most egregiously, the FCC has now called up all the local1158ABC stations of Disney under the pretext of an investigation to1159retaliate against Disney because it has refused to capitulate1160to this administration's demands that it fire Jimmy Kimmel or1161regulate the content of its media reports.1162    Mr. Nadler. What are some of the more egregious incidents1163that you have witnessed at the FCC?1164    Ms. Gomez. The most egregious incident so far, and I have1165seen a lot of egregious uses of our investigatory authority to1166go after content particularly by news organizations has been1167calling up these eight local stations by Disney. It has never1168gone after network content by threatening the licenses of local1169broadcast stations.1170    The last time it actually took such an action was over half1171a century ago. This is an extreme action to pressure Disney to1172cave.1173    Mr. Nadler. Commissioner Gomez, you have been outspoken1174about the wave of consolidation in the media market, from the1175recently approved Nexstar-TEGNA merger to the proposed1176Paramount Warner Bros.-Discovery acquisition. How does this1177kind of media consolidation impact American consumers and their1178monthly bills?1179    Ms. Gomez. Thank you for that question. Media consolidation1180leads to higher prices for consumers. When it comes to the1181local broadcasters, what it leads to is higher rates that they1182charge to the cable companies, and to satellite companies for1183their content. That will directly lead to consumers paying1184higher prices. Importantly, it also leads to the loss of local1185journalism and local content.1186    Communities also suffer because the news and the1187information that they rely on for their civic engagement, for1188disasters become homogenized, and it loses the localism that1189these broadcasters provide when you become too nationalized.1190    Mr. Nadler. How does this media consolidation affect the1191ability of Sports fans to watch their favorite teams without1192paying exorbitant amounts?1193    Ms. Gomez. Media consolidation always affects any1194consumers, because what you get is a difference in market1195power. Whether it is through higher retransmission rates, now1196in the case of sports fans, you need to look at where excess1197market power is actually leading to less competition, which1198then leads to higher prices for consumers and viewers.1199    Mr. Nadler. Finally, can you expand on how these large1200media mergers affect local journalism?1201    Ms. Gomez. The large media mergers result in losses in the1202newsrooms; they result in loss of a diversity of viewpoints. It1203results in fewer local content, less local content being1204provided to consumers, because the larger consolidations always1205need synergies. These broadcasters are taking on a huge amount1206of debt, and debt has to be settled somehow.1207    The ones that pay for that are the local journalists, and1208the local communities these broadcasters are meant to serve.1209    Mr. Nadler. Why do the local broadcasters pay for that?1210    Ms. Gomez. Pardon me?1211    Mr. Nadler. Why do the local broadcasters pay for that?1212    Ms. Gomez. Well, when we are talking about big1213consolidation of local broadcasters, it's the local1214broadcasters that are in fact taking those actions.1215    Mr. Nadler. Well thank you. Mr. Chair, I yield back.1216    Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize1217the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Harris, for five1218minutes.1219    Mr. Harris. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the1220opportunity to talk with you who are witnesses for us today.1221    Mr. Hallers, thank you for coming in and testifying today,1222it is always great to hear from business owners about how1223actions in Washington are affecting day-to-day operations where1224you are. The Chair started off with you by talking about the1225changes that had happened.1226    One thing I just want to give you a chance to elaborate on,1227on average, have these changes that you are even considering or1228looking to make, do you have an idea of what kind of costs are1229involved in those kinds of changes?1230    Mr. Hallers. For a full-blown sports bar, we are looking at1231anywhere from $30,000-$40,000 of equipment upgrades, and we1232better get cracking soon, because football season is coming.1233    Mr. Harris. Correct. Has the rise in streaming services1234increased or decreased the number of customers visiting your1235sports bars?1236    Mr. Hallers. I think really, we fill up on Sundays, but in1237talking to the fans that are coming in all week long, they are1238very frustrated at the difficulty they are having watching1239football.1240    Mr. Harris. Sure.1241    Mr. Hallers. When they heard I was coming here, they were1242like you go tell them. They are really frustrated, and I am not1243just talking about the ones that are sitting in with me, just1244in general.1245    Mr. Harris. Got you. Mr. Travis, I want to talk for just a1246moment about the NFL Sunday Ticket. In a briefing before this1247Committee in 2025, an NFL representative claimed that Sunday1248Ticket, and I quote,12491250        Was meant to be a product that was available for the truly avid1251        fan who wants every game.12521253They did not claim that the product was meant for fans to watch1254every game of only their team.1255    However, this claim seems to be contradicted by Sunday1256Ticket's own marketing to Americans who are attempting to find1257their favorite NFL team's telecast. I say that by advertising1258for Sunday Ticket warns consumers, and again I quote,12591260        Even fans of the Cowboys, Chiefs, Eagles, Packers, 49ers,1261        Lions, and fans of every other team have needed NFL Sunday1262        Ticket to ensure they could watch every regular season game of1263        their favorite team.12641265    Due to the work of this Committee, data was obtained which1266showed that most Sunday ticket subscribers signed up to watch1267one favorite out of market team, not every game in the league.1268The same data also revealed that most subscribers who cancel1269their Sunday Ticket subscription, do so because it is too1270expensive. My question for you, Mr. Travis, is if the Committee1271can find this data, the NFL can find it too.1272    In a consumer driven market, what reason would the NFL have1273to ignore this data point?1274    Mr. Travis. I believe, based on my experience over the last127520 years of covering the NFL, talking about the NFL Daily, the1276vast majority of NFL fans who subscribe to Sunday Ticket do1277that so they can follow their single favorite team. There are1278also diehards that want to have access to every single game.1279    To me, a market-based option should be, if the NFL were1280trying to provide exactly what the consumer wanted, and not1281just charge everybody way more, you should be able to subscribe1282to guarantee yourself that you get to watch every game of your1283favorite team. That should be an option in the marketplace.1284    Then, if you want every single NFL game available because1285you are a die hard, you love to gamble, maybe you are obsessed1286with your fantasy football team, that option should be in the1287marketplace as well. The fact that the NFL only provides the1288huge option, and not the targeted option for individual teams,1289is a direct refutation of what the marketplace at large1290actually wants.1291    Mr. Harris. Thank you, great response. Mr. LeGeyt, it can1292be argued that the conditions that led to the passage of SBA no1293longer exist, and that the behavior of the league suggests that1294the spirit of the law is no longer being honored. However, the1295leagues would argue that repealing the SBA would destroy their1296business models.1297    I just want to ask you at the last minute I have, if the1298SBA's antitrust exemption was removed, would business models be1299destroyed like the leagues contend, or would it require the1300leagues1301to construct contracts that are more reasonable and consumer1302friendly?1303    Mr. LeGeyt. I certainly don't think the league's business1304model would be destroyed. I do want it to be clear that the NAB1305is not asking to repeal the Sports Broadcasting Act. What we1306are asking is for this Committee to affirm its guardrails, that1307it is meant to govern the negotiations between the league when1308it is pulling rights, and broadcasters. It is not meant to1309enable sports to be hidden behind pay walls.1310    Mr. Harris. Is there any other reforms to the SBA you would1311suggest for Congress to enact?1312    Mr. LeGeyt. Well, on top of this we have got to ensure that1313the law is enforced. One of the real questions here is the1314plain text of the law is clear as to the scope of negotiations1315it should apply to, the leagues, and broadcasters, yet it is1316obviously being misused. I would ask this Committee to look at1317those enforcement tools as well.1318    Mr. Harris. Thank you, sir, and thank you to all the panel.1319Mr. Chair, I yield back.1320    Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize1321the Ranking Member of the Full Committee again, Mr. Raskin.1322    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. LeGeyt, you represent1323broadcasters, do you agree with Commissioner Gomez that it is1324wrong for Federal agencies to make enforcement and regulatory1325decisions based on the President's personal animus toward1326certain companies, or friendship with other companies?1327    Mr. LeGeyt. At NAB I can say unequivocally we are fighting1328every day to ensure that our Members have the ability to make1329programming decisions, to make newsroom decisions that are1330independent of any government influence.1331    Mr. Raskin. OK. Commissioner Gomez, in your view what1332factors have contributed to this recent intensified regulatory1333scrutiny of the NFL? Are there political motivations behind it?1334    Ms. Gomez. Well, thank you for that question. What appears1335to be reported is that in fact it was a major broadcast network1336that asked the administration to look into this issue. Which1337worries me because what should be motivating the administration1338is the actual consumers, the fans themselves.1339    Mr. Raskin. Fans are indeed frustrated, as Mr. Travis1340identifies, but while there is this, I think kind of unserious1341investigation into the NFL, or heckling of the NFL to satisfy1342Rupert Murdoch, the administration is waving through massive1343media mergers that will further consolidate sports. I just1344wonder if you would say a word about what that means for fans,1345and then Mr. Travis, I want to get your perspective on that.1346    Ms. Gomez. Yes. These major mergers lead to in fact less1347competition, particularly among the portions of these merged1348companies that actually provide services to the fans.1349    Mr. Raskin. Does less competition mean higher prices?1350    Ms. Gomez. Less competition means higher prices, and it1351means more harm to consumers.1352    Mr. Raskin. What kinds of harm are you thinking of?1353    Ms. Gomez. Again, higher prices, maybe less choice, it is1354the usual pattern that we see when we see major consolidation.1355    Mr. Raskin. When you see centralization, consolidation,1356monopoly type practices, that inevitably is going to be to the1357detriment of consumers, to the people?1358    Ms. Gomez. Yes, absolutely. Importantly for local1359broadcasters, these revenues are very important to them, and1360that is a large part of how they finance the local journalism1361that so many communities rely on.1362    Mr. Raskin. OK, and Mr. Travis, the same question to you.1363What do you think the consequence has been for your1364constituency, fans across America, of these massive media1365consolidations and mergers?1366    Mr. Travis. Look, I don't think there is any fan in1367America, regardless of his or her politics, Democrat,1368Republican, or Independent, that would say the sports fan1369viewing experience is getting better. That is why I contrasted1370it with the flat screen television experience, what the cost is1371there. Affordability and access are both getting worse, and in1372a market-based economy, based on capitalism, the opposite1373should be occurring.1374    We should be getting more affordable, better access, and we1375are not seeing that. It has gotten worse, it has accelerated,1376sir, over the last 20 years the fan experience has gotten1377worse. Every one of you guys up there has sat with a remote1378trying to switch from one game to another and was not able to1379do it. In 2008-2010, that wasn't an issue. That is what I am1380concerned about, is the average fan experience has degraded.1381    Mr. Raskin. Yes. Because that is the focus of your1382professional life, your personal life, it seems like it1383subsumes your whole being there, what are some of the concrete1384ways in which the fan experience has been degraded over the1385last several years?1386    Mr. Travis. I will give you several, and I could probably1387talk for hours on this, and I have. Just think about what goes1388on with streaming now. Streaming is delayed, if you are1389watching a game on Amazon, or you are watching a game on1390Netflix, and you are sitting with your phone, and you are1391texting with your friends or family about a game, you might1392find out what happened on the play a minute after it actually1393happened.1394    Some of you know this experience, you have been sitting on1395your couch, you don't even want to look at your phone because1396it is a crucible moment of the game, and your buddy might have1397seen it already a minute ago. That didn't happen back in the1398day, we used to all watch games together. Streaming is delayed,1399and that is a very minimal thing.1400    The password situation with not being able to get logged1401in, you have paid for it but for some reason you are not1402getting logged in. The fact that you might travel, and try to1403watch a game, you are right, I am obsessed with this, and the1404average fan is not getting--1405    Mr. Raskin. All right, I have only got 20 seconds, I want1406to ask you one other question before I go and subscribe to1407OutKick. The NFL has said they have received no outreach from1408the DOJ about an investigation that was supposedly opened1409months ago into the NFL, does that suggest that DOJ is actually1410doing their job for consumers, or is all of this just sort of1411performance art, and posturing for Mr. Murdoch?1412    Mr. Travis. I am not an expert in DOJ investigations; I do1413have a law degree. I would hope personally that the Department1414of Justice is actually looking into this on the basis of the14151961 law, and on the foundational idea across the political1416spectrum of sports fans should get good value, and not a1417degraded experience that they are currently receiving across so1418many different sports.1419    Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much. I yield back, Mr. Chair.1420    Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize1421the gentlewoman from Wyoming for five minutes.1422    Ms. Hageman. Thank you. Since my time in Congress, I have1423long advocated for the use of sunsets in much of the work that1424we undertake here, ensuring that issues can be revisited as1425circumstances change. The Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 is a1426perfect example of this, given that its enactment came at a1427time when satellite streaming and modern cable television1428services did not exist.1429    Had a sunset clause been in place, Congress would have1430almost certainly been forced to address the problems that we1431are hearing about today the moment that viewing options moved1432beyond free, over the air broadcast television. Mr. Travis,1433given the pace of change in sports broadcasting, would you1434agree that whatever reform Congress may seek to undertake with1435the Sports Broadcasting Act, that it would be wise to include a1436mechanism allowing us to continually revisit the issue well1437into the future?1438    Mr. Travis. Yes, that would be incredibly important,1439because technology is hard to predict. I would point out that1440there is a discussion surrounding closed captioning television1441I understand to be true. Back in the 1950s-1960s, you could put1442pay per view for big boxing matches, and they would sometimes1443do it.1444    The 1961 act specifically says that would not be allowed1445here. In other words, we are moving toward a world I think1446where one day the Super Bowl might be put on Netflix, or1447Amazon, or some streaming device that requires everybody to1448have a subscription to be able to watch something that unites1449us all, I actually agree with Commissioner Gomez on this.1450    Sports is one of the last places where everybody can come1451together in common experience, things I always say somebody1452makes a winning shot, you don't think about the politics, or1453the ethnicity, or the religion of anybody else around you.1454Chair Nadler was talking about the Knicks in that way--1455    Ms. Hageman. Mr. LeGeyt, do you agree that there should be1456a sunset on whatever bill we adopt?1457    Mr. Nadler. May their name be blessed.1458    Mr. LeGeyt. Go Celtics. This is certainly a rapidly1459changing marketplace, and I do think that that would be wise. I1460think as important is to reaffirm these guardrails, that the1461piece of this ecosystem that is not changing, which is that1462broadcast remains freely available to all is the medium that1463this act was intended to govern the negotiations with.1464    Ms. Hageman. Well, if we do move forward with a sunset1465clause, what market factors would need to be considered when1466determining the appropriate length, among other details? What1467are some of the market factors we need to consider in terms of1468identifying what the sunset clause should be, five years, seven1469years, ten years, and three years?1470    Mr. LeGeyt. Well, I do think the lengths of these media1471deals by and large, which tend to be in the five-to-ten-year1472range, are a factor here. I would also say that the nature of1473the professional sports leagues, the scope of leagues to which1474it should apply, for a league like the NFL, which is well1475established, and certainly the principle of wanting to ensure1476that small market teams in Pittsburgh and Green Bay have an1477equitable chance to succeed, reinvest in their product, benefit1478from the unique reach of broadcasting.1479    They are at a different stage in their business than a more1480nascent sports league.1481    Ms. Hageman. OK. Wyoming is one of just over 20 States that1482lacks a professional sports team with respect to the major1483North American sports leagues. As a result, our professional1484sports fan base can be highly fragmented. Additionally, with1485Wyoming being one of America's most rural States, access to1486reliable broadband and other forms of connectivity is already a1487challenge for many of my constituents.1488    Taking football as an example, the most popular NFL teams1489in Wyoming are the Denver Broncos, and the Buffalo Bills, given1490the popularity of Josh Allen, and his time as a star1491quarterback for the University of Wyoming. Mr. Travis, suppose1492a Buffalo Bill fan lives in Wyoming, well outside the team's1493home market, how would that fan access every Bills game during1494the season at home?1495    Mr. Travis. The Bills fan in Wyoming, who loves Josh Allen,1496who I happen to think is the best quarterback in the NFL right1497now--1498    Ms. Hageman. Ever, yes.1499    Mr. Travis. In Wyoming they may say the best ever. You1500would have to be an NFL Sunday Ticket subscriber. Now, some1501Bills games, and this gets complicated, some Bills games would1502be carried nationally, because they are a very popular team. If1503you had a constituent come to me, and say Mr. Travis, how do I1504guarantee that I watch every Bills game, you would have to be1505an NFL Sunday Ticket subscriber.1506    You would not be able to only buy Buffalo Bills games,1507which is what your constituent is asking for. They would have1508to buy the totality of the NFL Sunday Ticket package to ensure1509that they were able to watch every Josh Allen game.1510    Ms. Hageman. Well, Mr. Hallers, I will turn to you really1511quickly. Using the same scenario that I gave Mr. Travis, what1512additional hurdles would a bar or restaurant in rural Wyoming1513need to jump through to continually display Bills games1514throughout the season, particularly in instances where1515connectivity already poses a challenge?1516    Mr. Hallers. Yes, and I just want to add, even if you buy1517the Sunday Ticket, you don't get guaranteed to all the games,1518you may have to buy the other--1519    Mr. Travis. Netflix and Amazon as well, so you are talking1520about having to buy everything.1521    Mr. Hallers. Even though you go buy the NFL's premier1522product, it doesn't get you all the games, that has always been1523one of our gripes. It is like when we are subscribing, why not1524give us all the games, instead of making us go negotiate, or1525buy all these services? In rural Wyoming, this is exactly what1526I am talking about.1527    You can't get high speed streaming, so if I was a real1528sports bar, which I am sure there are some in Wyoming, right1529now today they use satellite, which streams to everyone1530equally, so they are not impeded, and it has worked fine for1531decades. Today they are asked to do that, so now can you1532imagine in a smaller market somebody going I need to stream1533eight games, and plus show my over the air games, are they1534going to go buy a gigabyte internet connection?1535    Ms. Hageman. Well, I appreciate that, thank you. I yield1536back.1537    Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentlewoman yields back. We now1538recognize the gentlewoman from Vermont for five minutes.1539    Ms. Balint. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all the1540witnesses for your time, and from where I sit, every day is a1541great day to talk about antitrust enforcement. Because what is1542at the heart of all this is we have got fewer choices, we have1543got higher costs, we have got services that used to be free,1544and now they all come with a fee.1545    That is the modern American experience right now, and you1546are right. It cuts across all political persuasions, people are1547angry, we all feel it, our paychecks are not stretching as far,1548prices are creeping up, quality of the products that we are1549getting is getting worse. It affects everyone except the very1550few at the top who benefit from this.1551    Whether you are tuning in to your favorite NFL team, when1552you are trying to go to the doctor, when you are trying to get1553online, on and on, when you are going to the grocery store, you1554are having a worse experience because of this exploitation of1555the American fan, and the American worker because of, from1556where I sit, corporate greed.1557    We got to this place because of uncontrolled media1558consolidation. When our government does not enforce its own1559laws around antitrust, and we in Congress allow them to gather1560dust, and every once in a while we have a hearing on a salient1561issue for many Americans, but we should be doing this every1562day, then competition exists in name only, and consumers and1563fans get ripped off.1564    I am going to turn to you first, Commissioner Gomez. I1565appreciate how outspoken you have been about the wave of media1566consolidations that we have seen, including the Paramount-1567Warner Bros. merger, can you please explain how media1568consolidation affects fans and their abilities to watch their1569favorite team? I know we have been over this, but it is1570important that we continue to shine a light on this.1571    Ms. Gomez. Yes. Media consolidation as a whole impacts1572local communities. It impacts local communities because they1573actually get less community content, and that includes sports1574content. In the case of national sports content, what media1575consolidation leads to is market power, and a lack of1576competition that then ends up impacting consumers.1577    Because the corporations are more worried about obviously1578their bottom lines, paying down debt, than they are about the1579viewers themselves.1580    Ms. Balint. You talked about this earlier too, right? It is1581driving up costs, and I know fans feel like they are stuck,1582they are absolutely stuck, they have no choice but to pay the1583fees on all these different streaming services. Now, I want to1584take a moment to drill down on the EverPass situation for a1585moment.1586    Because this doesn't just affect everyday costs for1587Americans, it hurts small businesses, which you spoke to1588earlier, Mr. Hallers, I was really interested in what you had1589to say. For three decades DIRECTV sold commercial Sunday Ticket1590to bars and restaurants, now that is ending. Starting next1591season, the only authorized way for a business like Mr.1592Hallers' business to show NFL Sunday Ticket is through EverPass1593media.1594    EverPass is a joint venture between the NFL and a private1595equity firm. What does it mean for you now that the NFL holds1596financial stake in the only company authorized to sell you its1597out-of-market games? This is like the epitome of monopoly right1598here.1599    Mr. Hallers. Right, yes. Clearly, we see more and more1600price increases coming our way, that is just what we feel. It1601is crazy that they can't offer this out or have competition.1602Why wouldn't you actually allow it to come out on multiple1603services to ensure everyone can see the game? That is the crazy1604part. In other words, it doesn't--what reason would there be1605not to let them still send it to DIRECTV for everybody with the1606legacy systems?1607    Sure, by the way, they could come along and give a better1608deal, hey, switch to streaming and we will give you a better1609deal. That is, 15 percent off the first year is not exactly the1610promise of a better deal forever.1611    Ms. Balint. Yes, and look, if you have ever worked in1612restaurants as I have multiple times in my life, your margins1613are very slim.1614    Mr. Hallers. Yes, for most, and that is why I literally am1615out talking to different bar owners who are like we can't1616switch, they don't have the money to switch from DIRECTV. They1617are all praying that DIRECTV somehow still gets the deal.1618    Ms. Balint. Yes, well I appreciate you being here. The last1619point I just want to make is, because I did attend President1620Trump's second inauguration, and saw all the folks who were1621sitting behind him at the inauguration, including Jeff Bezos,1622and just want to remind everybody that the CEO of Amazon gave1623tens of millions of dollars for the Melania documentary, on top1624of spending $35 million to market this, from my perspective,1625fluff piece on the First Lady.1626    This is what it is all about, it is always about payback,1627it is a quid pro quo, and I just feel like these are issues1628that we can work together across party on, and I hope that we1629will do that.1630    Thank you, and I yield back.1631    Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentlewoman yields back. We now1632recognize the gentleman from Texas for five minutes.1633    Mr. Gooden. Thank you. Mr. LeGeyt, as of today a Dallas1634Cowboys fan in Dallas, where I am from, the Dallas area, can1635watch all their games for free, is that accurate, one, and is1636that the same for local teams in other local areas?1637    Mr. LeGeyt. Thank you for the question. That is not1638accurate. It may be, and let us peel this back for a moment. If1639we are talking about a Cowboy fan who lives in Dallas, that fan1640is going to have access to the vast majority of games free over1641the air. Then, for the Cowboy games that are on Thursday night1642on Amazon, or on another streaming service, that game will be1643aired locally on broadcast to that fan in Dallas itself.1644    For the other Cowboy fans across Texas, outside of that1645singular DMA, they are going to have to pay for the1646subscription streaming service, there will be no over the air1647option. Then, certainly out of market, while certainly the1648Cowboys are popular enough that they have games with a national1649distribution, a number of their games will not be available1650nationally.1651    That out-of-market fan is going to need to pay for the1652Sunday Ticket, probably in addition to a number of other1653streaming services as Mr. Travis just referred to, Amazon,1654Netflix, to access those games, so the cost still adds up.1655    Mr. Gooden. As something, I am not Mr. NFL here, but it1656just seems as if the point has not been made very well, because1657I have watched everyone speak, I realize I just walked in, but1658I have watched everyone, and the point has not been greatly1659made that you can watch your local team in your local market.1660The phrase I have heard a lot of folks say is my favorite team.1661    If you live in the Houston area, you can watch the Houston1662Texans, you maybe can't watch the Dallas Cowboys every single1663game. If you live in the Dallas area you can watch the Dallas1664Cowboys, and you maybe can't watch the Green Bay Packers1665without having to jump through some of these hoops that you1666talk about. Whether or not we think that is right or wrong, I1667just want to make the point that I have not really heard anyone1668else make the point today.1669    That is pretty significant that you can watch your local1670team in your local area.1671    Mr. LeGeyt. Yes, let me say we are exceedingly proud as1672local broadcasters who are the ones carrying that game in local1673markets across the country, we are exceedingly proud of that1674partnership with the NFL, it has helped grow the NFL's fan1675base, it has helped grow our viewership, we reinvest that in1676local journalism.1677    That is an important partnership. Beyond that very singular1678local market relationship, the balance has eroded.1679    Mr. Gooden. Let me ask you this, Mr. Travis, one of the1680arguments was the smaller teams were not going to benefit as1681much, or they were struggling. A Green Bay Packers team is not1682in a TV market that the Dallas Cowboys are in, and this helps1683them to be able to revenue share. If we change it, or we1684eliminate it rather, then someone like maybe the Jacksonville1685Jaguars are not going to do as well.1686    Are they all going to crash and burn? Probably not, but1687what is your take on if we take away that ability for them to1688revenue share, and lift all boats?1689    Mr. Travis. It is an excellent question, and the easy1690answer is no one knows for sure. What I would point to is I am1691a diehard football fan, like I said, I watch games all day on1692Saturday and Sunday, way too many, ask my wife. On Saturday1693when I sit down, I can watch ten college football games on1694broadcast television for free. On Sunday I can watch four.1695    I tend to think that the NFL would be smart enough to1696continue to maximize its audience and also maximize its1697revenue. I don't think we know, and frankly, I am not sure how1698many people are saying even in your world, Democrats or1699Republicans, that the Sports Broadcasting Act exemption should1700be removed. I think there are a lot of people who say it needs1701to be applied fairly in the modern era.1702    I am not hearing very many people say it would be repealed.1703What your hypothetical is, and it is interesting, and a good1704one, is what if we repealed this, what would the marketplace1705look like? More significantly, how might it impact competition1706going forward? The easy answer is no one knows.1707    If you use college football a bit as an approximator, they1708do not have an antitrust exemption, and you get more games for1709lower cost in college than you do the NFL.1710    Mr. Gooden. I am with you, but I can't watch my Texas1711Longhorns every Saturday for free, I sometimes have to go to1712trouble. If you also make that as a percentage, you said ten1713free games, let us say that is the number. How many college1714games are going on a Saturday, compared to how many NFL games1715on a Sunday? The answer is a whole lot more.1716    Mr. Travis. Yes, a lot more. I would say your Texas1717Longhorns, who by the way are really good--1718    Mr. Gooden. Bad example to use perhaps.1719    Mr. Travis. They are on ABC a lot for free. Now, it is true1720that ESPN, if you get into the weeds, ESPN has the exclusive1721rights to the SEC, you have the SEC Network, ESPN, ESPN2, ABC,1722but an awful lot, I would argue almost all the big Longhorn1723games this coming year, I haven't seen the full schedule, but I1724think you all will be on ABC a lot.1725    Mr. Gooden. You are right, but if I told you my team was a1726smaller school that was playing every Saturday, they are not1727always on TV. Those NFL teams, they always are, some of the1728smaller town areas that I don't know what happens if they can't1729share the revenue.1730    Mr. Travis. It is a great question; I have faith in the1731NFL's ability to make money no matter what the rules are.1732    Mr. Gooden. Let us keep talking about it, I have enjoyed1733having you all, thank you.1734    Mr. Travis. Thank you, I appreciate it.1735    Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentleman yields back. I guess I would1736just make the point before I call on the gentleman from1737California, that all the professional leagues handle revenue1738sharing differently. Very clearly Major League Baseball does. I1739will recognize the gentleman from California for five minutes.1740    Mr. Correa. Thank you, Mr. Chair, I want to thank our1741witnesses here today, good information. I am a person back1742home; I prefer going to the Friday night high school football1743games, standing on the sidelines, it doesn't get any better1744than that, hot dog and a drink, it is a great time. Not all my1745constituents prefer high school.1746    To think of a thousand dollars some people pay, what1747happened? In 1961 antitrust, fans first. What do I tell folks1748back home that may be watching this today? They sent us up here1749to fix things, and I think that is what people are frustrated1750with back home is you guys talk a lot, like my daughter says,1751you guys talk a lot. After today's hearing, is this going to1752fix anything?1753    After today's hearing do we have to pass legislation to fix1754things? After today's hearing do we have to get the executive1755to do something? I am asking you, I am going to ask each and1756every one of you that question, or questions, and if you can be1757concise with your answer, I would appreciate it. Ms. Gomez, go1758ahead.1759    Ms. Gomez. Thank you for asking that question. My advice to1760this Committee is to look at where there are a nexus of market1761power and a lack of competition that leads to consumer harms.1762    Mr. Correa. The answer would be legislative,1763administrative, what?1764    Ms. Gomez. Well, it is definitely not the FCC that can do1765something about this.1766    Mr. Correa. It would be us here?1767    Ms. Gomez. Yes.1768    Mr. Correa. Mr. Travis?1769    Mr. Travis. My contention would be you helped to create1770this situation at play by passing that law in 1961. It is1771incumbent on you as Democrats, Republicans, and Independents,1772in my opinion, speaking on behalf a lot of fans out there who1773don't feel like the marketplace is serving them well, they are1774paying more and getting less, for you to fix the 1961 act in1775the context of the modern era, which is very different than1776what--1777    Mr. Correa. Do you know how many times I have had to1778struggle to find the Chargers game for my wife?1779    Mr. Travis. You are preaching to the choir.1780    Mr. Correa. I lose most of those efforts, which are not1781good for me. Mr. LeGeyt?1782    Mr. LeGeyt. It is an all the above approach. I think1783first--1784    Mr. Correa. Give me a priority here, not just all the1785above.1786    Mr. LeGeyt. The Committee needs to reaffirm the scope of1787this act, which, as Mr. Travis just said, was enacted by1788Congress. We are not here to scrutinize the NFL's business1789practices, we are here to affirm that if they want to take1790advantage of an antitrust exemption granted to them by this1791body, that there are certain public interest obligations that1792went along with that, and there is a clearly defined scope.1793    Mr. Correa. To live up to the spirit of the law.1794    Mr. LeGeyt. That is exactly right. I believe that this1795Committee is uniquely positioned to deliver that message, and I1796believe that the law needs to be properly enforced.1797    Mr. Correa. Mr. Hallers?1798    Mr. Hallers. I would just like to say that on Saturdays1799with college football, we actually pay for and are able to show1800like 40 games, and it costs me pennies, the charge doesn't even1801equate to anything that is a problem, and we now have more1802college fans than ever, and we see bigger crowds sometimes on1803Saturdays than Sundays.1804    You wonder why that is when they have just made access so1805easy. I would like the NFL to just go back to being fan first,1806rather than NFL first.1807    Mr. Correa. Next to high school I love college ball, and I1808do hope that we continue to have access to those games in a1809reasonable, cost-effective method. Last minute I have got here,1810Mr. LeGeyt, I want to ask you just a quick question. There is a1811proposal to pull more regional games off broadcast, putting1812them on cable TV, would this proposal benefit local TV fans or1813not, do you know?1814    Mr. LeGeyt. I am not familiar with the specific proposal,1815but I can tell you the migration that we have seen in recent1816years has been in the opposite direction, which is that teams1817that for a decade plus had reached their local fans through1818cable regional sports networks have migrated back to local1819broadcast television. Those teams across the NHL, the NBA, and1820the MLB have seen their ratings surge.1821    It once again reaffirms the unique reach of broadcast. I1822can provide you and this Committee followup on the specifics of1823those deals; they number now in the dozens across the major1824sports.1825    Mr. Correa. Does that raise the price, or lower the price1826of the local?1827    Mr. LeGeyt. This is a home run for consumers, because that1828game is available free over the air to every one of those1829consumers without cost.1830    Mr. Correa. I want to thank our witnesses today. If you get1831me that information, I would really appreciate it. Mr. Chair,1832Ranking Member, I hope we can continue to pursue this one,1833because we have good information today, but we have still got1834to fix these problems. Thank you, and I yield.1835    Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentleman yields. The gentleman from1836Virginia is now recognized for five minutes.1837    Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. LeGeyt, you have1838pointed out that NFL games on free broadcasts draw far larger1839audiences than the pay-walled streams. Thanksgiving games1840average $45, $57 million versus about $27 million for the1841Netflix Christmas game, and $21 million for Amazon's Black1842Friday game. If broadcast reaches twice the audience, what does1843it tell you that the league keeps moving marquee games behind1844pay walls?1845    Mr. LeGeyt. To some degree you can take for granted what1846you already have. The partnership between all the major sports1847leagues, for particularly the NFL and broadcast has been a1848testament, first and foremost to the NFL's product, but also to1849the reach of broadcast, which has built their fan base, and has1850increased our viewership, and allowed us to reinvest in1851journalism.1852    That is the magic of this partnership, and as the NFL is1853now looking ahead to maybe a more global marketplace, they are1854clearly diversifying the options that they are going to use to1855reach other consumers. I would just affirm for this Committee1856that they are making that business determination.1857    This antitrust exemption which was granted to them enables1858them to pool rights in a way that would clearly be a violation1859of our antitrust laws, but for Congress' action, was intended1860only to govern those negotiations with broadcasters. The1861benefit to fans was that free access, and the balance is off if1862suddenly that act is going to be misused to enable negotiations1863with Amazon, Netflix, or YouTube.1864    Mr. Cline. Our reporting suggests that the NFL seeks upward1865of an additional billion dollars a year from its network1866partners. In your view is the fragmentation that fans1867experience a byproduct of serving fans, or a byproduct of1868maximizing rights fees?1869    Mr. LeGeyt. Well listen, by expanding the pool of media1870entities negotiating for these rights, the sports leagues are1871creating a broadened marketplace, and we know that these global1872streamers who have a number of other businesses as well don't1873have the same financial constraints when it comes to bidding1874for sports rights, so that is driving up the price for1875everyone.1876    One point I would make with regard to that reported billion1877dollars increase that the NFL is requesting in their rights,1878that is just with regard to their negotiations with Paramount.1879That is not their negotiations with the other broadcast1880networks. They have said explicitly that they are looking for a188150 percent or more increase in their rights deals given the1882increase that the NBA got during its round of negotiations.1883That number is much higher than a billion dollars.1884    Mr. Cline. Thank you. Mr. Travis, EverPass, the new1885exclusive commercial distributor that bars and restaurants now1886must pay is partly owned by the NFL's own investment arm,1887alongside RedBird, and the owner of WWE, and UFC. The league1888sold the rights to a venture it has stake in and then made that1889venture the only option. As someone who covers the sports1890business, how should fans read that?1891    Mr. Travis. What I would say about the NFL Sunday Ticket is1892in my opinion the NFL should offer single team options, in1893addition to the entire NFL Sunday Ticket. In general, if an1894entity is not serving the marketplace what the marketplace is1895demanding, that would raise questions about why they are doing1896that. From a business perspective the answer is because they1897can charge $480-some-odd for the NFL Sunday Ticket if they1898include all those games.1899    If they only sold individual games, what it appears the1900vast majority of fans would prefer, they might only be able to1901charge $80 or $100. They are making hundreds of millions of1902dollars on a product that the average NFL fan, if given the1903option to choose between, would likely not pick.1904    Mr. Cline. A Federal jury in 2024 found that the NFL had1905conspired to inflate Sunday Ticket prices, a verdict later set1906aside now on appeal. Set the legal status aside, does the1907behavior that trial surfaced match what you are seeing in how1908the league prices and distributes its games today?1909    Mr. Travis. Well, look, the fact that a jury and a court1910have been examining this issue, again, kind of speaks to your1911ability, and your opportunity on behalf of constituents across1912the political spectrum to try to make their favorite sport more1913affordable, and ensure that they are not getting gouged in the1914process.1915    That feels like a very legitimate perspective, given that1916you guys have already interjected yourself into this with the19171961 act. It feels incumbent on Congress to address this.1918    Mr. Cline. I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Chair, I yield1919back.1920    Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize1921the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Johnson, for five minutes.1922    Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I imagine that there are1923some die hard NFL fans out there who when they found out that1924there was going to be a hearing about the NFL on C-SPAN, they1925locked in to C-SPAN, not because they wanted to see and hear1926what we are talking about, but because it said NFL, and they1927are just hoping that the games are going to start, the1928preseason, just ready for it already, and it is coming soon1929folks.1930    The NFL is the undisputed champion of American spectator1931sports. Very popular, the model works, the American people love1932NFL football, that is the bottom line. They got this antitrust1933exemption in 1961 that allowed for collective bargaining1934between the NFL and not streaming services, or cable, or1935satellite operators, but broadcasters.1936    Broadcasters by the way, they serve every community in this1937country with trusted journalism for the most part, emergency1938information, local sports, weather, and public affairs1939programming, we don't want to see our broadcasters go away.1940They were the only game in town in terms of delivering NFL1941content back in 1961.1942    They have this exemption to collectively bargain, which has1943led to a competitive balance across the league, teams are1944competitively balanced, that is one of the secrets that has led1945to the NFL's success, is because any team can win on any given1946Sunday. Mr. Gooden made a great point about people being able1947on broadcast TV, free TV, to watch their local NFL team, not1948necessarily their favorite team.1949    I hear Mr. Travis wanting there to be more choice offered1950by the NFL for viewers who are interested in teams other than1951their local team. They want to be able to access those teams1952without getting soaked financially. I will note at this point1953that when you try to go to a game, Mr. Travis, if you take your1954three sons to an NFL game, the average ticket price is $310,1955$310-$350 in the nosebleed section.1956    The cheapest ticket, $156, if you wanted to take your boys1957out to see an NFL game, that is going to cost you $600 and some1958odd dollars, which most families are not able to afford. We1959can't soak the people who enjoy football when they are watching1960it on platforms other than broadcast either.1961    I also understand that the NFL has been expanding the1962antitrust exemption by collectively bargaining with platforms1963other than broadcast. Is that correct, Mr. LeGeyt?1964    Mr. LeGeyt. That is correct.1965    Mr. Johnson. Mr. Travis, you believe, and by the way, I1966can't see that far over there, Mr. Hallers, you are offering it1967to fans who like to flock to your restaurant and bars, and1968enjoy the game among friends, certainly nothing wrong with1969that, we should be able to do that, shouldn't be confined to1970the house to watch our football.1971    I guess nobody is here advocating that the NFL should be1972offering each and every game for free across all platforms,1973correct? Got to pay, so the question is how much, and how? We1974do have artificial intelligence available for those fans who1975want to access ChatGPT or some other artificial intelligence1976vehicle and ask how can I watch my favorite team on this1977particular Sunday at the cheapest price.1978    Then, you have to have all these different sticks to plug1979in, and that is costing you more than a football game per month1980if you want to get all of the sticks. How do we make the game1981available to as many people as possible for as cheaply as1982possible? Sometimes if it ain't broke, don't fix it, and let1983the technology, let the free-market system work its will.1984    That I guess some of my folks on the other side of the1985aisle would appreciate that particular perspective. I am not1986arguing about it, but I don't know what we should do. I do know1987I am looking forward to watching NFL football coming up. Thank1988you.1989    Mr. Issa. Mr. Chair, I would like to claim the 45 extra1990seconds that we--1991    Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize1992the Ranking Member for some UC requests.1993    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chair, thank you. First, ``Mergers, FCC1994Pressure Threaten Integrity of American Journalism,'' from the1995Seattle Times. Second, ``Rupert Murdoch's High Stakes Blitz1996against the NFL,'' The Wall Street Journal. Finally,1997``Paramount's WBD Takeover Explained, how the U.S. $111 billion1998Dollar Deal could Reshape Sports Media.'' from Sports Pro.1999    Mr. Fitzgerald. Without objection. For the record, I have2000never met or spoken to Rupert Murdoch. I now recognize the2001gentleman from California for five minutes.2002    Mr. Issa. I can say that I once introduced him to his twin2003separated at birth, the other Murdoch, David Murdoch. They had2004never met each other, they both are small, with British2005sounding accents, and I was shocked to find out they didn't2006know each other. That is the last time I saw him, but I do want2007to equalize the story.2008    I want to note for the record, Mr. Chair, that it is about2009$10 if you would like to see the Republicans and Democrats2010fight at a baseball game at the stadium here tonight. For the2011Ranking Member of the Subcommittee who left, hopefully he will2012invite you all, it is ten bucks, he can afford it.2013    I want to shift a little bit to the antitrust question2014followed by the current dilemma we face. Commissioner Gomez, if2015we had not granted in 1961 an antitrust exemption, would the2016NFL otherwise be free to essentially withhold anything, all2017broadcast, pick and choose, do whatever they want without any2018congressional oversight?2019    Another way of putting it, except for that authority, what2020comes with that grant, we really don't have any leverage over2021the private entities that make up the NFL. They could choose,2022for example, not to broadcast at all, and have everything be2023private.2024    Ms. Gomez. Yes, that is actually true under the First2025Amendment, you can't force people.2026    Mr. Issa. OK, so we are dealing with, all of us on this2027side of the dais, with an authority we get by giving something.2028We are giving antitrust, antitrust exemption has allowed the2029NFL, as other professional sports, to essentially conspire to2030maximize their revenue, is that, in a nice way, conspiring2031might be the least nice way, but to come together to maximize2032their revenue without fear of the trust laws adversely2033affecting them?2034    Ms. Gomez. My understanding of the original intent of the2035SBA was to protect small market teams and fans in the2036negotiations for being able to actually access those games.2037    Mr. Issa. Sure, they try to equalize it so that Green Bay,2038with its vast amount of loyal people can in fact do at least as2039good a job as San Diego did when they failed to protect the2040Chargers, and allowed them to leave for L.A. That small, large2041is kind of interesting when you have real fans in Cleveland, in2042Green Bay, and apparently not enough in San Diego.2043    Getting past my personal challenges on all that as a San2044Diegan, let me move the question back over toward the other2045three. Broadcast for example, Mr. LeGeyt, is what created, to a2046great extent, a massive--including radio in the old days more2047than today, created each of these sports, baseball, football,2048and so on, the ability to be captured even when they couldn't2049go to the game, whether they could afford it or not.2050    Many of them had to work, it was late at night, they had2051kids, whatever the reason is. Isn't broadcast in fact what2052created the widespread, almost universal love of these games?2053    Mr. LeGeyt. This has been an incredible partnership and2054success. You have got the reach of broadcast freely available2055to all, in some cases nationally, always locally, delivering a2056product, and helping to build fan bases. That is what we have2057seen here, and it has been remarked on throughout this hearing,2058but in this very polarized environment, sports brings2059communities together.2060    It is a tremendous success story, this antitrust exemption2061helped to enable it by giving the leagues the ability to pool2062rights. There were procompetitive reasons for it, but there is2063a public access bargain implied in it, which is making that2064distribution available to all.2065    Mr. Issa. I want to make a point that hopefully will2066benefit all of us as we go forward. An old story, but not that2067old, there was a company called Circuit City in Richmond,2068Virginia. It dominated consumer electronics sales, another one2069in Minnesota called Best Buy, and a number of others. Some2070years ago, Circuit City, the leader in that industry, also sold2071white goods like many of them did, refrigerators, washers, and2072dryers.2073    The CEO made the decision that they were simply going to2074get rid of the low margin part of it and concentrate on where2075they made the high margin. Circuit City was gone in a few2076years. Their bankruptcy in no small part was attributed to the2077lack of traffic they had in their stores, that traffic dropped2078off because without white goods, which were low profit, but2079brought in mom, dad, and the kids to look at the other products2080that ultimately sold.2081    That is the story that I am concerned about today from a2082standpoint of the FCC's obligation, they know it is clear. What2083I am concerned about, and I am making the point here today2084rather than a lot of questions is if NFL doesn't see that2085maintaining that broad appeal through markets that are not2086highly profitable, they may find that the product profitability2087drops off as the fans drop off in no small part because of each2088of your locations not being at the center of the ability to see2089the product.2090    Mr. Chair, I appreciate you giving me that 45 seconds to2091opine on that. Go chargers. I yield back.2092    Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentleman yields back. We now recognize2093the gentleman from Washington State.2094    Mr. Baumgartner. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair, and I want to2095thank our panelists for this very important discussion. I am2096pretty sure that this body needs to take a strong look at the20971961 Sports Broadcasting Act and update it. At a time that2098streaming wasn't even conceived of, that if the underlying2099piece of legislation is going to be appropriately applied, that2100we need to rethink through this.2101    I would also say it is to the detriment of this2102conversation and to the NFL that Commissioner Roger Goodell was2103not here. I am sure at some point he is either watching, or2104listening, or this message will get to him. Commissioner2105Goodell, you would be well served if this thing is going to2106turn out in the direction you would like, to come before this2107Committee, and participate.2108    My colleague from Wyoming commented on how Josh Allen made2109most people in Wyoming Buffalo Bills fans. We in Eastern2110Washington had a similar phenomenon with Gardner Minshew. We2111are certainly all Seahawks fans, but when Gardner was playing2112with Jacksonville, and then with the Indianapolis Colts, we2113would go through the regular process of trying to find those2114games.2115    Does that mean that we are entitled to watch all those2116games for free? I am not sure, but it matters to my voters. Mr.2117Travis, I really appreciate you being here, I have long been a2118fan, both my wife and I liked reading Anonymous Mailbag. I2119appreciate your evolution of political philosophy, and I really2120admire you, just as an American entrepreneur.2121    I also know that you are a big sports fan, you have boys, I2122have boys, and so a lot of what you say appeals to me. Now, you2123are a big SEC guy, I get it, you are from the South, I am from2124the West coast, but we do play football out there a little bit2125as well too. It looks like you want to make a comment, and then2126I will go on.2127    Mr. Travis. Yes, I mean SEC football is the best in the2128country, but I appreciate other parts of the country that also2129play college football.2130    Mr. Baumgartner. Thank you. Let me say that I was really2131good friends with Mike Leech, was one of my best friends, we2132taught a class together called insurgent warfare football2133strategy, traveled around the world together, and as he got to2134know you, he would tell me about his interactions with you. I2135want to talk a little bit about pro and college football in my2136time here.2137    Wouldn't you agree that one of the things that makes pro-2138football special, and compelling, is the competitive parity?2139    Mr. Travis. Yes.2140    Mr. Baumgartner. If the NFC East had a higher salary cap2141than the AFC West, that would be a product that would be less2142fun to watch, is that correct?2143    Mr. Travis. One hundred percent.2144    Mr. Baumgartner. If the NFC East got significantly higher2145TV revenue distribution, that would make that product less fun2146to watch?2147    Mr. Travis. The NFL's ability to share revenue and create--2148the NFL is unique. The way that I would sum up is the NFL is2149the business is the competition. If the games are not fun,2150nobody watches. If they are not competitive, no one watches, so2151that is the essence of the sport itself.2152    Mr. Baumgartner. As we turn to the college example, and2153behind me you see some graphics of how much more the NFL and2154the pro sports are squeezing out of TV dollars per viewer than2155college sports are, and we deal with this college sports issue,2156and I really appreciate you talking about the Buffalo Bills2157example, it is a publicly funded entity that should be publicly2158regulated.2159    I am very, very free market, I sponsored right to work2160legislation when I was in our State Senate. When it comes to2161college sports, my view is that these are highly subsidized2162public goods, and they should be regulated as such. With all2163due respect to the SEC, and the Big 10, and the large market2164schools, what makes that system special is the entire country.2165    What my school went through, Washington State University,2166was to get its guts ripped out through conference realignment,2167and not for competitive reasons. We beat Wisconsin the last two2168times that we played, we had beat Oregon four times in a row,2169we competed at the highest levels of college sports.2170    Then, through no fault of our own, had that ripped away,2171had our guts ripped out. The solution for keeping what is2172special about all sports is to adopt some of these TV revenue2173aspects in the name of competitive parity at the college sports2174level. Just in the remaining time, Mr. Travis, I know you are2175an SEC guy, I know you have a big-time network.2176    I know the incentives that drive you toward creating the2177second NFL model, but what would you say about legislation for2178my voters, my fans of Washington State University, the small2179schools, what is your message to us?2180    Mr. Travis. That is a great question, we could probably2181spend hours on this. First, I should say, since I am under2182oath, Mike Leech belongs to the College Football Hall of Fame.2183I absolutely love Mike Leech, and the run that he had at2184Washington State is emblematic of why so many people love2185college football. College football needs to be fixed, it is2186broken, and there are a lot of discussions about how to fix it.2187    That it is being under-utilized dollars wise, I think the2188value of college football is second only to the NFL. Figuring2189out how to allocate more resources to college football that2190also can then support Olympic sports, because remember, most of2191the money for college athletics comes in through college2192football, a little bit from men's basketball.2193    We have to make more money and reallocate it better to2194create a better quality of competition in college athletics,2195college football in particular. I agree with you, it is awful2196that Washington State was left behind, that Oregon State was2197left behind, and that the Pac-12 was ultimately destroyed in2198that process. We need to create a system that allows everyone2199to be more successful, more money, SEC, Big 10, Big 12, and2200ACC.2201    Also, provide a pathway to high-level competition outside2202of those four major conference schools. Yes, and thank you for2203being a fan by the way.2204    Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentleman yields back. I should ask to2205have his words taken down, his attack on University of2206Wisconsin was unwarranted. I now recognize--2207    Mr. Baumgartner. Accurate.2208    Mr. Fitzgerald. I now recognize the Chair of the Full2209Committee, a former Wisconsin Badger sitting to your right, for2210five minutes.2211    Chair Jordan. I was joking, I majored in wrestling, but you2212are supposed to get a degree, so I got one there. Let me go2213right back to where the good gentleman from Washington was, Mr.2214Travis. Should there be an SBA for college sports?2215    Mr. Travis. Man, it is a super fascinating question. My2216general perspective on it would be I don't know that it needs2217to be classified as an SBA. There needs to be an antitrust2218exemption that is created for college sports, because right now2219there are no rules.2220    I don't know how many of you paid attention to what just2221happened in Lubbock, Texas, with a star quarterback who2222suddenly, even though he was gambling on sports, is now2223eligible according to a Federal District Court judge. We can't2224have college sports run by different individual Federal2225District Courts all over the country, we have to have a uniform2226set of rules that everyone understands and follows.2227    Chair Jordan. Of course. We had someone asking why is2228Congress getting involved in college sports, you guys just2229screw everything up. I get that general point, but it is2230because we have an antitrust law, and you have got to have some2231kind of relief from antitrust law if the governing body can2232have the ability to make rules.2233    Mr. Travis. To kind of simplify it, every rule that is put2234in place by any governing body is immediately challenged under2235antitrust law. Without the antitrust exemption, every athlete2236can sue and argue that they are being unfairly discriminated2237against under antitrust law.2238    Chair Jordan. That is why we have got to pass either the2239SCORE Act, or the one that is introduced by the Senators,2240Protect College Sports Act, we have got to get something; to2241use the sports analogy, some ball in play--2242    Mr. Travis. I agree.2243    Chair Jordan. That we can address at least that fundamental2244question on the college side. OK, on the professional side it2245seems to me there are two fundamental questions:2246    (1) Is consumer welfare standard, is that standard being2247met in the current environment?2248    (2) Is the statute, the 1961 statute being followed? We are2249the Judiciary Committee, the standard in the courts is consumer2250welfare, and there is a statute, is the statute being followed?2251    Let us go with the first question if we can. Do cartels2252consolidate power? I don't know who wants to do the economics2253analysis here? Mr. LeGeyt, we will go with you, the2254broadcaster.2255    Mr. LeGeyt. The blanket question of do cartels--2256    Chair Jordan. Yes, the blanket question, do cartels2257consolidate power?2258    Mr. LeGeyt. They do.2259    Chair Jordan. Yes, do they undermine competition?2260    Mr. LeGeyt. They do.2261    Chair Jordan. Do they decrease output?2262    Mr. LeGeyt. They do.2263    Chair Jordan. When all that happens, what happens to price?2264    Mr. LeGeyt. Prices go up.2265    Chair Jordan. Prices go up. That is the concern we have for2266consumers. That is just fundamental economics.2267    Mr. LeGeyt. I am glad I was an economics major by the way.2268    Chair Jordan. You were an economics major too? See, I got2269lucky there.2270    Mr. LeGeyt. I was.2271    Chair Jordan. The way we give people choices that they2272want, and that is at the best price, is the marketplace, and so2273that is what we are trying to deal with. Now, how about the2274statute? Mr. Travis talked about this, sir, is the 1961 statute2275being followed?2276    Mr. Travis. In my opinion, no.2277    Chair Jordan. The title tells you.2278    Mr. Travis. Yes.2279    Chair Jordan. The Sports Broadcasting Act, not the sports2280streaming, not the sports satellite, the Sports Broadcasting2281Act. There is a concern there, and when you read the statute it2282talks about telecast, which obviously at the time, because that2283is all they basically had was broadcast, telecast, it is there.2284    Maybe more importantly, did a jury find the NFL in2285violation of these two things, the statute, and the consumer2286welfare standard according to the Sherman Antitrust Act?2287    Mr. Travis. They did.2288    Chair Jordan. They did, and what was the verdict, do you2289remember?2290    Mr. Travis. It was a lot of money.2291    Chair Jordan. It is tripled, I think it was like $142292billion. Now, the judge said time out, they didn't necessarily2293agree with what the expert witnesses said, ``so we are going to2294reevaluate this.'' That is the situation we are in. We have got2295the college sports issue where some people are saying we need2296to do something with the Sports Broadcasting Act, maybe we do.2297    We have got the NFL, where consumers are talking to us, and2298we are just trying to wrestle with what is the best thing to2299do. I have got 1:13 minutes. What is the best thing to do, Mr.2300Hallers?2301    Mr. Hallers. Well, they just, for the fan's sake--2302    Chair Jordan. Lower the price for bar owners, right?2303Whatever that is.2304    Mr. Hallers. Look, I am not here complaining about what2305they charge us for the programming, and you guys know, we2306haven't talked about that. For a small bar, they charge for the2307Sunday Ticket, $6,000 a year. For a larger bar, $14,000 a year2308just for that Sunday Ticket, for an occupancy of 195 bar.2309    Chair Jordan. Travis is probably the only fan that would2310ever pay that.2311    Mr. Hallers. It is even more for the bigger bars. We are2312not here, we are saying charge us, just don't take away our2313choices. Just let us get it everywhere fairly, and that is what2314the fans want too. They just want access to the program in a2315fair way, and for the fans of course, they are like don't2316overcharge.2317    Chair Jordan. Commissioner, I want to include everyone, I2318am being bipartisan today, I will let the Democrat witness go2319ahead.2320    Ms. Gomez. Thank you. It is very important that we look at2321where there is market power, and where there is no competition2322that is harming consumers. We have seen this in the2323consolidation of major media companies, where we have seen2324local communities get harmed because they lose content, they2325lose the local journalism, they lose diversity of viewpoints.2326This really matters to the local communities that these2327broadcasters are serving.2328    Chair Jordan. The last word for Mr. LeGeyt, Mr. Travis?2329    Mr. Travis. Look, the NFL is saying 87 percent of their2330games are available to nationwide consumers. That is not true2331in any of your markets, they do not, no market in America gets233287 percent of the games for free. My point would be if the NFL2333is saying we are doing 87 percent of the time, that still means2334you are violating the law 13 percent of the time almost by your2335very admission.2336    That is why I think you guys have an obligation, a2337responsibility, and a duty to figure out how to apply this law2338going forward in the modern era.2339    Chair Jordan. Well said.2340    Mr. LeGeyt. The plain text of the law as you alluded to,2341Mr. Chair, is clear that it applies to broadcast only, those2342pooled negotiations. Frankly, the legislative history is even2343more clear that the Committee considered a broader application2344of the law to paid services and narrowed it to broadcast. Very2345clearly here the league is using the antitrust exemption to2346negotiate with Amazon, Netflix, Google, that is not what the2347law contemplated.2348    As you are thinking about college sports, our simple ask2349would be that this migration of sports away from broadcast2350behind pay walls is a net harm to consumers, and need to be2351very, very cautious as to how we don't further that trend as it2352relates to college sports.2353    Chair Jordan. Mr. Chair, thanks for your good work, I yield2354back.2355    Mr. Fitzgerald. The Chair yields back. That concludes2356today's hearing, we thank our witnesses for appearing before2357the Subcommittee today. Without objection, all Members will2358have five legislative days to submit additional written2359questions for the witnesses, and additional materials for the2360record. Without objection, the hearing is adjourned.2361    [Whereupon, at 12:43 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]23622363    All materials submitted for the record by Members of the2364Subcommittee on the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform,2365and Antitrust can be found at: https://docs.house.gov/2366Committee/2367Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=119369.23682369                                 [all]