Statements
The class-action lawsuit filed by "Sunday Ticket" subscribers against the NFL has reached a crucial stage, with the jury set to begin deliberations on Wednesday. This development follows both sides wrapping up their cases on Monday.
U.S. District Judge Philip Gutierrez is scheduled to meet with attorneys for both sides on Tuesday morning to finalize the jury instructions. Additionally, the NFL is set to present a motion on Tuesday afternoon, arguing for a judgment as a matter of law in favor of the league. The NFL contends that the plaintiffs have failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claims.
On Wednesday morning, Gutierrez will present the final instructions to the jury, which consists of five men and three women. Following this, the attorneys will deliver their final arguments. Both sides will have 1 hour and 10 minutes to make their closing statements, with the plaintiffs allotted an additional 20 minutes for rebuttal.
Key Witnesses and Testimonies
The NFL’s final witness, Stanford economics professor B. Douglas Bernheim, concluded his testimony on Monday morning. Bernheim had begun his testimony the previous Thursday, reiterating the NFL's position that selling out-of-market Sunday afternoon games on Fox and CBS to DirecTV from 1994 to 2022, and subsequently to Google YouTube TV, benefits fans and ensures competitive balance on the playing field.
In contrast, Harvard professor Einer Elhauge, the plaintiffs' rebuttal witness, argued against Bernheim's assertions. Elhauge claimed that there are no significant links between making "Sunday Ticket" a premium package and fostering competitive balance. He testified that the approximately $62.5 million each team receives annually from "Sunday Ticket" would not significantly impact the league’s salary cap or individual teams' operating budgets.
Additionally, Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones testified last week, stating that he would not support a salary cap if he could sell his out-of-market rights independently. Jones's testimony highlights the broader implications of the case on league operations and individual team financial autonomy.
The Lawsuit's Claims and Counterclaims
The class action represents 2.4 million residential subscribers and 48,000 businesses that purchased the out-of-market games package from the 2011 through 2022 seasons. The lawsuit alleges that the NFL violated antitrust laws by selling its package of Sunday games aired on CBS and Fox at inflated prices while limiting competition by exclusively offering "Sunday Ticket" through a satellite provider.
The NFL maintains that it retains the right to sell "Sunday Ticket" under its antitrust exemption for broadcasting. Conversely, the plaintiffs argue that this exemption only applies to over-the-air broadcasts, not pay TV. The legal nuances of broadcast rights and antitrust exemptions are central to the case's resolution.
If the NFL is found liable, the jury could award damages of $7 billion, a figure that could triple to $21 billion due to the antitrust nature of the case. A potential judgment of this magnitude would have significant financial implications for the league and its broadcasting partners.
Legal Journey and Broader Implications
Originally filed in 2015 by the Mucky Duck sports bar in San Francisco, the lawsuit faced initial dismissal in 2017. However, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, with jurisdiction over California and eight other states, reinstated the case two years later. In a significant development last year, Judge Gutierrez sanctioned the proceeding as a class action, expanding the scope of the case to include all affected subscribers and businesses.
Regardless of the verdict, the losing side is anticipated to appeal the decision, potentially escalating the case to the 9th Circuit and possibly the Supreme Court. The upcoming deliberations mark a pivotal moment in a long-standing legal battle, with the future of sports broadcasting and the legality of exclusive distribution deals hanging in the balance.
As the jury prepares to deliberate, the sports world remains keenly focused on the courtroom. The verdict could reshape the landscape of televised sports, influencing how major leagues negotiate broadcasting rights and offer exclusive content to fans.