Judge Expresses Frustration in NFL "Sunday Ticket" Antitrust Lawsuit
LOS ANGELES -- The federal trial over the NFL’s "Sunday Ticket" package and its alleged antitrust violations took a contentious turn on Tuesday. U.S. District Judge Philip Gutierrez, overseeing the class-action lawsuit, openly voiced his frustration with how the plaintiffs' attorneys have been presenting their case, raising questions about the viability of their arguments.
A Straightforward Case Turned Complex
Before Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones resumed his testimony for the second day, Judge Gutierrez highlighted the simplicity of the case's premise. He pointed out how easy it is to understand the frustration of a Seattle Seahawks fan residing in Los Angeles who cannot watch their favorite team without purchasing a subscription to all out-of-market Sunday afternoon games. Despite this straightforward basis, the judge expressed his dissatisfaction with how the plaintiffs’ side is handling the case.
The lawsuit covers 2.4 million residential subscribers and 48,000 businesses who paid for the out-of-market game package from the 2011 through 2022 seasons. The plaintiffs allege that the NFL violated antitrust laws by selling the package at an inflated price and limiting competition by offering "Sunday Ticket" exclusively through a satellite provider. The NFL counterclaims that it holds the right to sell "Sunday Ticket" under its antitrust exemption for broadcasting, an assertion the plaintiffs contest applies only to over-the-air broadcasts, not pay TV.
Plaintiffs Face Judicial Scrutiny
The core of Judge Gutierrez's frustration seems to stem from the plaintiffs' attorneys' strategy. On Monday, the judge admonished them for dwelling on past testimony, calling it a waste of time. By Tuesday, his impatience had only grown. He expressed doubts about the relevance of citing Jerry Jones' 1995 lawsuit against the NFL over licensing and sponsorship procedures, which had been settled out of court.
When asked if individual teams should be allowed to sell their out-of-market television rights, Jones responded that they should not, as it "would undermine the free TV model we have now."
Key Witnesses Take the Stand
Retired CBS Sports chairman Sean McManus also testified, reiterating his long-standing opposition to "Sunday Ticket" and the NFL's Red Zone channel. McManus argued that "Sunday Ticket" infringes upon the exclusivity CBS has in local markets. During negotiations, CBS and Fox both requested that "Sunday Ticket" be sold as a premium package. It was DirecTV, not the NFL, that set the prices during the class-action period, though the NFL had stipulated in its contracts with CBS and Fox that "Sunday Ticket" should be marketed as a premium product for die-hard league fans and not as individual games on a pay-per-view basis.
From 1994 through 2022, the NFL received a rights fee from DirecTV for the package. Recently, Google's YouTube TV acquired the rights to "Sunday Ticket" for a seven-season term.
Jamie Dyckes, a marketing official from DirecTV, also provided notable testimony. Dyckes stated that MLB, NBA, and NHL had suggested retail prices for their out-of-market packages, and there was revenue sharing between these leagues and their carriers, as their packages were distributed across multiple platforms.
Upcoming Testimonies and Potential Outcomes
Testimony will resume on Thursday, with closing statements scheduled for early next week. Judge Gutierrez hinted at considering a rule that would allow the court to find that a jury lacks sufficient evidence to rule for a party, potentially paving the way for a directed verdict.
If the NFL is found liable, the jury could award up to $7 billion in damages, a figure that could triple to $21 billion due to the nature of antitrust cases. However, Judge Gutierrez’s candid admission, "I'm struggling with the plaintiffs' case," combined with his comments about the case turning into "25 hours of depositions and gobbledygook," indicates significant hurdles for the plaintiffs.
The court proceedings continue to attract significant attention, with much at stake for both sides. Observers and stakeholders alike are keenly watching to see if the plaintiffs' attorneys can refine their approach and provide a compelling argument in alignment with the straightforward premise that the judge has emphasized from the start.