Full text of the official published hearing record. Extracted from the source document — verify against the official record for citation.
[House Hearing, 119 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] EXAMINING THE SPORTS BROADCASTING ACT ======================================================================= HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE, REGULATORY REFORM, AND ANTITRUST COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10, 2026 __________ Serial No. 119-73 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov __________ U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 63-977 WASHINGTON : 2026 ======================================================================= COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair DARRELL ISSA, California JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland, Ranking ANDY BIGGS, Arizona Member TOM McCLINTOCK, California JERROLD NADLER, New York THOMAS P. TIFFANY, Wisconsin ZOE LOFGREN, California THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky STEVE COHEN, Tennessee CHIP ROY, Texas HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin Georgia BEN CLINE, Virginia TED LIEU, California LANCE GOODEN, Texas PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey J. LUIS CORREA, California TROY E. NEHLS, Texas MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania BARRY MOORE, Alabama JOE NEGUSE, Colorado HARRIET M. HAGEMAN, Wyoming LUCY McBATH, Georgia LAUREL M. LEE, Florida DEBORAH K. ROSS, North Carolina WESLEY HUNT, Texas BECCA BALINT, Vermont RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois KEVIN KILEY, California SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida BRAD KNOTT, North Carolina DANIEL S. GOLDMAN, New York MARK HARRIS, North Carolina JASMINE CROCKETT, Texas ROBERT F. ONDER, Jr., Missouri SUMMER LEE, Pennsylvania DEREK SCHMIDT, Kansas BRANDON GILL, Texas MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, Washington ------ SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE, REGULATORY REFORM, AND ANTITRUST SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin, Chair DARRELL ISSA, California JERROLD NADLER, New York, Ranking BEN CLINE, Virginia Member LANCE GOODEN, Texas J. LUIS CORREA, California HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming BECCA BALINT, Vermont MARK HARRIS, North Carolina JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois DEREK SCHMIDT, Kansas ZOE LOFGREN, California MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, Washington HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., Georgia CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Majority Staff Director ARTHUR EWENCZYK, Minority Staff Director C O N T E N T S ---------- Wednesday, June 10, 2026 OPENING STATEMENTS Page The Honorable Scott Fitzgerald, Chair of the Subcommittee on the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust from the State of Wisconsin............................................. 1 The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust from the State of New York..................................... 4 The Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Ohio......................................... 6 The Honorable Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Maryland....................... 7 WITNESSES Jim Hallers, Founder and Managing Partner, Citizen's Grill Oral Testimony................................................. 10 Prepared Testimony............................................. 12 Curtis LeGeyt, President and Chief Executive Officer, National Association of Broadcasters Oral Testimony................................................. 15 Prepared Testimony............................................. 17 Clay Travis, President, OutKick Media Oral Testimony................................................. 25 Prepared Testimony............................................. 27 Anna M. Gomez, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission Oral Testimony................................................. 32 Prepared Testimony............................................. 34 LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING All materials submitted for the record by the Subcommittee on the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust are listed below................................................... 61 Materials submitted by the Honorable Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Maryland, for the record An article entitled, ``Mergers, FCC pressure threaten integrity of American journalism,'' Apr. 12, 2026, Seattle Times An article entitled, ``Rupert Murdoch's High-Stakes Blitz Against the NFL,'' May 7, 2026, The Wall Street Journal An article entitled, ``Paramount's WBD takeover explained: How the US $111 billion deal could reshape sports media,'' Mar. 25, 2026 , Sports Pro QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES FOR THE RECORD Questions and responses from Curtis LeGeyt, President and Chief Executive Officer, National Association of Broadcasters, submitted by the Honorable Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., a Member of the Subcommittee on the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust from the State of Georgia, for the record Questions for Jim Hallers, Founder and Managing Partner, Citizen's Grill, and Clay Travis, President, OutKick Media, submitted by the Honorable Darrell Issa, Member of the Subcommittee on the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust from the State of California, for the record No response received at the time of publication EXAMINING THE SPORTS BROADCASTING ACT ---------- Wednesday, June 10, 2026 House of Representatives Subcommittee on the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust Committee on the Judiciary Washington, DC The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Hon. Scott Fitzgerald [Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding. Members present: Representatives Fitzgerald, Jordan, Issa, Cline, Gooden, Hageman, Harris, Schmidt, Baumgartner, Nadler, Raskin, Correa, Balint, Lofgren, and Johnson. Mr. Fitzgerald. The Subcommittee will come to order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. We welcome everyone to today's hearing on the Sports Broadcasting Act. I will now recognize myself for an opening statement. Today we are here to examine the antitrust exemption granted under the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961, and whether it continues to serve the interests of American consumers. The Sports Broadcasting Act was enacted at a very different time in American history. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, professional football was still developing into a national enterprise. At the time, each team controlled its own broadcasting rights and would negotiate with networks to televise individual games. To promote competition and ensure the success of its league, the NFL amended its bylaws to prevent teams from broadcasting in each other's territory. However, the Department of Justice viewed that restriction as anticompetitive and sued the league for violating the Sherman Act. In 1953 the District Court largely sided with the DOJ and issued an injunction preventing the NFL from placing restrictions on televising games in the home territory of a team playing an away game. In 1961, the NFL moved to limit the distribution of games again, signing the first deal to sell broadcast rights for all 14 of its teams as a single package. When the District Court again said no, the NFL turned to Congress for help. Just a few months later, Congress passed the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961, which allowed the leagues to pool their individual broadcasting rights for sale to a single purchaser. The rationale was simple, Congress believed that joint television agreements would help make games more widely available to the public. It also would preserve the competitive balance among the different teams and keep the professional sports leagues financially viable. In exchange, Congress sought to maximize the public interest by limiting the exemption to only quote, ``Sponsored telecasting,'' ensuring fans continue to have free access to their favorite sports teams. Sixty-five years later, however, it is fair for this body to ask whether the professional sports leagues have kept up their end of the bargain. In my opinion, they have not, and sports fans are paying the price because of it. The NFL for example, boasts that 100 percent of its quote, ``Local market games,'' are available free over the air, and that it offers the most fan and broadcaster friendly model in the entire sports and entertainment industry. How it chooses to define local market games each week leaves fans across the country guessing whether they will be able to see their favorite team on TV, or whether they need to buy a subscription. For example, according to the NFL's distribution schedule for week three games last season, fans in Southern Indiana would not see the Indianapolis Colts on their local market. Same for Houston fans in Northeast Texas. Despite living in the same State as their favorite football team, fans are subjected to arbitrary restrictions imposed by the NFL that force them into buying a premium subscription model. This is precisely why NFL Sunday Ticket is advertised to fans as necessary to ensure they can watch every regular season game of their favorite team. The NFL's claim of a fan friendly distribution model also defies the reality experienced by millions of NFL fans nationwide. The NFL fans generally have access to only three or four games on a Sunday afternoon, with the rest available only through Sunday Ticket. Compare that with the current college football model, where fans can access dozens of games across various television channels on a Saturday afternoon. Since 2021, the NFL, along with the other sports leagues, have stretched the bounds of its exemption to sign exclusive distribution agreements with streaming platforms, including Amazon Prime, Netflix, Peacock, and ESPN. This includes the Packers, the Green Bay Packers games on Thanksgiving Evening, and Christmas Day, which will be broadcast exclusively on Netflix, outside of the local market. It has also begun shifting some programming to Saturdays, which goes against the original intent of the law, which was to preserve Friday night high school, and Saturday college football. Consumers who wish to follow their favorite teams increasingly find themselves paying for multiple services, navigating fragmented viewing arrangements, and facing higher overall costs. According to Fox News, to have access to all NFL games in the 2025 season it would cost the average sports fan at least $575, or upwards of $800 for those without existing subscriptions. To which all in market MLB games can likewise cost a consumer upwards of $500 annually, according to the news site Kiplinger. A sports fan without a traditional linear TV package must now have on average four different streaming services to watch the bulk of major sporting events. The Sports Broadcasting Act was designed to facilitate the distribution of games through free, over the air television. It was not intended to provide a perpetual shield for leagues to coordinate the sale of media rights across every new technology and distribution platform that emerges, yet that is effectively what has happened. Today the major leagues, in particularly the National Football League, have used the antitrust exemption to collectively negotiate increasingly lucrative media distribution contracts that go far beyond the circumstances Congress contemplated in 1961. Following passage of the Sports Broadcasting Act, then NFL Commissioner Pete Rozelle signed a TV deal worth $4.65 million. Nearly 60 years later the NFL signed an 11-year media deal worth $113 billion. The NBA first TV contract after passage of the SBA was for $27 million. In 2024 the league signed an 11- year deal worth $76 billion. While the leagues are undoubtedly more popular than they were in 1961, because they do not follow America's antitrust laws for television agreements, they can charge consumers inflated prices that would otherwise be illegal. The NFL argues that its distribution model is needed to maintain competitive balance, and keep teams financially viable, and that is fair. Most sports fans appreciate it when teams can compete on the merits, rather than through an arms race, like what we see today with college football. The NFL and its teams are not in the same financial position as they were in 1961. Under the NFL's first media distribution contract, each team receives approximately $310,000 per year. In 2025, each team received $416 million from the league's national media sponsorship and licensing revenue. Not to make it personal, but Commissioner Rozelle's salary in 1961 was $60,000. Commissioner Goodell's salary today is reportedly over $60 million. In 1999, Dan Snyder purchased the now Washington Commanders for $800 million. Today, despite having only one playoff win in the last 25 years, sorry Commanders fans, the Commanders are presently valued at over $7 billion. The NFL now reaches hundreds of millions of fans across dozens of international markets. The NFL is not a fragile enterprise in need of special protection. It is one of the most successful and powerful entertainment businesses in the world, and it pays its players and staff accordingly. To suggest that teams could not remain competitive without an antitrust exemption is simply false. It also falsely suggests that Congress, not the NFL, controls revenue sharing, which is also inaccurate. The question before Congress is not whether professional sports teams will continue to compete without this exemption, the question is whether consumers continue to benefit from it. The evidence increasingly suggests they do not. The NFL's ongoing Sunday Ticket litigation further illustrates this point. In 2024, a jury found the NFL guilty of violating antitrust law for colluding to limit consumer choice, and charged super competitive prices for access to games through its Sunday Ticket platform. The jury awarded plaintiffs a judgment of over $14 billion against the NFL. This ruling is currently on appeal, but regardless of the litigation's final outcome, the allegations themselves reflect a broader reality. The NFL has used its unique ability to coordinate among otherwise competitive clubs to maximize revenue rather than expanding consumer access. Congress only grants antitrust exemptions in rare circumstances because competition remains the best mechanism for promoting innovation and protecting consumers. Exemptions should be maintained only when there are benefits that clearly outweigh the costs. When the beneficiaries of an exemption begin using it to restrict access, increase prices, and strengthen their own market power beyond what Congress intended, lawmakers, Congress have an obligation to reconsider whether that exemption remains justified. The Sports Broadcasting Act was enacted to expand access to sports broadcasting, not to facilitate exclusive streaming arrangements that force fans to pay more for less. In my view, the NFL seems to have lost sight of the original purpose of the legislation, and in fact they may even be in violation of the law right now. Today, I hope we can have a constructive debate about what reforms if any Congress should consider to ensure a marketplace that works best for consumers. Mr. Fitzgerald. I now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Nadler, for his opening statement. Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, for years I have been warning this Committee about the dangers of unchecked consolidation in the American media industry. I have written letters, I have led oversight efforts, and I have called for serious antitrust review of the deals that have steadily concentrated our newsrooms, our studios, and our broadcasting infrastructure into the hands of fewer and fewer companies. For years the Majority has turned a blind eye to these warnings. Today, we are here to examine the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961, and I want to be clear at the outset, this law absolutely deserves a serious reexamination, it was written for a media landscape that no longer exists. American sports fans are paying more, getting less, and navigating a fragmented streaming environment that the 1961 Congress could not possibly have anticipated. The reform of this law is a legitimate subject for congressional attention, but you cannot examine the Sports Broadcasting Act in a vacuum, and that is exactly what the Majority is asking us to do today. The same administration that has suddenly discovered a concern for NFL fans has over the past year waved through one of the most aggressive waves of media consolidation in modern American history. Just last summer the FCC approved the Skydance-Paramount merger, but only after the Ellison family paid the President a $16 million contribution to his Presidential library, threw in millions more in free advertising, agreed to install a Trump friendly minder in the CBS newsroom, and saw to the cancellation of the Late Show with Stephen Colbert. The result, as Ranking Member Raskin and I have warned this Committee repeatedly, was not antitrust review, it was a shakedown. Now, the same Ellison family is back, this time bidding for Warner Bros. Discovery, in a deal that would give them not only CBS and Paramount, but also CNN, HBO, and one of the largest collections of sportscasting rights in the country. The President has publicly announced that he intends to be involved in the decision. The Ellisons have reported they already promised him quote, ``Sweeping changes at CNN.'' The same play book that worked for Skydance-Paramount is being run again, with the same beneficiaries, the same victims, and the same silence from this administration's antitrust regulators. This is a First Amendment crisis dressed up as an innocuous business deal. When this President can use the merger review process to extract editorial control over a major news network, it represents a significant threat to our democracy, and our constitutional liberties. When the FCC can be used to retaliate against ABC for airing a Jimmy Kimmel monologue the White House did not like, no broadcaster in this country is safe. The story that 60 Minutes was forced to delay about lawless deportations, and the firing of high-profile correspondents like Scott Pelley are a preview of the censorship regime these mergers are enabling. All this unchecked consolidation aided by corruption in the administration must inform our consideration of the sports broadcasting landscape. The merger of CBS Sports and Turner Sports under one corporate roof would create a sports rights portfolio rivaled only by ESPN, encompassing rights to the NHL, the NFL, the Olympics, the UFC, the PGA Tour, the Big 10, Big 12, NCAA Basketball, and the Champion's League. Fewer competitors bidding for sports rights means higher monthly bills for every American family, sports fans or not. Last Congress I joined my colleagues in writing to the Department of Justice about the proposed venue sports joint venture between Disney, Fox, and Warner Bros. Discovery. Eventually it would have given three of the largest media companies in the country control over the sports streaming market. A Federal judge agreed with us, granted an injunction, and the Biden antitrust division filed a powerful amicus brief detailing the anticompetitive effects of that arrangement. Last year, the Trump Justice Department cleared Disney's acquisition of Fubo, the very company that had brought the antitrust case in the first place. The result was exactly what we warned about. A competitor knocked out, a market consolidated, and consumers left with higher prices, and fewer choices. Now, we are here to discuss the NFL, not because the Majority has introduced any legislation to address the high cost of sports viewership, but because Rupert Murdoch personally lobbied the President at a White House dinner in February, warning that the NFL's streaming deals would quote, ``kill broadcast networks like Fox.'' Within weeks of that dinner, the Justice Department opened the investigation that is the stated reason for today's hearing. Yes, we should reform the Sports Broadcasting Act, fans are being asked to pay too much across too many platforms just to watch their favorite teams. We cannot pretend we are doing the work of consumer protection when we examine the SBA in isolation while the administration facilitates the very consolidation that is driving up the cost, we claim to be concerned about. I have called for a full investigation into the corruption at this administration's Department of Justice and Federal Communications Commission, and I will continue to do so. We cannot have an honest conversation about the Sports Broadcasting Act or any antitrust matter when the agencies responsible for enforcing our competition laws have been turned into instruments of political and personal favor. Before I yield back, we cannot discuss anything related to sports today without taking note of the most important sports story happening in this country today. By that, I mean the New York Knicks drive for an NBA championship. Tonight, is game four, and as long as Donald Trump stays far away from Madison Square Garden, the Knicks should do fine. Let's go Knicks. Thank you, Mr. Chair, I yield back. Mr. Fitzgerald. Gratuitous plug by the Member from New York for the Knicks. With that, I will recognize the Chair of the Full Committee, Mr. Jordan, for his opening statement. Chair Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We have an antitrust law in America, we have had it for over a hundred years, in simple terms you can't collude, you can't form a cartel, operate a cartel, and the reason we have that is we want competition, because that is good for the consumer, simple terms. In 1961, the NFL came to Congress and said we need relief from this law when it comes to our TV agreement. If you don't let us combine our resources to negotiate with the networks as a group, and collude on this, we will go out of business, that is what they told us. Their argument was a good argument, I get it, they said bigger markets will get bigger deals, better deals. New York, Chicago, and L.A., they will get better deals than Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and Green Bay, and Congress bought it. Congress said OK, we don't want the smaller market teams to go out of business, we want a league, we like this product, America loves this product, and so Congress enacted the Sports Broadcasting Act in 1961. As the Chair and the Ranking Member said, ``the situation today is a little different.'' What is the situation today? What is the situation today? Sports Broadcasting Act 1961, what is the situation today? On Sunday afternoon you can watch games on broadcast television, Fox and CBS. On Sunday night you can get the games on broadcast television NBC. On Monday night games are on satellite and cable, television, ESPN, on Thursday night games are streamed on Amazon, on Thanksgiving games are on broadcast, satellite, cable, or streaming, on Christmas broadcast, satellite, cable, or streaming, and there is some I am missing in there because playoffs get different and everything else. That is the situation today. In fact, we described it in our report, here is what the fan deals with today. In our report, a Green Bay Packers fan who grew up in Dallas, Texas, grew up in Green Bay, loves the Packers, wants to watch the Packers, grew up in Dallas, Texas. For the 2026 season the Packers are scheduled to play eight games on Fox, two games on Amazon Prime video, two games on Netflix, two games on NBC, one game on ESPN, one game on CBS, and one unscheduled game that is left to be determined by the NFL. The fans will need access to Amazon Prime video, Netflix, NBC, and ESPN to see the seven games scheduled for those services. For the nine games scheduled for Fox and CBS, the fan will likely need Fox and CBS because some of the games will be on broadcast television in Dallas. The fan will also likely need Sunday Ticket just to watch some subset of the nine Fox, CBS games because the fan will not know which games will and will not be on broadcast until the NFL and relevant networks release the broadcast maps the week of the games. That is what they have got to navigate. That is what they have got to navigate. We are here today to deal with the fundamental question, does this still work for consumers? Maybe it does, we haven't reached some type of conclusion, we just know the situation, we know what our constituents, and what our fans are telling us, the folks we have the privilege of representing in our respective districts. We want to know if it still works, and maybe it does, we all love this product, everyone loves football, we all love to watch it, we all love the Super Bowl, the playoffs, your hometown team, we all love that. We know one thing, we are asking the question does it work for consumers? We know it is working for the NFL, we know it is working for them. In 1961, adjusted for inflation, 14 teams in the league, guess what each team got paid in the TV deal, $3.37 million. In 2025, 32 teams, guess what each team got in the deal, $443 million. A 100 times more, almost a half a billion dollars. Again, that may be just fine, but that is the TV deal, that is not counting tickets, and T-shirts, and in stadium advertisement, and all the other stuff. We are here to answer one simple question because we are the Judiciary Committee, we have an antitrust law, we have to do our jobs. Does this still benefit consumers, and the consumer welfare the way it is supposed to? With that I will yield back to the Chair and let me just say I appreciate the witnesses being here, sorry I am running a little late. I was in an important hearing over in the House Administration Committee on ActBlue and all the crazy things they have been up to. I appreciate you all being here. I yield back. Mr. Fitzgerald. The Chair yields back. I now recognize the Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Mr. Raskin, for his opening statement. Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you for taking us, I was over in an important meeting in the House Administration Committee that should have been about WinRed, and all the crazy things it is doing. I agree with my Republican colleagues that the basic framework of the Sports Broadcasting Act is worth revisiting, given how much has changed since it was enacted 65 years ago. When I was growing up, and for much of the life of the Sports Broadcasting Act, there were just three networks on the airwaves, and all you needed to do to watch your favorite team play on Sunday was a TV and an antenna. Today an NFL fan must spend between $500 and $1,000 dollars every single season in subscriptions to different platforms and streaming subscriptions just to effectively cheer on their home team. It seems fundamentally unfair that the league should get billion-dollar deals, the networks should get billion-dollar contracts, but the fans are left out in the cold, that hardly captures the spirit of the antitrust exemption that Congress passed in 1961. What I have trouble computing however today is why the Majority is focused on this narrow issue against the backdrop of the most sweeping, aggressive media consolidation in American history. Time and again the administration has allowed giant media companies to merge, leaving consumers with fewer choices, higher prices, and less power. They waved through Disney's acquisition of Fubo, and ESPN's acquisition of NFL Network, resulting in greater consolidation, and dramatically reduced competition in the sports rights market. They turned a blind eye to the Nexstar-TEGNA merger, which would give one company broadcast reach into 80 percent of households in the United States, and thereby lead to increased blackouts for sports fans, and higher prices for everybody. Now, the Paramount-Skydance, Warner Bros. Discovery merger, which President Trump personally muscled through after breaking up a deal between Netflix and Warner is sailing through Trump's politicized Executive Branch review process. Last month Ranking Member Pallone and I wrote to Paramount Skydance's CEO David Ellison about this pending merger. We pointed out that less than a year after Trump blessed Ellison's takeover of Paramount Global, which includes Paramount Pictures, CBS, BET, MTV, Nickelodeon, Comedy Central, and streaming services Paramount Plus and Pluto. He is now arranging for David Ellison to add Warner Bros. Studios, DC Entertainment, HBO, CNN, the Discovery Channel, HGTV, Cartoon Network, TBS, and TNT, as well as HBO and Discovery's streaming services to this awesome media conglomerate. If this deal goes through, the Ellisons, one family of Trump mega donors and enablers will have managed to purchase an unparalleled sports and news empire in just one year. That means the same kind of unprecedented pro-MAGA editorial control we have seen at CBS News and 60 Minutes, including the appointment of a full time paid MAGA minder, a government spy and censor in the newsroom, that could occur at CNN. That means American consumers who already pay an average $69 a month for streaming, on top of a hundred a month for cable, and 78 for internet paying even more for sports news and entertainment. In the face of this profound consolidation, an antitrust crisis sweeping the media market, why is the Majority focused just on the NFL? Why is the Trump Administration, through the DOJ, and the FCC investigating the NFL, but not other parties in the market that threaten even far worse harm to consumers and competitive dynamics in the market? Well, it turns out that early in this administration, this is according to The Wall Street Journal. The Fox Corporation Chair Rupert Murdoch personally lobbied Donald Trump at a White House dinner to crack down on the NFL streaming deals. Streaming deals that compete directly with Fox's broadcast business. The DOJ's investigation, like this hearing, appear to be all about helping Mr. Murdoch get a better broadcast deal for Fox. That hardly seems like a principled or methodical way for us to proceed. The Majority has offered no legislation to reform the Sports Broadcasting Act, they call no hearings on the Ellison's corrupt Paramount Skydance, Warner Bros. Discovery merger, or the deep corruption at the heart of the Paramount Skydance merger. They have not called a single Trump Administration antitrust official to come testify before this Subcommittee about the political destabilization and saturation of the antitrust process of review in the administration. In fact, the only Trump era antitrust official to appear before this Committee this entire Congress was a Democratic called witness, Roger Alford. Who was fired by the Trump Administration for refusing to participate in the pay-to-play corruption of the DOJ's antitrust divisions. Despite being a political appointee, including serving as the No. 2 at DOJ's Antitrust Division in the second Trump Administration, he was so appalled by what he saw that he bravely decided to blow the whistle on how this administration is every day selling out American consumers to mega donors and their White House connected lobbyists. This selective interest suggests that the majority have little interest in conducting real oversight here or promoting real competition in the economy. They are doing nothing to protect American consumers, workers, or innovation. Instead, they are siding with big corporations striving for monopoly profits that jack up prices for everybody and depress wages while offering inferior goods and services. Commissioner Gomez, we are watching the alarming consequences for the First Amendment, emboldened by its efforts to capture CBS and CNN, the Trump Administration has now turned its attention to ABC and its parent company, Disney, which you warned are facing a quote, ``Sustained, coordinated campaign of censorship and control from the Trump Administration,'' and this is what I will ask you about. I yield back to you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Fitzgerald. The Ranking Member yields back. Without objection, all other opening statements will be included in the record. We will now introduce today's witnesses. Mr. Jim Hallers. Mr. Hallers is the Founder and Managing Partner of Tailgaters Pub & Grill, and Citizens Grill, two restaurants in the Houston area. He has owned and operated more than two dozen restaurants and bars over the years. Mr. Curtis LeGeyt. Mr. LeGeyt is the President and Chief Executive Officer of the National Association of Broadcasters, an organization that advocates on behalf of television and radio broadcasters. He previously served as the organization's Chief Operating Officer, and its Executive Vice President for government relations. Mr. Clay Travis. Mr. Travis is the founder, and President of Outkick Media, maybe not at this point, I am not sure, we need to update that text, a sports and culture news company that we are all familiar with. He previously worked as an attorney, college football analyst, and commentator, and as a columnist for CBS Sports. He is also half of the Clay Travis and Buck Sexton syndicated radio show, which is broadcast across America. Ms. Anna Gomez. Ms. Gomez is a Commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission. She has served in the role since September 2023. Ms. Gomez previously served in the State Department, and various staff level roles at the FCC. We welcome our witnesses and thank them for appearing today. We will begin by swearing you in. Would you please rise and raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you God? Let the record reflect that the witnesses have answered in the affirmative. Thank you, please be seated. Please know that your written testimony will be entered into the record in its entirety. Accordingly, we ask you that you summarize your testimony in five minutes. Mr. Hallers, you may begin. STATEMENT OF JIM HALLERS Mr. Hallers. Thank you, Chair Fitzgerald, and Ranking Member Nadler, and the Members of the Committee. My name is Jim Hallers, and I am the Founder and Managing Partner of Tailgaters Pub & Grill and Citizens Grill in the Houston area. Since 2009, I have built and operated sports bars and restaurants that today employ over 400 team members. Before entering the restaurant business, I spent 25 years in information technology, working with software and technology infrastructure. That background is important because the challenge I am here to discuss today is not just about football. It is about technology, distribution, and the unintended impact these changes have on small businesses. My restaurants are built around the game day experience. Every Sunday during football season, hundreds of customers come to watch their favorite teams while enjoying food, drinks, and time with family and friends. The NFL Sunday Ticket has long been a critical part of that experience. For my businesses, Sunday Ticket is not simply entertainment. It is an economic driver, it supports jobs, generates tax revenue, and helps local suppliers, vendors, and employees earn a living. In Texas many of our customers have actually moved from other parts of the country. On any given Sunday I may have fans of the Texans, Steelers, Packers, Eagles, Bears, Bills, and even the Cowboys watching games in the same building. Offering every game is not a luxury for a sports bar, it is a customer expectation. Historically, we met that expectation through DIRECTV's commercial Sunday Ticket package. It was expensive, but it was reliable, and relatively straight forward. Today the sports media landscape has become increasingly fragmented. Games and programming are spread across multiple streaming platforms. What may seem like a simple change for a consumer at home becomes a significant operational challenge for a restaurant. My business depends heavily on two seasons right now, football season, and crawfish season. While crawfish season depends on mother nature, football season depends on the NFL, and the technology systems that deliver the games. When those systems become fragmented, expensive, and unreliable, it directly affects my bottom line. To deliver games across dozens of televisions, we need today additional streaming devices, switching equipment, network infrastructure, and extra internet capacity. A full transition can require a $30,000-40,000 investment per location to show the current version of Sunday Ticket through EverPass. The challenge is not just cost, it is reliability. A sports bar may need to stream multiple games simultaneously, while also supporting point of sale systems, credit card processing, online ordering, security systems, business operations, and customer Wi-Fi. When a stream freezes during a critical play, the customers do not blame the provider, they blame the restaurant. As the industry continues moving toward streaming, I am not asking Congress to stop innovation. Technology changes, and businesses adapt. What I am asking is that policymakers recognize the unique role that restaurants and sports bars play in the sports ecosystem. We are not passive viewers; we are really community gathering places that invest substantial resources to bring fans together. As Congress examines the Sports Broadcasting Act, and the future of sports media distribution, I encourage you to consider the practical impact that these changes have on commercial establishments. We need transitions that are reliable, economically realistic, and mindful of all the small businesses that help deliver the game day experience to millions of Americans. The restaurants and sports bars like mine create jobs, support local communities, and provide a place where fans come together to share experiences that are increasingly rare in modern life. I want to thank you all for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to your questions. [The prepared statement of Mr. Hallers follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you, Mr. Hallers. Mr. LeGeyt, you may begin. STATEMENT OF CURTIS LEGEYT Mr. LeGeyt. Good morning, Chair Fitzgerald, Ranking Members Raskin and Nadler, and the Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Curtis LeGeyt, and I am the President and CEO of the National Association of Broadcasters. I am proud to testify today on behalf of America's local broadcast television stations, and the networks with which they affiliate. Our members serve every community in the country with trusted journalism, emergency information, weather, entertainment, and of course sports. All available free over the air. The Sports Broadcasting Act was built on a simple public interest bargain. Professional sports leagues received a limited antitrust exemption so they could pool and sell broadcast rights, and fans received broad public access to games. In 1961, Congress considered the scope of that exemption carefully, and explicitly applied it only to sponsor telecasting, not subscription television. Congress was clear, the law is about free over-the-air broadcasting, not pay walls. For decades that bargain worked, fans could watch most games for free on local broadcast television. Leagues benefited from the unmatched reach of broadcasting, stations benefited from live sports programming that helps support local news, weather, and emergency coverage. Communities benefited because sports became part of our shared cultural experience. Yet, today it is increasingly apparent that the public access goals of that bargain are no longer being met. Games from the four major professional leagues are now spread across Amazon Prime, Netflix, YouTube TV, and Apple TV. Fans increasingly need multiple paid subscriptions to watch their favorite teams, and survey after survey shows fans are confused and frustrated. Some estimates suggest that accessing every NFL game over the course of a season would cost a consumer well over a thousand dollars. That is a long way from the broad, free access Congress intended when it created the SBA. This is especially troubling because attending games in person has become unaffordable for many families as well. When fans are priced out of the stadium, and games are moved behind pay walls, the public loses twice. Amidst all of this, broadcast television remains the most consumer-friendly platform in America. We are free, we are local, we do not require a monthly fee, a broadband connection, or a separate app. We reach rural communities, seniors, low- income households, and casual fans who may not subscribe to multiple streaming services. This is why games on broadcast deliver massive audiences relative to their streaming competitors. For example, NFL games on CBS, Fox, and NBC this past Thanksgiving averaged 44.7 million viewers per game, while Amazon's game, the following day on Black Friday, drew only 16 million viewers. It is also why local teams that have moved games from regional sports networks to broadcast television have seen their ratings surge. Importantly, the stakes for your constituents extend beyond sports. The advertising and carriage revenues delivered by live sporting events help pay for coverage of city halls, school boards, elections, severe weather, public safety, and community events. When tornadoes, wildfires, or other emergencies threaten lives, local broadcasters are there. In contrast, big tech does not invest in local newsrooms, and they are not on the ground after the storm. In conclusion, live sports on free broadcast television have served the American public for generations. Together we have built shared national moments, strengthened communities, expanded fan bases, and supported local journalism. That model is now at risk. Fans are paying more and receiving less. Meanwhile, local stations are competing against global tech platforms that can subsidize their sports rights with revenue from entirely different businesses. In 1961, Congress was right to put fans first and NAB is not asking to eliminate the Sports Broadcasting Act. This Committee should reaffirm that the SBA applies only to league-wide negotiations with media companies that will distribute games through broadcast television, not lock games behind streaming pay walls. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look forward to your questions. [The prepared statement of Mr. LeGeyt follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you, Mr. LeGeyt. Mr. Travis, you may begin. STATEMENT OF CURTIS TRAVIS Mr. Travis. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the invite today. Mr. Nadler, I enjoy, and appreciate the opportunity to speak to all of you. My name is Clay Travis, I founded a site called OutKick in 2011, if you haven't gone yet you should, it is the sanest site in all of sports. A big part of what we do on that site, and what I have done for the past 22 years in my career is advocate for the average sports fan. Many of you are lawyers, and you are familiar with the standard of a reasonable man. How would someone respond in a context in the law? I would like to advocate here for the reasonable fan. I just asked before I started speaking today, my followers on X, what would you say if you had the opportunity today to speak to Democrats, Republicans, to everyone across the country about your experience as a sports fan? I would encourage you guys to go look at the responses there, hundreds of them have all come in, none of them are happy. Every single day sports fans are getting gouged now for the opportunity of watching their favorite teams. I would say under the Sports Broadcasting Act, as a very easy summation, fans now pay far more money every year for something that by law in 1961 you all guaranteed for them should be free. For anyone out there who is saying why is Congress involved in this, you interjected yourself in 1961 at the behest of these leagues to provide them an exemption that they have now taken advantage of, and they are gouging so many different fans out there across the entire sports landscape, regardless of who you are a fan of. Let me hit you with just a couple of ideas. The NFL in particular, CBS, Fox, NBC, ESPN, ABC, Amazon, Netflix, the NFL Sunday Ticket, Paramount, Peacock, most of your constituents are frustrated, they don't know how to find games, and they are having to pay far too much when they have the opportunity to actually watch those games. I don't know how many of you remember back in the day when you could have one remote control in your hand, and you could easily flip from any different game. Nowadays, with passwords, with sign-ins, how many of your constituents, on an average Saturday or Sunday, are extremely frustrated because they just can't even get logged in to watch their favorite games? These are things that they are already paying for. I hear from fans every single day about how frustrated they are with what the leagues are doing, they just want to be able to watch their favorite team and not have to struggle to do so. Think about this perspective, remember when flat screen televisions were very expensive? I spent $4,200 in 2006 on my first ever flat screen television. Now, they are a few hundred dollars. Capitalism has worked when it comes to flat screen television. Sports fans now can watch huge flat screens in their home for a fraction of the cost that they paid in 2006, but they now have to pay a massive amount to be able to watch all their favorite teams. Your investigation has actually uncovered that the NFL Sunday Ticket, which is one of the most expensive packages out there, the NFL doesn't even offer to the average fan what they actually want, which is the ability to subscribe to their favorite team if they live out of market. Something that many of you know all about because you travel all the time, and you probably want to watch your favorite NFL team, your local constituent team. You don't have the ability to do it; they don't offer that product even though the marketplace is telling them that is what people most want. I love college football, I love the NFL, I have three boys, we spend all day Saturday and Sunday watching games. In the college football world, you know I get ten broadcast games for free every single Saturday. The market for college football is robust. In the NFL, at most you only get four. The NFL is going to argue that 87 percent of their games are still free. That still means that they are violating the law with 13 percent of the games that they are putting behind streamers. It also means that the reality is if you look at your individual constituents, none of them are getting 87 percent. Let me close with this one example here, and I look forward to your questions. Buffalo Bills, great new stadium opening, $850 million in taxpayer funds. Their very first home game is on a Thursday on Amazon. Most of the taxpayers in the State of New York who paid for that stadium are not able to watch for free a Buffalo Bills home opener. That is wrong, you guys have an important responsibility, and an opportunity to apply the law fairly, freely, and help fans everywhere across the entire Nation pay less and get more. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Travis follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you, Mr. Travis. Ms. Gomez, you may begin. STATEMENT OF ANNA M. GOMEZ Ms. Gomez. Chair Jordan, Ranking Member Raskin, Chair Fitzgerald, Ranking Member Nadler, and the distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. In living rooms and sports bars across the country, millions of Americans who may agree on little else will be gathered tonight to watch the NBA finals, rooting together for their respective team. There are few things left in American life that cut across every line of division the way sports does, and I say that as a proud National and Wizards fan who knows exactly what it feels like to believe that your team might actually pull it off this year. We are living through a genuinely remarkable era for sports fans, more games, more leagues, more athletes, and more stories are accessible today than any previous generation could have imagined. At the same time the economics of how fans actually watch have shifted in ways that deserve serious attention. What used to arrive through an antenna available to anyone regardless of income, has increasingly migrated behind a growing stack of subscriptions and league specific apps. For a family trying to follow their team through a full season, the cost of piecing together across multiple platforms adds up quickly. How we ensure sports content remains accessible and available to all Americans is a question I want to situate within a much broader set of concerns about who controls the media that carries the games, and what they are doing with that power. The FCC has a legitimate interest in helping gather information about how the Sports Broadcasting Act is functioning in a changing media environment. I support efforts to ensure fans can access their teams without paying a fortune. When sports programming migrates behind pay walls, fans lose access, local broadcasters lose the revenue that keeps their stations alive, and the local journalism those stations produce loses the funding on which it depends. I also want to be candid about where the FCC's authority ends. The commission can gather information, raise concerns, and call out fouls when we see them. Any meaningful update to the Sports Broadcasting Act would ultimately require legislative action. Despite growing public concern about the challenges facing the media ecosystem, this administration does not appear to be prioritizing consumer protection. According to reports, the scrutiny now being applied to sports leagues through government agencies like the FCC and DOJ appears to be driven less by a genuine interest in protecting fans, and more by the influence of powerful media companies with close ties to this administration that stand to benefit financially from the outcome of that scrutiny. I have called this pattern the billionaire buddy bypass, where the public interest gets bypassed in favor of a powerful few, and it extends well beyond sports broadcasting, into a sweeping consolidation of media power that poses serious risks to journalism, to free expression, and to the Americans that depend on both. That consolidation is where I want to spend the remainder of my time, because the stakes are high, and the pattern is clear. When the FCC unlawfully waived Federal law to let one broadcaster reach 80 percent of local television households, more than double the cap set by Congress by statute, it signaled it was willing to move the goalpost for the entire industry for the right relationship. When Paramount settled a baseless lawsuit just two days before its merger with Skydance was approved, and that approval was conditioned on commitments to reshape the editorial direction at CBS News, we saw what unchecked media consolidation leaves in its wake, including the collapse of 60 Minutes, and the irreparable damage done to one of the most trusted names in broadcast journalism. Now, that same ownership is seeking to add CNN, HBO, and Warner Bros. to that portfolio, financed by $24 billion from sovereign wealth funds controlled by foreign governments with documented records of suppression. Nearly half of the combined company would be in foreign government hands. Paramount has asked the FCC to authorize up to 100 percent foreign ownership of its broadcast licensees, and the FCC has shown every sign that it intends to wave that through. Whether to authorize that level of foreign government control over media broadcast infrastructure, cable news networks, and Hollywood studios, is a national security question that demands far more than a rubber stamp. Media consolidation on this scale requires, I mean creates the conditions for exactly the kind of editorial control this administration has shown it intends to exercise. Pursuing investigations and threatening the licenses of news organizations whose coverage it finds unfavorable. That campaign of censorship and control does not happen without the consolidated media power that enables it. The American people deserve a government whose approach to media policy starts and ends with their interests, not those of powerful companies, foreign governments, and an administration that has made clear it views media ownership as a tool of political control. I am grateful for this Committee's attention to these issues, and I welcome any questions you may have. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Ms. Gomez follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you, Ms. Gomez. We will now proceed under the five-minute rule with some questions. I am going to recognize myself. Mr. Travis, when the NFL came to Congress in 1961, they warned that smaller teams wouldn't survive if the league could not pool their broadcast rights, so it created shared revenue of which I am not really concerned, I don't care how they slice up the pie. Today, professional sports leagues are among the most profitable businesses in the world. Is it safe to say that the survival of professional sports is no longer dependent on a special exemption from Congress? Mr. Travis. I feel pretty good that the NFL is not going to start to lose money any time soon, and everybody understands that the NFL's power today is drastically different than it was in 1961. Mr. Fitzgerald. To me, the straw that kind of broke the camel's back was when we saw the NFL sign a contract with Netflix. At that point I think they went from kind of pushing on the edge of the law to jumping headfirst through it. Given the NFL has effectively thumbed its nose at sports broadcasting, is there something there that Congress is missing, or are they simply flouting the whole concept at this point? Mr. Travis. The NFL under the plain reading of the 1961 Sports Broadcasting Act, I also have a law degree, so I am not entirely out of scope here when I analyze it, the NFL quite clearly for at least 13 percent of its overall television package which now has moved to streaming, is violating the plain intent of the law. In fact, if you read the 1961 act, there is a pretty clear discussion in there, certainly we didn't understand the concept of streaming, even the idea of cable was hard to comprehend of where we were headed, but they specifically say that they wouldn't have been allowed under that 1961 act to put these games behind what was then sort of a pay per view concept that they understood in 1961, closed captioning style, where it wasn't available for free. Clearly, if you look at that 1961 law and apply it to modern technology, the 13 percent, Netflix and Amazon, and other streaming assets clearly violate the intent of the 1961 law, which is pretty clear. It was designed to make sure that fans get free access to games, anything that fans are having to pay for outside of broadcast television, arguably is outside the scope of that 1961 exemption. Mr. Fitzgerald. Very good, thank you. Mr. Hallers, as a sports bar owner, I would guess that showing your customers the games they want to see is an essential part of the business, but as we have already spoken about, unfortunately purchasing premium packages like the NFL Sunday Ticket is not an option for a business like yourself, and now that has changed. Can you just try and describe the changes that would have to be made within your own restaurants and bars to accommodate the new NFL package? Mr. Hallers. Right, basically it is still, I guess called Sunday Ticket, but they have moved it from DIRECTV, which is basically what all the bars and restaurants that have shown football on Sundays for 30 or 40 years have used, they are moving it to a streaming only platform called EverPass. It has been available on both DIRECTV and EverPass for the last couple of years. Here in 2026 they said no more for DIRECTV, everybody has to move to streaming. Literally now we have to buy streaming boxes, and in a typical smaller bar where I have maybe 30 or 40 TVs with a DIRECTV box mounted behind every television, I now have to get an EverPass streaming box. You can't put an EverPass streaming box behind every TV, it doesn't work like that. You have to bring in like eight of these boxes, and then you have to put in the wiring, and the infrastructure to distribute that signal out to all your 30 or 40 TVs. This is because your typical internet bandwidth at a bar can't handle 30 or 40 streams. Just imagine at home if you tried to stream 30 Netflixes at once, your internet is just going to die. Well, it is the same way for most bars and restaurants today. I buy internet that is big enough to run my POS, and to run systems, and give customers some Wi-Fi, but when I put this in I am going to have to go get like gig fiber connections, and I can only imagine there is bars and restaurants out there that don't even have that ability to go buy high speed internet maybe at a reasonable price. For sure, once you bring this in with this infrastructure, you have to make sure every part of it actually works. If I need to show ten games at noon on Sunday, there is two on broadcast TV, which I will be watching with my DIRECTV boxes, eight on the streaming boxes, and the other problem is the eight streaming boxes, so almost all sports bars have went and bought these. Even the best sports bars have these video distribution systems, where you bought a certain number of inputs, and a certain number of outputs. Well, now we are bringing in eight new inputs, and everybody is looking at their equipment going like I don't have eight spots to plug in new boxes. We are left with, do we go back and buy even bigger and more expensive equipment? Of which there is a very limited amount in the marketplace, because only so many sports bars open a year. Do we rip out DIRECTV boxes on Sunday, or put in some kind of switches to switch over? Imagine a typical manager in a restaurant, OK, at noon switch all these boxes over, and then after that game is over this one is going to be on broadcast, let us switch these TVs over. It is just mayhem. Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you. Mr. Nadler, you are recognized. Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Gomez, you mentioned in a recent letter that Disney and ABC are facing a quote ``Sustained, coordinated campaign of censorship and control from the Trump Administration.'' Can you tell us about how the Trump Administration has weaponized the FCC, and what that does to free speech? Put on your mic. Ms. Gomez. Sorry, thank you. Yes, this administration has used every lever in its power, including weaponizing the FCC to wage its campaign of censorship and control over any content it doesn't like. One of the ways that it has done so is through its actions against Disney. It is clear, the White House issues a statement that it is unhappy with some kind of content that is on an ABC station, and the FCC initiates an investigation against that station. Most egregiously, the FCC has now called up all the local ABC stations of Disney under the pretext of an investigation to retaliate against Disney because it has refused to capitulate to this administration's demands that it fire Jimmy Kimmel or regulate the content of its media reports. Mr. Nadler. What are some of the more egregious incidents that you have witnessed at the FCC? Ms. Gomez. The most egregious incident so far, and I have seen a lot of egregious uses of our investigatory authority to go after content particularly by news organizations has been calling up these eight local stations by Disney. It has never gone after network content by threatening the licenses of local broadcast stations. The last time it actually took such an action was over half a century ago. This is an extreme action to pressure Disney to cave. Mr. Nadler. Commissioner Gomez, you have been outspoken about the wave of consolidation in the media market, from the recently approved Nexstar-TEGNA merger to the proposed Paramount Warner Bros.-Discovery acquisition. How does this kind of media consolidation impact American consumers and their monthly bills? Ms. Gomez. Thank you for that question. Media consolidation leads to higher prices for consumers. When it comes to the local broadcasters, what it leads to is higher rates that they charge to the cable companies, and to satellite companies for their content. That will directly lead to consumers paying higher prices. Importantly, it also leads to the loss of local journalism and local content. Communities also suffer because the news and the information that they rely on for their civic engagement, for disasters become homogenized, and it loses the localism that these broadcasters provide when you become too nationalized. Mr. Nadler. How does this media consolidation affect the ability of Sports fans to watch their favorite teams without paying exorbitant amounts? Ms. Gomez. Media consolidation always affects any consumers, because what you get is a difference in market power. Whether it is through higher retransmission rates, now in the case of sports fans, you need to look at where excess market power is actually leading to less competition, which then leads to higher prices for consumers and viewers. Mr. Nadler. Finally, can you expand on how these large media mergers affect local journalism? Ms. Gomez. The large media mergers result in losses in the newsrooms; they result in loss of a diversity of viewpoints. It results in fewer local content, less local content being provided to consumers, because the larger consolidations always need synergies. These broadcasters are taking on a huge amount of debt, and debt has to be settled somehow. The ones that pay for that are the local journalists, and the local communities these broadcasters are meant to serve. Mr. Nadler. Why do the local broadcasters pay for that? Ms. Gomez. Pardon me? Mr. Nadler. Why do the local broadcasters pay for that? Ms. Gomez. Well, when we are talking about big consolidation of local broadcasters, it's the local broadcasters that are in fact taking those actions. Mr. Nadler. Well thank you. Mr. Chair, I yield back. Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Harris, for five minutes. Mr. Harris. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the opportunity to talk with you who are witnesses for us today. Mr. Hallers, thank you for coming in and testifying today, it is always great to hear from business owners about how actions in Washington are affecting day-to-day operations where you are. The Chair started off with you by talking about the changes that had happened. One thing I just want to give you a chance to elaborate on, on average, have these changes that you are even considering or looking to make, do you have an idea of what kind of costs are involved in those kinds of changes? Mr. Hallers. For a full-blown sports bar, we are looking at anywhere from $30,000-$40,000 of equipment upgrades, and we better get cracking soon, because football season is coming. Mr. Harris. Correct. Has the rise in streaming services increased or decreased the number of customers visiting your sports bars? Mr. Hallers. I think really, we fill up on Sundays, but in talking to the fans that are coming in all week long, they are very frustrated at the difficulty they are having watching football. Mr. Harris. Sure. Mr. Hallers. When they heard I was coming here, they were like you go tell them. They are really frustrated, and I am not just talking about the ones that are sitting in with me, just in general. Mr. Harris. Got you. Mr. Travis, I want to talk for just a moment about the NFL Sunday Ticket. In a briefing before this Committee in 2025, an NFL representative claimed that Sunday Ticket, and I quote, Was meant to be a product that was available for the truly avid fan who wants every game. They did not claim that the product was meant for fans to watch every game of only their team. However, this claim seems to be contradicted by Sunday Ticket's own marketing to Americans who are attempting to find their favorite NFL team's telecast. I say that by advertising for Sunday Ticket warns consumers, and again I quote, Even fans of the Cowboys, Chiefs, Eagles, Packers, 49ers, Lions, and fans of every other team have needed NFL Sunday Ticket to ensure they could watch every regular season game of their favorite team. Due to the work of this Committee, data was obtained which showed that most Sunday ticket subscribers signed up to watch one favorite out of market team, not every game in the league. The same data also revealed that most subscribers who cancel their Sunday Ticket subscription, do so because it is too expensive. My question for you, Mr. Travis, is if the Committee can find this data, the NFL can find it too. In a consumer driven market, what reason would the NFL have to ignore this data point? Mr. Travis. I believe, based on my experience over the last 20 years of covering the NFL, talking about the NFL Daily, the vast majority of NFL fans who subscribe to Sunday Ticket do that so they can follow their single favorite team. There are also diehards that want to have access to every single game. To me, a market-based option should be, if the NFL were trying to provide exactly what the consumer wanted, and not just charge everybody way more, you should be able to subscribe to guarantee yourself that you get to watch every game of your favorite team. That should be an option in the marketplace. Then, if you want every single NFL game available because you are a die hard, you love to gamble, maybe you are obsessed with your fantasy football team, that option should be in the marketplace as well. The fact that the NFL only provides the huge option, and not the targeted option for individual teams, is a direct refutation of what the marketplace at large actually wants. Mr. Harris. Thank you, great response. Mr. LeGeyt, it can be argued that the conditions that led to the passage of SBA no longer exist, and that the behavior of the league suggests that the spirit of the law is no longer being honored. However, the leagues would argue that repealing the SBA would destroy their business models. I just want to ask you at the last minute I have, if the SBA's antitrust exemption was removed, would business models be destroyed like the leagues contend, or would it require the leagues to construct contracts that are more reasonable and consumer friendly? Mr. LeGeyt. I certainly don't think the league's business model would be destroyed. I do want it to be clear that the NAB is not asking to repeal the Sports Broadcasting Act. What we are asking is for this Committee to affirm its guardrails, that it is meant to govern the negotiations between the league when it is pulling rights, and broadcasters. It is not meant to enable sports to be hidden behind pay walls. Mr. Harris. Is there any other reforms to the SBA you would suggest for Congress to enact? Mr. LeGeyt. Well, on top of this we have got to ensure that the law is enforced. One of the real questions here is the plain text of the law is clear as to the scope of negotiations it should apply to, the leagues, and broadcasters, yet it is obviously being misused. I would ask this Committee to look at those enforcement tools as well. Mr. Harris. Thank you, sir, and thank you to all the panel. Mr. Chair, I yield back. Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize the Ranking Member of the Full Committee again, Mr. Raskin. Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. LeGeyt, you represent broadcasters, do you agree with Commissioner Gomez that it is wrong for Federal agencies to make enforcement and regulatory decisions based on the President's personal animus toward certain companies, or friendship with other companies? Mr. LeGeyt. At NAB I can say unequivocally we are fighting every day to ensure that our Members have the ability to make programming decisions, to make newsroom decisions that are independent of any government influence. Mr. Raskin. OK. Commissioner Gomez, in your view what factors have contributed to this recent intensified regulatory scrutiny of the NFL? Are there political motivations behind it? Ms. Gomez. Well, thank you for that question. What appears to be reported is that in fact it was a major broadcast network that asked the administration to look into this issue. Which worries me because what should be motivating the administration is the actual consumers, the fans themselves. Mr. Raskin. Fans are indeed frustrated, as Mr. Travis identifies, but while there is this, I think kind of unserious investigation into the NFL, or heckling of the NFL to satisfy Rupert Murdoch, the administration is waving through massive media mergers that will further consolidate sports. I just wonder if you would say a word about what that means for fans, and then Mr. Travis, I want to get your perspective on that. Ms. Gomez. Yes. These major mergers lead to in fact less competition, particularly among the portions of these merged companies that actually provide services to the fans. Mr. Raskin. Does less competition mean higher prices? Ms. Gomez. Less competition means higher prices, and it means more harm to consumers. Mr. Raskin. What kinds of harm are you thinking of? Ms. Gomez. Again, higher prices, maybe less choice, it is the usual pattern that we see when we see major consolidation. Mr. Raskin. When you see centralization, consolidation, monopoly type practices, that inevitably is going to be to the detriment of consumers, to the people? Ms. Gomez. Yes, absolutely. Importantly for local broadcasters, these revenues are very important to them, and that is a large part of how they finance the local journalism that so many communities rely on. Mr. Raskin. OK, and Mr. Travis, the same question to you. What do you think the consequence has been for your constituency, fans across America, of these massive media consolidations and mergers? Mr. Travis. Look, I don't think there is any fan in America, regardless of his or her politics, Democrat, Republican, or Independent, that would say the sports fan viewing experience is getting better. That is why I contrasted it with the flat screen television experience, what the cost is there. Affordability and access are both getting worse, and in a market-based economy, based on capitalism, the opposite should be occurring. We should be getting more affordable, better access, and we are not seeing that. It has gotten worse, it has accelerated, sir, over the last 20 years the fan experience has gotten worse. Every one of you guys up there has sat with a remote trying to switch from one game to another and was not able to do it. In 2008-2010, that wasn't an issue. That is what I am concerned about, is the average fan experience has degraded. Mr. Raskin. Yes. Because that is the focus of your professional life, your personal life, it seems like it subsumes your whole being there, what are some of the concrete ways in which the fan experience has been degraded over the last several years? Mr. Travis. I will give you several, and I could probably talk for hours on this, and I have. Just think about what goes on with streaming now. Streaming is delayed, if you are watching a game on Amazon, or you are watching a game on Netflix, and you are sitting with your phone, and you are texting with your friends or family about a game, you might find out what happened on the play a minute after it actually happened. Some of you know this experience, you have been sitting on your couch, you don't even want to look at your phone because it is a crucible moment of the game, and your buddy might have seen it already a minute ago. That didn't happen back in the day, we used to all watch games together. Streaming is delayed, and that is a very minimal thing. The password situation with not being able to get logged in, you have paid for it but for some reason you are not getting logged in. The fact that you might travel, and try to watch a game, you are right, I am obsessed with this, and the average fan is not getting-- Mr. Raskin. All right, I have only got 20 seconds, I want to ask you one other question before I go and subscribe to OutKick. The NFL has said they have received no outreach from the DOJ about an investigation that was supposedly opened months ago into the NFL, does that suggest that DOJ is actually doing their job for consumers, or is all of this just sort of performance art, and posturing for Mr. Murdoch? Mr. Travis. I am not an expert in DOJ investigations; I do have a law degree. I would hope personally that the Department of Justice is actually looking into this on the basis of the 1961 law, and on the foundational idea across the political spectrum of sports fans should get good value, and not a degraded experience that they are currently receiving across so many different sports. Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much. I yield back, Mr. Chair. Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize the gentlewoman from Wyoming for five minutes. Ms. Hageman. Thank you. Since my time in Congress, I have long advocated for the use of sunsets in much of the work that we undertake here, ensuring that issues can be revisited as circumstances change. The Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 is a perfect example of this, given that its enactment came at a time when satellite streaming and modern cable television services did not exist. Had a sunset clause been in place, Congress would have almost certainly been forced to address the problems that we are hearing about today the moment that viewing options moved beyond free, over the air broadcast television. Mr. Travis, given the pace of change in sports broadcasting, would you agree that whatever reform Congress may seek to undertake with the Sports Broadcasting Act, that it would be wise to include a mechanism allowing us to continually revisit the issue well into the future? Mr. Travis. Yes, that would be incredibly important, because technology is hard to predict. I would point out that there is a discussion surrounding closed captioning television I understand to be true. Back in the 1950s-1960s, you could put pay per view for big boxing matches, and they would sometimes do it. The 1961 act specifically says that would not be allowed here. In other words, we are moving toward a world I think where one day the Super Bowl might be put on Netflix, or Amazon, or some streaming device that requires everybody to have a subscription to be able to watch something that unites us all, I actually agree with Commissioner Gomez on this. Sports is one of the last places where everybody can come together in common experience, things I always say somebody makes a winning shot, you don't think about the politics, or the ethnicity, or the religion of anybody else around you. Chair Nadler was talking about the Knicks in that way-- Ms. Hageman. Mr. LeGeyt, do you agree that there should be a sunset on whatever bill we adopt? Mr. Nadler. May their name be blessed. Mr. LeGeyt. Go Celtics. This is certainly a rapidly changing marketplace, and I do think that that would be wise. I think as important is to reaffirm these guardrails, that the piece of this ecosystem that is not changing, which is that broadcast remains freely available to all is the medium that this act was intended to govern the negotiations with. Ms. Hageman. Well, if we do move forward with a sunset clause, what market factors would need to be considered when determining the appropriate length, among other details? What are some of the market factors we need to consider in terms of identifying what the sunset clause should be, five years, seven years, ten years, and three years? Mr. LeGeyt. Well, I do think the lengths of these media deals by and large, which tend to be in the five-to-ten-year range, are a factor here. I would also say that the nature of the professional sports leagues, the scope of leagues to which it should apply, for a league like the NFL, which is well established, and certainly the principle of wanting to ensure that small market teams in Pittsburgh and Green Bay have an equitable chance to succeed, reinvest in their product, benefit from the unique reach of broadcasting. They are at a different stage in their business than a more nascent sports league. Ms. Hageman. OK. Wyoming is one of just over 20 States that lacks a professional sports team with respect to the major North American sports leagues. As a result, our professional sports fan base can be highly fragmented. Additionally, with Wyoming being one of America's most rural States, access to reliable broadband and other forms of connectivity is already a challenge for many of my constituents. Taking football as an example, the most popular NFL teams in Wyoming are the Denver Broncos, and the Buffalo Bills, given the popularity of Josh Allen, and his time as a star quarterback for the University of Wyoming. Mr. Travis, suppose a Buffalo Bill fan lives in Wyoming, well outside the team's home market, how would that fan access every Bills game during the season at home? Mr. Travis. The Bills fan in Wyoming, who loves Josh Allen, who I happen to think is the best quarterback in the NFL right now-- Ms. Hageman. Ever, yes. Mr. Travis. In Wyoming they may say the best ever. You would have to be an NFL Sunday Ticket subscriber. Now, some Bills games, and this gets complicated, some Bills games would be carried nationally, because they are a very popular team. If you had a constituent come to me, and say Mr. Travis, how do I guarantee that I watch every Bills game, you would have to be an NFL Sunday Ticket subscriber. You would not be able to only buy Buffalo Bills games, which is what your constituent is asking for. They would have to buy the totality of the NFL Sunday Ticket package to ensure that they were able to watch every Josh Allen game. Ms. Hageman. Well, Mr. Hallers, I will turn to you really quickly. Using the same scenario that I gave Mr. Travis, what additional hurdles would a bar or restaurant in rural Wyoming need to jump through to continually display Bills games throughout the season, particularly in instances where connectivity already poses a challenge? Mr. Hallers. Yes, and I just want to add, even if you buy the Sunday Ticket, you don't get guaranteed to all the games, you may have to buy the other-- Mr. Travis. Netflix and Amazon as well, so you are talking about having to buy everything. Mr. Hallers. Even though you go buy the NFL's premier product, it doesn't get you all the games, that has always been one of our gripes. It is like when we are subscribing, why not give us all the games, instead of making us go negotiate, or buy all these services? In rural Wyoming, this is exactly what I am talking about. You can't get high speed streaming, so if I was a real sports bar, which I am sure there are some in Wyoming, right now today they use satellite, which streams to everyone equally, so they are not impeded, and it has worked fine for decades. Today they are asked to do that, so now can you imagine in a smaller market somebody going I need to stream eight games, and plus show my over the air games, are they going to go buy a gigabyte internet connection? Ms. Hageman. Well, I appreciate that, thank you. I yield back. Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentlewoman yields back. We now recognize the gentlewoman from Vermont for five minutes. Ms. Balint. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all the witnesses for your time, and from where I sit, every day is a great day to talk about antitrust enforcement. Because what is at the heart of all this is we have got fewer choices, we have got higher costs, we have got services that used to be free, and now they all come with a fee. That is the modern American experience right now, and you are right. It cuts across all political persuasions, people are angry, we all feel it, our paychecks are not stretching as far, prices are creeping up, quality of the products that we are getting is getting worse. It affects everyone except the very few at the top who benefit from this. Whether you are tuning in to your favorite NFL team, when you are trying to go to the doctor, when you are trying to get online, on and on, when you are going to the grocery store, you are having a worse experience because of this exploitation of the American fan, and the American worker because of, from where I sit, corporate greed. We got to this place because of uncontrolled media consolidation. When our government does not enforce its own laws around antitrust, and we in Congress allow them to gather dust, and every once in a while we have a hearing on a salient issue for many Americans, but we should be doing this every day, then competition exists in name only, and consumers and fans get ripped off. I am going to turn to you first, Commissioner Gomez. I appreciate how outspoken you have been about the wave of media consolidations that we have seen, including the Paramount- Warner Bros. merger, can you please explain how media consolidation affects fans and their abilities to watch their favorite team? I know we have been over this, but it is important that we continue to shine a light on this. Ms. Gomez. Yes. Media consolidation as a whole impacts local communities. It impacts local communities because they actually get less community content, and that includes sports content. In the case of national sports content, what media consolidation leads to is market power, and a lack of competition that then ends up impacting consumers. Because the corporations are more worried about obviously their bottom lines, paying down debt, than they are about the viewers themselves. Ms. Balint. You talked about this earlier too, right? It is driving up costs, and I know fans feel like they are stuck, they are absolutely stuck, they have no choice but to pay the fees on all these different streaming services. Now, I want to take a moment to drill down on the EverPass situation for a moment. Because this doesn't just affect everyday costs for Americans, it hurts small businesses, which you spoke to earlier, Mr. Hallers, I was really interested in what you had to say. For three decades DIRECTV sold commercial Sunday Ticket to bars and restaurants, now that is ending. Starting next season, the only authorized way for a business like Mr. Hallers' business to show NFL Sunday Ticket is through EverPass media. EverPass is a joint venture between the NFL and a private equity firm. What does it mean for you now that the NFL holds financial stake in the only company authorized to sell you its out-of-market games? This is like the epitome of monopoly right here. Mr. Hallers. Right, yes. Clearly, we see more and more price increases coming our way, that is just what we feel. It is crazy that they can't offer this out or have competition. Why wouldn't you actually allow it to come out on multiple services to ensure everyone can see the game? That is the crazy part. In other words, it doesn't--what reason would there be not to let them still send it to DIRECTV for everybody with the legacy systems? Sure, by the way, they could come along and give a better deal, hey, switch to streaming and we will give you a better deal. That is, 15 percent off the first year is not exactly the promise of a better deal forever. Ms. Balint. Yes, and look, if you have ever worked in restaurants as I have multiple times in my life, your margins are very slim. Mr. Hallers. Yes, for most, and that is why I literally am out talking to different bar owners who are like we can't switch, they don't have the money to switch from DIRECTV. They are all praying that DIRECTV somehow still gets the deal. Ms. Balint. Yes, well I appreciate you being here. The last point I just want to make is, because I did attend President Trump's second inauguration, and saw all the folks who were sitting behind him at the inauguration, including Jeff Bezos, and just want to remind everybody that the CEO of Amazon gave tens of millions of dollars for the Melania documentary, on top of spending $35 million to market this, from my perspective, fluff piece on the First Lady. This is what it is all about, it is always about payback, it is a quid pro quo, and I just feel like these are issues that we can work together across party on, and I hope that we will do that. Thank you, and I yield back. Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentlewoman yields back. We now recognize the gentleman from Texas for five minutes. Mr. Gooden. Thank you. Mr. LeGeyt, as of today a Dallas Cowboys fan in Dallas, where I am from, the Dallas area, can watch all their games for free, is that accurate, one, and is that the same for local teams in other local areas? Mr. LeGeyt. Thank you for the question. That is not accurate. It may be, and let us peel this back for a moment. If we are talking about a Cowboy fan who lives in Dallas, that fan is going to have access to the vast majority of games free over the air. Then, for the Cowboy games that are on Thursday night on Amazon, or on another streaming service, that game will be aired locally on broadcast to that fan in Dallas itself. For the other Cowboy fans across Texas, outside of that singular DMA, they are going to have to pay for the subscription streaming service, there will be no over the air option. Then, certainly out of market, while certainly the Cowboys are popular enough that they have games with a national distribution, a number of their games will not be available nationally. That out-of-market fan is going to need to pay for the Sunday Ticket, probably in addition to a number of other streaming services as Mr. Travis just referred to, Amazon, Netflix, to access those games, so the cost still adds up. Mr. Gooden. As something, I am not Mr. NFL here, but it just seems as if the point has not been made very well, because I have watched everyone speak, I realize I just walked in, but I have watched everyone, and the point has not been greatly made that you can watch your local team in your local market. The phrase I have heard a lot of folks say is my favorite team. If you live in the Houston area, you can watch the Houston Texans, you maybe can't watch the Dallas Cowboys every single game. If you live in the Dallas area you can watch the Dallas Cowboys, and you maybe can't watch the Green Bay Packers without having to jump through some of these hoops that you talk about. Whether or not we think that is right or wrong, I just want to make the point that I have not really heard anyone else make the point today. That is pretty significant that you can watch your local team in your local area. Mr. LeGeyt. Yes, let me say we are exceedingly proud as local broadcasters who are the ones carrying that game in local markets across the country, we are exceedingly proud of that partnership with the NFL, it has helped grow the NFL's fan base, it has helped grow our viewership, we reinvest that in local journalism. That is an important partnership. Beyond that very singular local market relationship, the balance has eroded. Mr. Gooden. Let me ask you this, Mr. Travis, one of the arguments was the smaller teams were not going to benefit as much, or they were struggling. A Green Bay Packers team is not in a TV market that the Dallas Cowboys are in, and this helps them to be able to revenue share. If we change it, or we eliminate it rather, then someone like maybe the Jacksonville Jaguars are not going to do as well. Are they all going to crash and burn? Probably not, but what is your take on if we take away that ability for them to revenue share, and lift all boats? Mr. Travis. It is an excellent question, and the easy answer is no one knows for sure. What I would point to is I am a diehard football fan, like I said, I watch games all day on Saturday and Sunday, way too many, ask my wife. On Saturday when I sit down, I can watch ten college football games on broadcast television for free. On Sunday I can watch four. I tend to think that the NFL would be smart enough to continue to maximize its audience and also maximize its revenue. I don't think we know, and frankly, I am not sure how many people are saying even in your world, Democrats or Republicans, that the Sports Broadcasting Act exemption should be removed. I think there are a lot of people who say it needs to be applied fairly in the modern era. I am not hearing very many people say it would be repealed. What your hypothetical is, and it is interesting, and a good one, is what if we repealed this, what would the marketplace look like? More significantly, how might it impact competition going forward? The easy answer is no one knows. If you use college football a bit as an approximator, they do not have an antitrust exemption, and you get more games for lower cost in college than you do the NFL. Mr. Gooden. I am with you, but I can't watch my Texas Longhorns every Saturday for free, I sometimes have to go to trouble. If you also make that as a percentage, you said ten free games, let us say that is the number. How many college games are going on a Saturday, compared to how many NFL games on a Sunday? The answer is a whole lot more. Mr. Travis. Yes, a lot more. I would say your Texas Longhorns, who by the way are really good-- Mr. Gooden. Bad example to use perhaps. Mr. Travis. They are on ABC a lot for free. Now, it is true that ESPN, if you get into the weeds, ESPN has the exclusive rights to the SEC, you have the SEC Network, ESPN, ESPN2, ABC, but an awful lot, I would argue almost all the big Longhorn games this coming year, I haven't seen the full schedule, but I think you all will be on ABC a lot. Mr. Gooden. You are right, but if I told you my team was a smaller school that was playing every Saturday, they are not always on TV. Those NFL teams, they always are, some of the smaller town areas that I don't know what happens if they can't share the revenue. Mr. Travis. It is a great question; I have faith in the NFL's ability to make money no matter what the rules are. Mr. Gooden. Let us keep talking about it, I have enjoyed having you all, thank you. Mr. Travis. Thank you, I appreciate it. Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentleman yields back. I guess I would just make the point before I call on the gentleman from California, that all the professional leagues handle revenue sharing differently. Very clearly Major League Baseball does. I will recognize the gentleman from California for five minutes. Mr. Correa. Thank you, Mr. Chair, I want to thank our witnesses here today, good information. I am a person back home; I prefer going to the Friday night high school football games, standing on the sidelines, it doesn't get any better than that, hot dog and a drink, it is a great time. Not all my constituents prefer high school. To think of a thousand dollars some people pay, what happened? In 1961 antitrust, fans first. What do I tell folks back home that may be watching this today? They sent us up here to fix things, and I think that is what people are frustrated with back home is you guys talk a lot, like my daughter says, you guys talk a lot. After today's hearing, is this going to fix anything? After today's hearing do we have to pass legislation to fix things? After today's hearing do we have to get the executive to do something? I am asking you, I am going to ask each and every one of you that question, or questions, and if you can be concise with your answer, I would appreciate it. Ms. Gomez, go ahead. Ms. Gomez. Thank you for asking that question. My advice to this Committee is to look at where there are a nexus of market power and a lack of competition that leads to consumer harms. Mr. Correa. The answer would be legislative, administrative, what? Ms. Gomez. Well, it is definitely not the FCC that can do something about this. Mr. Correa. It would be us here? Ms. Gomez. Yes. Mr. Correa. Mr. Travis? Mr. Travis. My contention would be you helped to create this situation at play by passing that law in 1961. It is incumbent on you as Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, in my opinion, speaking on behalf a lot of fans out there who don't feel like the marketplace is serving them well, they are paying more and getting less, for you to fix the 1961 act in the context of the modern era, which is very different than what-- Mr. Correa. Do you know how many times I have had to struggle to find the Chargers game for my wife? Mr. Travis. You are preaching to the choir. Mr. Correa. I lose most of those efforts, which are not good for me. Mr. LeGeyt? Mr. LeGeyt. It is an all the above approach. I think first-- Mr. Correa. Give me a priority here, not just all the above. Mr. LeGeyt. The Committee needs to reaffirm the scope of this act, which, as Mr. Travis just said, was enacted by Congress. We are not here to scrutinize the NFL's business practices, we are here to affirm that if they want to take advantage of an antitrust exemption granted to them by this body, that there are certain public interest obligations that went along with that, and there is a clearly defined scope. Mr. Correa. To live up to the spirit of the law. Mr. LeGeyt. That is exactly right. I believe that this Committee is uniquely positioned to deliver that message, and I believe that the law needs to be properly enforced. Mr. Correa. Mr. Hallers? Mr. Hallers. I would just like to say that on Saturdays with college football, we actually pay for and are able to show like 40 games, and it costs me pennies, the charge doesn't even equate to anything that is a problem, and we now have more college fans than ever, and we see bigger crowds sometimes on Saturdays than Sundays. You wonder why that is when they have just made access so easy. I would like the NFL to just go back to being fan first, rather than NFL first. Mr. Correa. Next to high school I love college ball, and I do hope that we continue to have access to those games in a reasonable, cost-effective method. Last minute I have got here, Mr. LeGeyt, I want to ask you just a quick question. There is a proposal to pull more regional games off broadcast, putting them on cable TV, would this proposal benefit local TV fans or not, do you know? Mr. LeGeyt. I am not familiar with the specific proposal, but I can tell you the migration that we have seen in recent years has been in the opposite direction, which is that teams that for a decade plus had reached their local fans through cable regional sports networks have migrated back to local broadcast television. Those teams across the NHL, the NBA, and the MLB have seen their ratings surge. It once again reaffirms the unique reach of broadcast. I can provide you and this Committee followup on the specifics of those deals; they number now in the dozens across the major sports. Mr. Correa. Does that raise the price, or lower the price of the local? Mr. LeGeyt. This is a home run for consumers, because that game is available free over the air to every one of those consumers without cost. Mr. Correa. I want to thank our witnesses today. If you get me that information, I would really appreciate it. Mr. Chair, Ranking Member, I hope we can continue to pursue this one, because we have good information today, but we have still got to fix these problems. Thank you, and I yield. Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentleman yields. The gentleman from Virginia is now recognized for five minutes. Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. LeGeyt, you have pointed out that NFL games on free broadcasts draw far larger audiences than the pay-walled streams. Thanksgiving games average $45, $57 million versus about $27 million for the Netflix Christmas game, and $21 million for Amazon's Black Friday game. If broadcast reaches twice the audience, what does it tell you that the league keeps moving marquee games behind pay walls? Mr. LeGeyt. To some degree you can take for granted what you already have. The partnership between all the major sports leagues, for particularly the NFL and broadcast has been a testament, first and foremost to the NFL's product, but also to the reach of broadcast, which has built their fan base, and has increased our viewership, and allowed us to reinvest in journalism. That is the magic of this partnership, and as the NFL is now looking ahead to maybe a more global marketplace, they are clearly diversifying the options that they are going to use to reach other consumers. I would just affirm for this Committee that they are making that business determination. This antitrust exemption which was granted to them enables them to pool rights in a way that would clearly be a violation of our antitrust laws, but for Congress' action, was intended only to govern those negotiations with broadcasters. The benefit to fans was that free access, and the balance is off if suddenly that act is going to be misused to enable negotiations with Amazon, Netflix, or YouTube. Mr. Cline. Our reporting suggests that the NFL seeks upward of an additional billion dollars a year from its network partners. In your view is the fragmentation that fans experience a byproduct of serving fans, or a byproduct of maximizing rights fees? Mr. LeGeyt. Well listen, by expanding the pool of media entities negotiating for these rights, the sports leagues are creating a broadened marketplace, and we know that these global streamers who have a number of other businesses as well don't have the same financial constraints when it comes to bidding for sports rights, so that is driving up the price for everyone. One point I would make with regard to that reported billion dollars increase that the NFL is requesting in their rights, that is just with regard to their negotiations with Paramount. That is not their negotiations with the other broadcast networks. They have said explicitly that they are looking for a 50 percent or more increase in their rights deals given the increase that the NBA got during its round of negotiations. That number is much higher than a billion dollars. Mr. Cline. Thank you. Mr. Travis, EverPass, the new exclusive commercial distributor that bars and restaurants now must pay is partly owned by the NFL's own investment arm, alongside RedBird, and the owner of WWE, and UFC. The league sold the rights to a venture it has stake in and then made that venture the only option. As someone who covers the sports business, how should fans read that? Mr. Travis. What I would say about the NFL Sunday Ticket is in my opinion the NFL should offer single team options, in addition to the entire NFL Sunday Ticket. In general, if an entity is not serving the marketplace what the marketplace is demanding, that would raise questions about why they are doing that. From a business perspective the answer is because they can charge $480-some-odd for the NFL Sunday Ticket if they include all those games. If they only sold individual games, what it appears the vast majority of fans would prefer, they might only be able to charge $80 or $100. They are making hundreds of millions of dollars on a product that the average NFL fan, if given the option to choose between, would likely not pick. Mr. Cline. A Federal jury in 2024 found that the NFL had conspired to inflate Sunday Ticket prices, a verdict later set aside now on appeal. Set the legal status aside, does the behavior that trial surfaced match what you are seeing in how the league prices and distributes its games today? Mr. Travis. Well, look, the fact that a jury and a court have been examining this issue, again, kind of speaks to your ability, and your opportunity on behalf of constituents across the political spectrum to try to make their favorite sport more affordable, and ensure that they are not getting gouged in the process. That feels like a very legitimate perspective, given that you guys have already interjected yourself into this with the 1961 act. It feels incumbent on Congress to address this. Mr. Cline. I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Chair, I yield back. Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Johnson, for five minutes. Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I imagine that there are some die hard NFL fans out there who when they found out that there was going to be a hearing about the NFL on C-SPAN, they locked in to C-SPAN, not because they wanted to see and hear what we are talking about, but because it said NFL, and they are just hoping that the games are going to start, the preseason, just ready for it already, and it is coming soon folks. The NFL is the undisputed champion of American spectator sports. Very popular, the model works, the American people love NFL football, that is the bottom line. They got this antitrust exemption in 1961 that allowed for collective bargaining between the NFL and not streaming services, or cable, or satellite operators, but broadcasters. Broadcasters by the way, they serve every community in this country with trusted journalism for the most part, emergency information, local sports, weather, and public affairs programming, we don't want to see our broadcasters go away. They were the only game in town in terms of delivering NFL content back in 1961. They have this exemption to collectively bargain, which has led to a competitive balance across the league, teams are competitively balanced, that is one of the secrets that has led to the NFL's success, is because any team can win on any given Sunday. Mr. Gooden made a great point about people being able on broadcast TV, free TV, to watch their local NFL team, not necessarily their favorite team. I hear Mr. Travis wanting there to be more choice offered by the NFL for viewers who are interested in teams other than their local team. They want to be able to access those teams without getting soaked financially. I will note at this point that when you try to go to a game, Mr. Travis, if you take your three sons to an NFL game, the average ticket price is $310, $310-$350 in the nosebleed section. The cheapest ticket, $156, if you wanted to take your boys out to see an NFL game, that is going to cost you $600 and some odd dollars, which most families are not able to afford. We can't soak the people who enjoy football when they are watching it on platforms other than broadcast either. I also understand that the NFL has been expanding the antitrust exemption by collectively bargaining with platforms other than broadcast. Is that correct, Mr. LeGeyt? Mr. LeGeyt. That is correct. Mr. Johnson. Mr. Travis, you believe, and by the way, I can't see that far over there, Mr. Hallers, you are offering it to fans who like to flock to your restaurant and bars, and enjoy the game among friends, certainly nothing wrong with that, we should be able to do that, shouldn't be confined to the house to watch our football. I guess nobody is here advocating that the NFL should be offering each and every game for free across all platforms, correct? Got to pay, so the question is how much, and how? We do have artificial intelligence available for those fans who want to access ChatGPT or some other artificial intelligence vehicle and ask how can I watch my favorite team on this particular Sunday at the cheapest price. Then, you have to have all these different sticks to plug in, and that is costing you more than a football game per month if you want to get all of the sticks. How do we make the game available to as many people as possible for as cheaply as possible? Sometimes if it ain't broke, don't fix it, and let the technology, let the free-market system work its will. That I guess some of my folks on the other side of the aisle would appreciate that particular perspective. I am not arguing about it, but I don't know what we should do. I do know I am looking forward to watching NFL football coming up. Thank you. Mr. Issa. Mr. Chair, I would like to claim the 45 extra seconds that we-- Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize the Ranking Member for some UC requests. Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chair, thank you. First, ``Mergers, FCC Pressure Threaten Integrity of American Journalism,'' from the Seattle Times. Second, ``Rupert Murdoch's High Stakes Blitz against the NFL,'' The Wall Street Journal. Finally, ``Paramount's WBD Takeover Explained, how the U.S. $111 billion Dollar Deal could Reshape Sports Media.'' from Sports Pro. Mr. Fitzgerald. Without objection. For the record, I have never met or spoken to Rupert Murdoch. I now recognize the gentleman from California for five minutes. Mr. Issa. I can say that I once introduced him to his twin separated at birth, the other Murdoch, David Murdoch. They had never met each other, they both are small, with British sounding accents, and I was shocked to find out they didn't know each other. That is the last time I saw him, but I do want to equalize the story. I want to note for the record, Mr. Chair, that it is about $10 if you would like to see the Republicans and Democrats fight at a baseball game at the stadium here tonight. For the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee who left, hopefully he will invite you all, it is ten bucks, he can afford it. I want to shift a little bit to the antitrust question followed by the current dilemma we face. Commissioner Gomez, if we had not granted in 1961 an antitrust exemption, would the NFL otherwise be free to essentially withhold anything, all broadcast, pick and choose, do whatever they want without any congressional oversight? Another way of putting it, except for that authority, what comes with that grant, we really don't have any leverage over the private entities that make up the NFL. They could choose, for example, not to broadcast at all, and have everything be private. Ms. Gomez. Yes, that is actually true under the First Amendment, you can't force people. Mr. Issa. OK, so we are dealing with, all of us on this side of the dais, with an authority we get by giving something. We are giving antitrust, antitrust exemption has allowed the NFL, as other professional sports, to essentially conspire to maximize their revenue, is that, in a nice way, conspiring might be the least nice way, but to come together to maximize their revenue without fear of the trust laws adversely affecting them? Ms. Gomez. My understanding of the original intent of the SBA was to protect small market teams and fans in the negotiations for being able to actually access those games. Mr. Issa. Sure, they try to equalize it so that Green Bay, with its vast amount of loyal people can in fact do at least as good a job as San Diego did when they failed to protect the Chargers, and allowed them to leave for L.A. That small, large is kind of interesting when you have real fans in Cleveland, in Green Bay, and apparently not enough in San Diego. Getting past my personal challenges on all that as a San Diegan, let me move the question back over toward the other three. Broadcast for example, Mr. LeGeyt, is what created, to a great extent, a massive--including radio in the old days more than today, created each of these sports, baseball, football, and so on, the ability to be captured even when they couldn't go to the game, whether they could afford it or not. Many of them had to work, it was late at night, they had kids, whatever the reason is. Isn't broadcast in fact what created the widespread, almost universal love of these games? Mr. LeGeyt. This has been an incredible partnership and success. You have got the reach of broadcast freely available to all, in some cases nationally, always locally, delivering a product, and helping to build fan bases. That is what we have seen here, and it has been remarked on throughout this hearing, but in this very polarized environment, sports brings communities together. It is a tremendous success story, this antitrust exemption helped to enable it by giving the leagues the ability to pool rights. There were procompetitive reasons for it, but there is a public access bargain implied in it, which is making that distribution available to all. Mr. Issa. I want to make a point that hopefully will benefit all of us as we go forward. An old story, but not that old, there was a company called Circuit City in Richmond, Virginia. It dominated consumer electronics sales, another one in Minnesota called Best Buy, and a number of others. Some years ago, Circuit City, the leader in that industry, also sold white goods like many of them did, refrigerators, washers, and dryers. The CEO made the decision that they were simply going to get rid of the low margin part of it and concentrate on where they made the high margin. Circuit City was gone in a few years. Their bankruptcy in no small part was attributed to the lack of traffic they had in their stores, that traffic dropped off because without white goods, which were low profit, but brought in mom, dad, and the kids to look at the other products that ultimately sold. That is the story that I am concerned about today from a standpoint of the FCC's obligation, they know it is clear. What I am concerned about, and I am making the point here today rather than a lot of questions is if NFL doesn't see that maintaining that broad appeal through markets that are not highly profitable, they may find that the product profitability drops off as the fans drop off in no small part because of each of your locations not being at the center of the ability to see the product. Mr. Chair, I appreciate you giving me that 45 seconds to opine on that. Go chargers. I yield back. Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentleman yields back. We now recognize the gentleman from Washington State. Mr. Baumgartner. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair, and I want to thank our panelists for this very important discussion. I am pretty sure that this body needs to take a strong look at the 1961 Sports Broadcasting Act and update it. At a time that streaming wasn't even conceived of, that if the underlying piece of legislation is going to be appropriately applied, that we need to rethink through this. I would also say it is to the detriment of this conversation and to the NFL that Commissioner Roger Goodell was not here. I am sure at some point he is either watching, or listening, or this message will get to him. Commissioner Goodell, you would be well served if this thing is going to turn out in the direction you would like, to come before this Committee, and participate. My colleague from Wyoming commented on how Josh Allen made most people in Wyoming Buffalo Bills fans. We in Eastern Washington had a similar phenomenon with Gardner Minshew. We are certainly all Seahawks fans, but when Gardner was playing with Jacksonville, and then with the Indianapolis Colts, we would go through the regular process of trying to find those games. Does that mean that we are entitled to watch all those games for free? I am not sure, but it matters to my voters. Mr. Travis, I really appreciate you being here, I have long been a fan, both my wife and I liked reading Anonymous Mailbag. I appreciate your evolution of political philosophy, and I really admire you, just as an American entrepreneur. I also know that you are a big sports fan, you have boys, I have boys, and so a lot of what you say appeals to me. Now, you are a big SEC guy, I get it, you are from the South, I am from the West coast, but we do play football out there a little bit as well too. It looks like you want to make a comment, and then I will go on. Mr. Travis. Yes, I mean SEC football is the best in the country, but I appreciate other parts of the country that also play college football. Mr. Baumgartner. Thank you. Let me say that I was really good friends with Mike Leech, was one of my best friends, we taught a class together called insurgent warfare football strategy, traveled around the world together, and as he got to know you, he would tell me about his interactions with you. I want to talk a little bit about pro and college football in my time here. Wouldn't you agree that one of the things that makes pro- football special, and compelling, is the competitive parity? Mr. Travis. Yes. Mr. Baumgartner. If the NFC East had a higher salary cap than the AFC West, that would be a product that would be less fun to watch, is that correct? Mr. Travis. One hundred percent. Mr. Baumgartner. If the NFC East got significantly higher TV revenue distribution, that would make that product less fun to watch? Mr. Travis. The NFL's ability to share revenue and create-- the NFL is unique. The way that I would sum up is the NFL is the business is the competition. If the games are not fun, nobody watches. If they are not competitive, no one watches, so that is the essence of the sport itself. Mr. Baumgartner. As we turn to the college example, and behind me you see some graphics of how much more the NFL and the pro sports are squeezing out of TV dollars per viewer than college sports are, and we deal with this college sports issue, and I really appreciate you talking about the Buffalo Bills example, it is a publicly funded entity that should be publicly regulated. I am very, very free market, I sponsored right to work legislation when I was in our State Senate. When it comes to college sports, my view is that these are highly subsidized public goods, and they should be regulated as such. With all due respect to the SEC, and the Big 10, and the large market schools, what makes that system special is the entire country. What my school went through, Washington State University, was to get its guts ripped out through conference realignment, and not for competitive reasons. We beat Wisconsin the last two times that we played, we had beat Oregon four times in a row, we competed at the highest levels of college sports. Then, through no fault of our own, had that ripped away, had our guts ripped out. The solution for keeping what is special about all sports is to adopt some of these TV revenue aspects in the name of competitive parity at the college sports level. Just in the remaining time, Mr. Travis, I know you are an SEC guy, I know you have a big-time network. I know the incentives that drive you toward creating the second NFL model, but what would you say about legislation for my voters, my fans of Washington State University, the small schools, what is your message to us? Mr. Travis. That is a great question, we could probably spend hours on this. First, I should say, since I am under oath, Mike Leech belongs to the College Football Hall of Fame. I absolutely love Mike Leech, and the run that he had at Washington State is emblematic of why so many people love college football. College football needs to be fixed, it is broken, and there are a lot of discussions about how to fix it. That it is being under-utilized dollars wise, I think the value of college football is second only to the NFL. Figuring out how to allocate more resources to college football that also can then support Olympic sports, because remember, most of the money for college athletics comes in through college football, a little bit from men's basketball. We have to make more money and reallocate it better to create a better quality of competition in college athletics, college football in particular. I agree with you, it is awful that Washington State was left behind, that Oregon State was left behind, and that the Pac-12 was ultimately destroyed in that process. We need to create a system that allows everyone to be more successful, more money, SEC, Big 10, Big 12, and ACC. Also, provide a pathway to high-level competition outside of those four major conference schools. Yes, and thank you for being a fan by the way. Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentleman yields back. I should ask to have his words taken down, his attack on University of Wisconsin was unwarranted. I now recognize-- Mr. Baumgartner. Accurate. Mr. Fitzgerald. I now recognize the Chair of the Full Committee, a former Wisconsin Badger sitting to your right, for five minutes. Chair Jordan. I was joking, I majored in wrestling, but you are supposed to get a degree, so I got one there. Let me go right back to where the good gentleman from Washington was, Mr. Travis. Should there be an SBA for college sports? Mr. Travis. Man, it is a super fascinating question. My general perspective on it would be I don't know that it needs to be classified as an SBA. There needs to be an antitrust exemption that is created for college sports, because right now there are no rules. I don't know how many of you paid attention to what just happened in Lubbock, Texas, with a star quarterback who suddenly, even though he was gambling on sports, is now eligible according to a Federal District Court judge. We can't have college sports run by different individual Federal District Courts all over the country, we have to have a uniform set of rules that everyone understands and follows. Chair Jordan. Of course. We had someone asking why is Congress getting involved in college sports, you guys just screw everything up. I get that general point, but it is because we have an antitrust law, and you have got to have some kind of relief from antitrust law if the governing body can have the ability to make rules. Mr. Travis. To kind of simplify it, every rule that is put in place by any governing body is immediately challenged under antitrust law. Without the antitrust exemption, every athlete can sue and argue that they are being unfairly discriminated against under antitrust law. Chair Jordan. That is why we have got to pass either the SCORE Act, or the one that is introduced by the Senators, Protect College Sports Act, we have got to get something; to use the sports analogy, some ball in play-- Mr. Travis. I agree. Chair Jordan. That we can address at least that fundamental question on the college side. OK, on the professional side it seems to me there are two fundamental questions: (1) Is consumer welfare standard, is that standard being met in the current environment? (2) Is the statute, the 1961 statute being followed? We are the Judiciary Committee, the standard in the courts is consumer welfare, and there is a statute, is the statute being followed? Let us go with the first question if we can. Do cartels consolidate power? I don't know who wants to do the economics analysis here? Mr. LeGeyt, we will go with you, the broadcaster. Mr. LeGeyt. The blanket question of do cartels-- Chair Jordan. Yes, the blanket question, do cartels consolidate power? Mr. LeGeyt. They do. Chair Jordan. Yes, do they undermine competition? Mr. LeGeyt. They do. Chair Jordan. Do they decrease output? Mr. LeGeyt. They do. Chair Jordan. When all that happens, what happens to price? Mr. LeGeyt. Prices go up. Chair Jordan. Prices go up. That is the concern we have for consumers. That is just fundamental economics. Mr. LeGeyt. I am glad I was an economics major by the way. Chair Jordan. You were an economics major too? See, I got lucky there. Mr. LeGeyt. I was. Chair Jordan. The way we give people choices that they want, and that is at the best price, is the marketplace, and so that is what we are trying to deal with. Now, how about the statute? Mr. Travis talked about this, sir, is the 1961 statute being followed? Mr. Travis. In my opinion, no. Chair Jordan. The title tells you. Mr. Travis. Yes. Chair Jordan. The Sports Broadcasting Act, not the sports streaming, not the sports satellite, the Sports Broadcasting Act. There is a concern there, and when you read the statute it talks about telecast, which obviously at the time, because that is all they basically had was broadcast, telecast, it is there. Maybe more importantly, did a jury find the NFL in violation of these two things, the statute, and the consumer welfare standard according to the Sherman Antitrust Act? Mr. Travis. They did. Chair Jordan. They did, and what was the verdict, do you remember? Mr. Travis. It was a lot of money. Chair Jordan. It is tripled, I think it was like $14 billion. Now, the judge said time out, they didn't necessarily agree with what the expert witnesses said, ``so we are going to reevaluate this.'' That is the situation we are in. We have got the college sports issue where some people are saying we need to do something with the Sports Broadcasting Act, maybe we do. We have got the NFL, where consumers are talking to us, and we are just trying to wrestle with what is the best thing to do. I have got 1:13 minutes. What is the best thing to do, Mr. Hallers? Mr. Hallers. Well, they just, for the fan's sake-- Chair Jordan. Lower the price for bar owners, right? Whatever that is. Mr. Hallers. Look, I am not here complaining about what they charge us for the programming, and you guys know, we haven't talked about that. For a small bar, they charge for the Sunday Ticket, $6,000 a year. For a larger bar, $14,000 a year just for that Sunday Ticket, for an occupancy of 195 bar. Chair Jordan. Travis is probably the only fan that would ever pay that. Mr. Hallers. It is even more for the bigger bars. We are not here, we are saying charge us, just don't take away our choices. Just let us get it everywhere fairly, and that is what the fans want too. They just want access to the program in a fair way, and for the fans of course, they are like don't overcharge. Chair Jordan. Commissioner, I want to include everyone, I am being bipartisan today, I will let the Democrat witness go ahead. Ms. Gomez. Thank you. It is very important that we look at where there is market power, and where there is no competition that is harming consumers. We have seen this in the consolidation of major media companies, where we have seen local communities get harmed because they lose content, they lose the local journalism, they lose diversity of viewpoints. This really matters to the local communities that these broadcasters are serving. Chair Jordan. The last word for Mr. LeGeyt, Mr. Travis? Mr. Travis. Look, the NFL is saying 87 percent of their games are available to nationwide consumers. That is not true in any of your markets, they do not, no market in America gets 87 percent of the games for free. My point would be if the NFL is saying we are doing 87 percent of the time, that still means you are violating the law 13 percent of the time almost by your very admission. That is why I think you guys have an obligation, a responsibility, and a duty to figure out how to apply this law going forward in the modern era. Chair Jordan. Well said. Mr. LeGeyt. The plain text of the law as you alluded to, Mr. Chair, is clear that it applies to broadcast only, those pooled negotiations. Frankly, the legislative history is even more clear that the Committee considered a broader application of the law to paid services and narrowed it to broadcast. Very clearly here the league is using the antitrust exemption to negotiate with Amazon, Netflix, Google, that is not what the law contemplated. As you are thinking about college sports, our simple ask would be that this migration of sports away from broadcast behind pay walls is a net harm to consumers, and need to be very, very cautious as to how we don't further that trend as it relates to college sports. Chair Jordan. Mr. Chair, thanks for your good work, I yield back. Mr. Fitzgerald. The Chair yields back. That concludes today's hearing, we thank our witnesses for appearing before the Subcommittee today. Without objection, all Members will have five legislative days to submit additional written questions for the witnesses, and additional materials for the record. Without objection, the hearing is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 12:43 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] All materials submitted for the record by Members of the Subcommittee on the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust can be found at: https://docs.house.gov/ Committee/ Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=119369. [all]