LOS ANGELES – The NFL was exploring a world without “Sunday Ticket” in 2017, where cable channels would air out-of-market games on Sunday afternoons not shown on Fox or CBS.
The league’s memo was shown by the plaintiffs during their closing arguments Wednesday, while the jury in class lawsuit archived by “Sunday Ticket” subscribers began deliberations.
After receiving instructions from U.S. District Judge Philip Gutierrez, the jury heard the plaintiffs’ closing statement in the morning. After lunch, the NFL made its closing comments before the plaintiffs had 20 minutes to rebut.
In a trial that lasted three weeks and featured testimony from NFL commissioner Roger Goodell and Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones, the April 21, 2017 memo – titled “NFL New Frontier” – provided one of the biggest highlights.
The memo was a reimagining of Sunday afternoons, where all games would be broadcast or broadcast on cable. Fox and CBS would have paid 25% less per game (approximately $10 million per game), while the cable networks would have paid $9 million per game, which was the average distributed by DirecTV in its contract with the league.
The numbers referred to rights that expired after the 2022 season. These averages would be higher now with agreements that began last season.
The league memo showed early games on FS1, ESPN, ESPN2, TBS, TNT, NFL Network and CBS Sports Network with late games on FS1, TBS and TNT.
“The NFL knew that 35 million fans were underserved,” said William Carmody, one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, during his closing arguments. “We are holding them accountable. It’s about telling the 32 team owners that even you can’t break antitrust laws and overcharge the fans. It’s not right to compete on the field, but to be complicit in it.”
Some of the out-of-market games, according to the NFL memo, would not be on basic cable. Fans and cable companies would also absorb some of the costs through higher subscription fees.
The lawsuit covers 2.4 million residential subscribers and 48,000 businesses who paid for the out-of-market game package from the 2011 to 2022 seasons on DirecTV. It alleges the league violated antitrust laws by selling its package of Sunday games at an inflated price. Subscribers also say the league restricted competition by offering “Sunday Ticket” only on one satellite provider.
The league says it has the right to sell “Sunday Ticket” under its broadcast antitrust exemption. The plaintiffs claim this only covers over-the-air broadcasts and not pay TV.
Beth Wilkinson, the NFL’s lead attorney, said the league did not dispute that the “Sunday Ticket” is a premium product and that it has always been marketed that way.
She also noted that league and broadcast executives have testified that the current model makes the most sense.
“’Sunday Ticket’ added option. You choose, you know the price, you pay for it,” she said.
Even if the jury of five men and three women finds for the plaintiffs, Gutierrez could still rule in favor of the NFL and say the plaintiffs haven’t proven their case.
DirecTV had “Sunday Ticket” from its inception in 1994 until 2022. The league signed a seven-year deal with Google’s YouTube TV that began with the 2023 season.
If the NFL is found liable, a jury could award $7 billion in damages, but that number could rise to $21 billion because antitrust cases could triple the damages. It would also change how the league would have to distribute its out-of-market broadcasts and could lead to renegotiated contracts with Fox and CBS. Current agreements with the league run through the 2033 season.
CBS and Fox pay a combined average of $4.3 billion per season for Sunday afternoon games, while YouTube TV pays an average of $2 billion per season for “Sunday Ticket” rights.
The lawsuit was originally filed in 2015 by the Mucky Duck sports bar in San Francisco, but was dismissed in 2017. Two years later, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over California and eight other states, reinstated the case . Gutierrez ruled last year that the case could proceed as a class action.
Whatever the decision, the losing side is expected to appeal to the 9th Circuit and possibly the Supreme Court.
___
This story originally appeared on ABCNews.go.com read the full story
