Clay Travis Testifies Before The House On The Sports Broadcasting Act

[0:30] Subcommittee will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare [0:35] a recess at any time. We welcome everyone to today's hearing on Sports Broadcasting Act. [0:42] I will now recognize myself for an opening statement. Today we are here to examine the [0:49] antitrust exemption granted under the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 and whether it continues [0:55] to serve the interests of American consumers. The Sports Broadcasting Act was enacted at a very [1:02] different time in American history. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, professional football [1:09] was still developing into a national enterprise. At the time, each team controlled its own broadcasting [1:16] rights and would negotiate with networks to televise individual games. To promote competition [1:22] and ensure the success of its league, the NFL amended its bylaws to prevent teams from broadcasting in [1:29] each other's territory. However, the Department of Justice viewed that restriction as anti-competitive [1:37] and sued the league for violating the Sherman Act. In 1953, the District Court largely sided with the [1:45] DOJ and issued an injunction preventing the NFL from placing restrictions on televising games in the home [1:52] territory of a team playing an away game. In 1961, the NFL moved to limit the distribution of games again, [2:01] signing the first deal to sell broadcast rights for all 14 of its teams as a single package. When [2:08] the District Court again said no, the NFL turned to Congress for help. And just a few months later, [2:15] Congress passed the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961, which allowed the leagues to pool their individual [2:21] broadcasting rights for sale to a single purchaser. The rationale was simple. Congress believed that [2:28] joint television agreements would help make games more widely available to the public. It also would [2:34] preserve the competitive balance among the different teams and keep the professional sports [2:39] leagues financially viable. In exchange, Congress sought to maximize the public interest by limiting the [2:47] exemption to only, quote, sponsored telecast, telecasting, ensuring fans continue to have free access to [2:54] their favorite sports teams. 65 years later, however, it is fair for this body to ask whether the professional [3:03] sports leagues have kept up their end of the bargain. In my opinion, they have not. And sports fans are [3:11] paying the price because of it. The NFL, for example, boasts that 100% of its, quote, local market games, unquote, [3:21] are available free over the air and that it offers the most fan and broadcaster friendly model in the [3:29] entire sports and entertainment industry. But how it chooses to define local market games each week [3:35] leaves fans across the country guessing whether they'll be able to see their favorite team on TV [3:42] or whether they need to buy a subscription. For example, according to the NFL's distribution schedule for [3:48] week three games last season, fans in southern Indiana would not see the Indianapolis Colts on their local [3:56] market. Same for Houston fans in northeast Texas. Despite living in the same state as their favorite [4:04] football team, fans are subjected to arbitrary restrictions imposed by the NFL that forced them [4:10] into buying a premium subscription model. This is precisely why NFL Sunday ticket is advertised to [4:20] fans as necessary to ensure they could watch every regular season game of their favorite team. The NFL's [4:28] claim of a fan friendly distribution model also defies the reality experienced by millions of NFL fans [4:35] nationwide. NFL fans generally have access to only three or four games on a Sunday afternoon with the [4:43] rest available only through Sunday ticket. Compare that with the current college football model where [4:51] fans can access dozens of games across various television channels on a Saturday afternoon. Since 2021, [4:59] the NFL, along with the other sports leagues, have stretched the bounds of its exemption to sign [5:06] exclusive distribution agreements with streaming platforms, including Amazon Prime, Netflix, Peacock, [5:14] and ESPN. This includes the Packers, the Green Bay Packers games on Thanksgiving evening and Christmas [5:21] day, which will be broadcast exclusively on Netflix outside of the local market. It has also begun shifting [5:30] some programming to Saturdays, which goes against the original intent of the law, which was to preserve [5:38] Friday night high school and Saturday college football. Consumers who wish to follow their favorite teams [5:45] increasingly find themselves paying for multiple services, navigating fragmented viewing arrangements, [5:52] and facing higher overall costs. According to Fox News, to have access to all NFL games in the 2025 season, [6:00] it would cost the average sports fan at least $575 or upwards of $800 for those without existing [6:09] subscriptions, to which all in-market MLB games can likewise cost the consumer upwards of $500 annually, [6:19] according to the news site Kiplinger. A sports fan without a traditional linear TV package [6:26] must now have, on average, four different streaming services to watch the bulk of major sporting events. [6:32] The Sports Broadcasting Act was designed to facilitate the distribution of games through [6:38] free, over-the-air television. It was not intended to provide a perpetual shield for leagues to [6:46] coordinate the sale of meteorites across every new technology and distribution platform that emerges. [6:53] Yet that is effectively what has happened. Today, the major leagues, and particularly the National Football [7:00] League, have used the antitrust exemption to collectively negotiate increasingly lucrative media [7:06] distribution contracts that go far beyond the circumstances Congress contemplated in 1961. [7:15] Following passage of the Sports Broadcasting Act, then-NFL Commissioner Pete Rozelle signed a TV deal [7:21] worth $4.65 million. Nearly 60 years later, the NFL signed an 11-year media deal worth $113 billion. [7:33] The NBA first TV contract after passage of the SBA was for $27 million. In 2024, the league signed an 11-year [7:42] deal worth $76 billion. While the leagues are undoubtedly more popular than they were in 1961, because they do not [7:51] follow America's antitrust laws for television agreements, they can charge consumers inflated prices [7:58] that would otherwise be illegal. The NFL argues that its distribution model is needed to maintain [8:04] competitive balance and keep teams financially viable, and that's fair. I think most sports fans [8:12] appreciate it when teams can compete on the merits rather than through an arms race like what we're seeing [8:18] today with college football. But the NFL and its teams are not in the same financial position as [8:24] they were in 1961. Under the NFL's first media distribution contract, each team received [8:31] approximately $310,000 per year. In 2025, each team received $416 million from the league's national [8:40] media, sponsorship, and licensing revenue. Not to make it personal, but Commissioner Rozelle's salary [8:49] in 1961 was $60,000. Commissioner Goodell's salary today is reportedly over $60 million. And in [8:59] 1999, Dan Schneider purchased the now Washington Commanders for $800 million. Today, despite having [9:05] only one playoff win in the last 25 years, the Commanders are presently valued at over $7 billion. [9:14] The NFL now reaches hundreds of millions of fans across dozens of international markets. The NFL is [9:21] not a fragile enterprise in need of special protection. It is one of the most successful and [9:28] powerful entertainment businesses in the world. And it pays its players and staff accordingly. To [9:34] suggest that teams could not remain competitive without an antitrust exemption is simply false. [9:41] It also falsely suggests that Congress, not the NFL, controls revenue sharing, which is also inaccurate. [9:49] But the question before Congress is not whether professional sports teams will continue to compete [9:55] without this exemption. The question is whether consumers continue to benefit from it. The evidence [10:02] increasingly suggests they do not. The NFL's ongoing Sunday ticket litigation further illustrates this [10:09] point. In 2024, a jury found the NFL guilty of violating antitrust law for colluding to limit [10:16] consumer choice and charge super competitive prices for access to games through its Sunday ticket platform. [10:24] The jury awarded plaintiffs a judgment of over $14 billion against the NFL. This ruling is currently [10:31] on appeal. But regardless of the litigation's final outcome, the allegations themselves reflect a broader [10:38] reality. The NFL has used its unique ability to coordinate amongst otherwise competitive clubs to maximize [10:46] revenue rather than expanding consumer access. Congress only grants antitrust exemptions in rare [10:54] circumstances because competition remains the best mechanism for promoting innovation and protecting [11:02] consumers. Exemptions should be maintained only when there are benefits that clearly outweigh the costs. [11:10] When the beneficiaries of an exemption begin using it to restrict access, increase prices, and strengthen [11:20] their own market power beyond what Congress intended. Lawmakers have an obligation to reconsider whether that [11:29] exemption remains justified. The Sports Broadcasting Act was enacted to expand access to sports broadcasting, [11:37] not to facilitate exclusive streaming arrangements that force fans to pay more for less. In my view, [11:47] the NFL seems to have lost sight of the original purpose of the legislation. And in fact, they may [11:54] even be in violation of the law right now. Today, I hope we can have a constructive debate about what [12:01] reforms, if any, Congress should consider to ensure a marketplace that works best for consumers. I now recognize [12:14] the ranking member, Mr. Nadler, for his opening statement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, [12:21] for years I have been warning this committee about the dangers of unchecked consolidation in the [12:26] American media industry. I have written letters. I have led oversight efforts. I have called for serious [12:32] antitrust review of the deals that have steadily concentrated our newsrooms, our studios, and our [12:38] broadcasting infrastructure into the hands of fewer and fewer companies. And for years, the majority has [12:44] turned a blind eye to these warnings. Today, we're here to examine the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961. [12:51] And I want to be clear at the outset, this law absolutely deserves a serious reexamination. [12:57] It was written for a media landscape that no longer exists. American sports fans are paying more, [13:04] getting less, and navigating a fragmented streaming environment that the 1961 Congress could not [13:10] possibly have anticipated. The reform of this law is a legitimate subject for congressional attention. [13:16] But you cannot examine the Sports Broadcasting Act in a vacuum. And that is exactly what the [13:22] majority is asking us to do today. The same administration that has suddenly discovered a [13:27] concern for NFL fans has, over the past year, waved through one of the most aggressive waves of media [13:34] consolidation in modern American history. Just last summer, the FCC approved the Skydance-Paramount merger, [13:42] but only after the Ellison family paid the president a $16 million contribution to his presidential library, [13:50] threw in millions more in free advertising, agreed to install a Trump-friendly minder in the CBS newsroom, [13:56] and sought to the cancellation of the Late Show with Stephen Colbert. The result, as ranking member [14:03] Raskin and I have warned this committee repeatedly, was not antitrust review. It was a shakedown. [14:10] Now the same Ellison family is back, this time bidding for Warner Brothers Discovery in a deal [14:16] that would give them not only CBS and Paramount, but also CNN, HBO, and one of the largest collections of [14:24] sports broadcasting rights in the country. The president has publicly announced that he intends to be [14:29] involved in the decision. The Ellisons have reportedly already promised him, quote, [14:34] sweeping changes at CNN. The same playbook that worked for Skydance-Paramount is being run again, [14:42] with the same beneficiaries, the same victims, and the same silence from this administration's [14:48] antitrust regulators. This is a First Amendment crisis dressed up as an innocuous business deal. [14:55] When this president can use the merger review process to extract editorial control over a major [15:02] news network, it represents a significant threat to our democracy and our constitutional liberties. [15:08] When the FCC can be used to retaliate against ABC for airing a Jimmy Kimmel monologue the White [15:16] House did not like, no broadcaster in this country is safe. The story that 60 Minutes was forced to [15:22] delay about lawless deportations and the firing high-profile correspondents like Scott Pelley are [15:29] a preview of the censorship regime these mergers are enabling. And all this unchecked consolidation [15:37] aided by corruption in the administration must inform our consideration of the sports broadcasting [15:43] landscape. The merger of CBS Sports and Turner Sports under one corporate roof would create a sports [15:49] rights portfolio rivaled only by ESPN, encompassing rights to the NHL, the NFL, the Olympics, the UFC, [15:58] the PGA Tour, the Big Ten, Big 12, NCAA basketball, and the Champions League. Fewer competitors bidding for [16:06] sports rights means higher monthly bills for every American family, sports fans or not. Last Congress, [16:13] I joined my colleagues in writing to the Department of Justice about the proposed venue sports joint [16:20] venture between Disney, Fox, and Warner Brothers Discovery, a venture that would have given three of [16:25] the largest media companies in the country control over the sports streaming market. A federal judge [16:31] agreed with us, granted an injunction, and the Biden Antitrust Division filed a serious, I'm sorry, [16:39] filed a powerful amicus brief detailing the anti-competitive effects of that arrangement. Last year, [16:46] the Trump Justice Department cleared Disney's acquisition of Fubo, the very company that had [16:51] brought the antitrust case in the first place. The result was exactly what we warned about. A competitor [16:58] knocked out, a market consolidated, and consumers left with higher prices and fewer choices. And now we are [17:05] here to discuss the NFL, not because the majorities introduced any legislation to address the high [17:11] costs of sports viewership, but because Rupert Murdoch personally lobbied the president at a White House [17:17] dinner in February, warning that the NFL's streaming deals would, quote, kill broadcast networks like [17:23] Fox. Within weeks of that dinner, the Justice Department opened the investigation that is a stated [17:29] reason for today's hearing. Yes, we should reform the Sports Broadcasting Act. Fans are being asked to pay [17:36] too much across too many platforms just to watch their favorite teams. But we cannot pretend we are [17:42] doing the work of consumer protection when we examine the SBA in isolation, while the administration [17:49] facilitates the very consolidation that is driving up the costs we claim to be concerned about. I have [17:55] called for a full investigation into the corruption at this administration's Department of Justice and [18:01] Federal Communications Commission, and I will continue to do so. We cannot have an honest conversation [18:07] about the Sports Broadcasting Act or any antitrust matter when the agencies responsible for [18:13] enforcing our competition laws have been turned into instruments of political and personal favor. [18:20] Before I yield back, we cannot discuss anything related to sports today without taking note of the [18:26] most important sports story happening in this country today. And by that I mean the New York Knicks [18:33] drive for an NBA championship. Tonight is game four, and as long as Donald Trump stays far away from [18:39] Madison Square Garden, the Knicks should do fine. Let's go, Knicks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. [18:46] To it is plugged by the member from New York for the Knicks tonight. With that, I will recognize the [18:54] chairman of the full committee, Mr. Jordan, for his openings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have an antitrust law [18:58] in America. We've had it for over 100 years. In simple terms, you can't collude, you can't form a cartel, [19:04] operate a cartel. And the reason we have that is we want competition because that's good for the [19:07] consumer. Simple terms. 1961, the NFL came to Congress and said, we need relief from this law [19:14] when it comes to our TV agreement. And if we don't get, if you don't let us combine our resources and [19:19] negotiate with the networks as a group, include on this, we will go out of business. That's what they [19:24] told us. And their argument was a good argument. I mean, I get it. They said bigger markets will get [19:28] bigger deals, better deals. New York, Chicago, LA, they'll get better deals than Pittsburgh, [19:33] Cleveland, and Green Bay. And Congress bought it. Congress said, okay, we don't want the smaller [19:39] market teams to go out of business. We want a league. We like this product. America loves this [19:42] product. And so Congress enacted the Sports Broadcasting Act in 1961. But as the chairman [19:49] and the ranking members said, the situation today is a little different. What's the situation today? [19:53] What's the situation today? Sports Broadcasting Act 1961, what's the situation today? On Sunday afternoon, [20:00] you can watch games on broadcast television, Fox and CBS. On Sunday night, [20:03] you can get the games on broadcast television, NBC. On Monday night, games are on satellite and cable, [20:09] television, ESPN. On Thursday night, games are streamed on Amazon. On Thanksgiving, [20:14] games are on broadcast, satellite, cable, or streaming. On Christmas, broadcast, satellite, [20:18] cable, or streaming. And there's some I'm missing in there because when playoffs get different and [20:22] everything else. That's the situation today. In fact, we actually, we described it in our report. [20:28] Here's what the fan deals with today. In our report, a Green Bay Packers fan who lives in Dallas, [20:34] Texas. Grew up in Green Bay, loves the Packers, wants to watch the Packers. Grew up in Dallas, [20:37] Texas. For the 2026 season, the Packers are scheduled to play eight games on Fox, two games [20:42] on Amazon Prime Video, two games on Netflix, two games on NBC, one game on ESPN, one game on CBS, [20:48] and one unscheduled game that is left to be determined by the NFL. The fan will need access [20:52] to Amazon Prime Video, Netflix, NBC, and ESPN to see the seven games scheduled for those services. [20:58] For the nine games scheduled for Fox and CBS, the fan will likely need Fox and CBS because some of the [21:02] the games will be on broadcast television in Dallas. The fan will also likely need Sunday [21:07] ticket just to watch some subset of the nine Fox CBS games because the fan will not know which games [21:13] will and will not be on broadcast until the NFL and relevant networks release the broadcast maps [21:17] the week of the games. That's what they got to navigate. That's what they got to navigate. [21:22] And so we're here today. Look, we're here today. And we're here today to deal with the fundamental [21:28] question. Does this still work for consumers? And maybe it does. Like we haven't reached any type of [21:35] conclusion. We just know the situation. We know what our constituents and what fans are telling [21:39] us, the folks we have the privilege of representing in our respective districts. [21:43] We want to know if it still works. And maybe it does. We all love this product. Everyone loves [21:46] football. We all love to watch it. We all love the Super Bowl, the playoffs, your hometown team. [21:51] We all love that. But we know one thing. We're asking the question, does it work for consumers? [21:55] We know it's working for the NFL. We know it's working for them. 1961, adjusted for inflation, 14 teams in the [22:04] league. Guess what each team got paid in the TV deal? $3.37 million. 2025, 32 teams. Guess what [22:13] each team got in the deal? $443 million. 100 times more, almost a half a billion dollars. And again, [22:24] that may be just fine, but that's the TV deal. That's not counting tickets and t-shirts and in [22:29] stadium advertisement and all the other stuff. We're here to answer one simple question because we're the [22:35] Judiciary Committee. We have an antitrust law. We have to do our jobs. Does this still benefit [22:41] consumers and the consumer welfare the way it's supposed to? With that, I would yield back to the [22:49] chairman. And let me just say, I appreciate your witnesses being here. Sorry I'm running a little [22:52] late. I was in an important hearing over in the House Administration Committee on Act Blue and all the [22:55] crazy things they've been up to. But I appreciate you all being here. And I yield back. Chairman [22:59] Neal is back. And I'll recognize a ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Raskin, for his opening statement. [23:05] Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for taking us. I was over to an important meeting [23:10] in the House Administration Committee that should have been about Win Red and all the crazy things [23:15] it's doing. I agree with my Republican colleagues that the basic framework of the Sports Broadcasting [23:22] Act is worth revisiting, given how much has changed since it was enacted 65 years ago. When I was growing [23:29] up and for much of the life of the Sports Broadcasting Act, there were just three networks on the airwaves, [23:34] and all you needed to do to watch your favorite team play on Sunday was all you needed was a TV and [23:41] an antenna. Today, an NFL fan must spend between $500 and $1,000 every single season in subscriptions [23:48] to different platforms and streaming subscriptions just to effectively cheer on their home team. [23:54] It seems fundamentally unfair that the league should get billion dollar deals, the network should get [24:01] billion dollar contracts, but the fans are left out in the cold. That hardly captures the spirit of the [24:06] antitrust exemption that Congress passed in 1961. What I have trouble computing, however, today is why [24:13] the majority is focused on this narrow issue against the backdrop of the most sweeping and aggressive [24:18] media consolidation in American history. Time and again, the administration has allowed giant media [24:24] companies to merge, leaving consumers with fewer choices, higher prices and less power. They waved [24:30] through Disney's acquisition of Fubo and ESPN's acquisition of NFL Network, resulting in greater [24:37] consolidation and dramatically reduced competition in the sports rights market. They turned a blind eye to [24:43] the Nexstar Tegnam merger, which would give one company broadcast reach into 80 percent of households in the [24:48] United States and thereby lead to increased blackouts for sports fans and higher prices for everybody. [24:55] And now the Paramount Skydance Warner Brothers Discovery merger, which President Trump personally [25:00] muscled through after breaking up a deal between Netflix and Warner, is sailing through Trump's politicized [25:07] executive branch review process. Last month, ranking member Pallone and I wrote to Paramount Skydance's [25:14] CEO David Ellison about this pending merger. We pointed out that less than a year after Trump blessed [25:19] Ellison's takeover of Paramount Global, which includes the Paramount Pictures, CBS, BET, MTV, Nickelodeon, [25:28] Comedy Central and streaming services Paramount Plus and Pluto. He's now arranging for David Ellison to add [25:35] Warner Brothers Studios, DC Entertainment, HBO, CNN, The Discovery Channel, HGTV, Cartoon Network, [25:43] TBS and TNT, as well as HBO and Discovery streaming services to this awesome media conglomerate. [25:51] If this deal goes through the Ellison's one family of Trump mega donors and enablers will have managed [25:57] to purchase an unparalleled sports and news empire in just one year. That means the same kind of [26:04] unprecedented pro mega editorial control we've seen at CBS News and 60 Minutes, including the appointment of a [26:11] full-time paid mega minder, a government spy and censor in the newsroom. That could occur at CNN. [26:19] That means American consumers who already pay an average $69 a month for streaming on top of a [26:25] hundred a month for cable and 78 for internet, paying even more for sports news and entertainment. [26:31] So in the face of this profound consolidation and antitrust crisis sweeping the media market, [26:38] why is the majority focused just on the NFL? Why is the Trump administration through the DOJ and the [26:44] FCC investigating the NFL, but not other parties in the market that threaten even far worse harm to [26:51] consumers and competitive dynamics in the market? Well, it turns out that early in this administration, [26:59] this is according to the Wall Street Journal. Fox Corporation Chairman Rupert Murdoch personally lobbied [27:05] Donald Trump at a White House dinner to crack down on the NFL streaming deals, streaming deals that [27:10] compete directly with Fox's broadcast business. And the DOJ's investigation, like this hearing, [27:16] appeared to be all about helping Mr. Murdoch get a better broadcast deal for Fox. That hardly seems [27:22] like a principled or methodical way for us to proceed. The majorities offer no legislation to [27:28] reform the Sports Broadcasting Act. They call no hearings on the Ellison's corrupt Paramount Skydance [27:34] Warner Brothers Discovery merger or the deep corruption at the heart of the Paramount Skydance merger. [27:40] They've not called a single Trump administration antitrust official to come testify before this [27:44] subcommittee about the political destabilization and saturation of the antitrust process [27:51] of review in the administration. In fact, the only Trump-era antitrust official to appear before [27:58] this committee, this entire Congress, was a Democratic-called witness, Roger Alford, who was fired by the [28:04] Trump administration for refusing to participate in the pay-to-play corruption of the DOJ's antitrust [28:11] divisions. Despite being a political appointee, including serving as the number two at DOJ's antitrust [28:17] division in the second Trump administration, he was so appalled by what he saw that he bravely decided [28:23] to blow the whistle on how this administration is every day selling out American consumers to mega [28:29] donors and their White House-connected lobbyists. This selective interest suggests that the majority [28:34] has little interest in conducting real oversight here or promoting real competition in the economy. [28:39] They're doing nothing to protect American consumers, workers, or innovation. Instead, [28:44] they're siding with big corporations striving for monopoly profits that jack up prices for everybody [28:50] and depress wages while offering inferior goods and services. Commissioner Gomez, I think we are [28:56] watching the alarming consequences for the First Amendment, emboldened by its efforts to capture CBS [29:01] and CNN. The Trump administration has now turned its attention to ABC and its parent company, Disney, [29:07] which you warned are facing a, quote, sustained coordinated campaign of censorship and control [29:13] from the Trump administration. And this is what I will ask you about. I yield back to you, Mr. Chairman. [29:18] Ranking member yields back. Without objection, all other opening statements will be included in the [29:22] record. We will now introduce today's witnesses. Mr. Jim Hallers. Mr. Hallers is the founder and managing [29:29] partner of Tailgaters Pub & Grill and Citizens Grill, two restaurants in the Houston area. He has owned and [29:36] operated more than two dozen restaurants and bars over the years. Mr. Curtis Leggett. Mr. Leggett is the [29:43] president and chief executive officer of the National Association of Broadcasters, an organization that [29:49] advocates on behalf of television and radio broadcasters. He previously served as the organization's [29:56] chief operating officer and its executive vice president for government relations. Mr. Clay Travis. Mr. [30:03] Travis is the founder and I think president of Outkick Media. Maybe not at this point. I'm not sure. We need to [30:11] update that text. A sports and culture news company that we're all familiar with. He previously worked [30:17] as an attorney, college football analyst and commentator and as a columnist for CBS Sports. He is also [30:24] half of the Clay Travis and Buck Sexton syndicated radio show, which is broadcast across America. Miss Anna Gomez. [30:33] Miss Gomez is a commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission. She has served in [30:38] the role since September of 2023. Miss Gomez previously served in the State Department and [30:44] various staff level roles at the FCC. We welcome our witnesses and thank them for appearing today. [30:51] We will begin by swearing you in. Would you please rise and raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm [31:05] under penalty of perjury that the testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the best of your [31:10] knowledge, information and belief? So help you God. Let the record reflect that the witnesses have [31:17] answered in the affirmative. Thank you. Please be seated. Please know that your written testimony [31:25] will be entered into the record in its entirety. Accordingly, we ask you that you summarize your [31:31] testimony in five minutes. Mr. Hallers, you may begin. Thank you, Chairman Fitzgerald and [31:39] Ranking Member Nadler and members of the committee. My name is Jim Hallers and I'm the founder and [31:46] managing partner of Tailgaters Pub & Grill and Citizens Grill in the Houston area. Since 2009, I have [31:53] built and operated sports bars and restaurants that today employ over 400 team members. But before entering [32:00] the restaurant business, I spent 25 years in information technology, working with software and [32:05] technology infrastructure. That background is important because the challenge I'm here to discuss [32:11] today is not just about football. It is about technology, distribution, and the unintended impact [32:18] these changes have on small businesses. My restaurants are built around the game day experience. Every Sunday [32:26] during football season, hundreds of customers come to watch their favorite teams while enjoying food, [32:31] drinks, and time with family and friends. The NFL Sunday Ticket has long been a critical part of that [32:38] experience. For my businesses, Sunday Ticket is not simply entertainment. It's an economic driver, [32:45] it supports jobs, generates tax revenue, and helps local suppliers, vendors, and employees earn a living. [32:53] In Texas, many of our customers have actually moved from other parts of the country. On any given Sunday, [32:59] I may have fans of the Texans, Steelers, Packers, Eagles, Bears, Bills, and even the Cowboys, [33:07] all watching games in the same building. Offering every game is not a luxury for a sports bar, [33:13] it is a customer expectation. Historically, we met that expectation through DirecTV's commercial Sunday [33:21] ticket package. It was expensive, but it was reliable and relatively straightforward. Today, the sports media [33:28] landscape has become increasingly fragmented. Games and programming are spread across multiple [33:34] streaming platforms. What may seem like a simple change for a customer consumer at home becomes a [33:40] significant operational challenge for a restaurant. My business depends heavily on two seasons right now, [33:47] football season and crawfish season. And while crawfish season depends on mother nature, football [33:54] season depends on the NFL and the technology systems that deliver the games. When those systems become [34:00] fragmented, expensive, and unreliable, it directly affects my bottom line. To deliver games across [34:07] dozens of televisions, we need today additional streaming devices, switching equipment, network [34:13] infrastructure, and extra internet capacity. A full transition can require a $30,000 to $40,000 investment [34:21] per location to show the current version of Sunday ticket through Everpass. But the challenge is not just [34:28] cost. It is reliability. A sports bar may need to stream multiple games simultaneously while also [34:35] supporting point-of-sale systems, credit card processing, online ordering, security systems, business [34:42] operations, and customer Wi-Fi. When a stream freezes during a critical play, the customers do not blame the [34:49] provider. They blame the restaurant. As the industry continues moving towards streaming, I am not asking [34:56] Congress to stop innovation. Technology changes and businesses adapt. What I am asking is that [35:03] policy makers recognize the unique role that restaurants and sports bars play in the sports [35:09] ecosystem. We are not passive viewers. We are really community-gathering places that invest substantial [35:17] resources to bring fans together. As Congress examines the Sports Broadcasting Act and the future of [35:24] sports media distribution, I encourage you to consider the practical impact that these changes have on [35:31] commercial establishments. We need transitions that are reliable, economically realistic, and mindful of [35:38] all the small businesses that help deliver the game day experience to millions of Americans. Restaurants [35:45] and sports bars like mine create jobs, support local communities, and provide a place where fans come together to [35:51] share experiences that are increasingly rare in modern life. I want to thank you all for the opportunity to [35:58] testify, and I look forward to your questions. Thank you, Mr. Hallers. Mr. Leggett, you may begin. [36:05] Good morning, Chairman Fitzgerald, Ranking members Raskin and Nadler, and members of this subcommittee. [36:12] My name is Curtis Leggett, and I'm the President and CEO of the National Association of Broadcasters. I'm proud to testify [36:18] today on behalf of America's local broadcast television stations and the networks with which they [36:23] affiliate. Our members serve every community in the country with trusted journalism, emergency information, [36:30] weather, entertainment, and of course sports, all available free over the air. The Sports Broadcasting [36:38] Act was built on a simple public interest bargain. Professional sports leagues received a limited [36:44] antitrust exemption so they could pool and sell broadcast rights, and fans received broad public [36:50] access to games. In 1961, Congress considered the scope of that exemption carefully and explicitly applied [36:59] it only to sponsor telecasting, not subscription television. Congress was clear. The law is about free [37:06] over the air broadcasting, not paywalls. For decades, that bargain worked. Fans could watch most games on free [37:14] local broadcast television. Leagues benefited from the unmatched reach of broadcasting. Stations [37:21] benefited from live sports programming that helped support local news, weather, and emergency coverage, [37:27] and communities benefited because sports became part of our shared cultural experience. [37:32] Yet today, it's increasingly apparent that the public access goals of that bargain are no longer being met. [37:39] Games from the four major professional leagues are now spread across Amazon Prime, Netflix, [37:45] YouTube TV, and Apple TV. Fans increasingly need multiple paid subscriptions to watch their [37:51] favorite teams, and survey after survey shows fans are confused and frustrated. Some estimates suggest [37:59] that accessing every NFL game over the course of a season would cost a consumer well over a thousand [38:04] dollars. That's a long way from the broad free access Congress intended when it created the SBA. [38:12] This is especially troubling because attending games in person has become unaffordable for many families [38:17] as well. When fans are priced out of the stadium and games are moved behind paywalls, the public loses [38:23] twice. Amidst all of this, broadcast television remains the most consumer-friendly platform in America. [38:31] We are free. We are local. We do not require a monthly fee, a broadband connection, or a separate app. [38:38] We reach rural communities, seniors, low-income households, and casual fans who may not subscribe [38:44] to multiple streaming services. This is why games on broadcast deliver massive audiences relative to [38:50] their streaming competitors. For example, NFL games on CBS, Fox, and NBC this past Thanksgiving [38:57] averaged 44.7 million viewers per game, while Amazon's game the following day on Black Friday drew only 16 [39:06] million viewers. It's also why local teams that have moved games from regional sports networks [39:12] to broadcast television have seen their ratings surge. Importantly, the stakes for your constituents extend [39:22] beyond sports. The advertising and carriage revenues delivered by live sporting events help pay for [39:27] coverage of city halls, school boards, elections, severe weather, public safety, and community events. [39:34] When tornadoes, wildfires, or other emergencies threaten lives, local broadcasters are there. In [39:41] contrast, big tech does not invest in local newsrooms, and they are not on the ground after the storm. [39:49] In conclusion, live sports on free broadcast television have served the American public for generations. [39:56] Together, we've built shared national moments, strengthened communities, expanded fan bases, [40:01] and supported local journalism. But that model is now at risk. Fans are paying more and receiving less, [40:08] and meanwhile, local stations are competing against global tech platforms that can subsidize their sports [40:14] rights with revenue from entirely different businesses. In 1961, Congress was right to put fans first, [40:22] and NAB is not asking to eliminate the Sports Broadcasting Act. But this committee should reaffirm that [40:29] the SBA applies only to league-wide negotiations with media companies that will distribute games [40:35] through broadcast television, not block games behind streaming paywalls. Thank you for the opportunity [40:41] to testify today. I look forward to your questions. Thank you, Mr. LeJet. Mr. Travis, you may begin. [40:47] Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the invite today. Mr. Nadler, I enjoy and appreciate the opportunity to speak to all [40:53] of you. My name is Clay Travis. I founded a site called OutKick in 2011. If you haven't gone yet, [40:59] you should. It's the sanest site in all of sports. And a big part of what we do on that site and what [41:05] I have done for the past 22 years in my career is advocate for the average sports fan. Many of you are [41:12] lawyers and you're familiar with the standard of a reasonable man. How would someone respond in a [41:18] context in the law? I'd like to advocate here for the reasonable fan. I just asked before I started [41:24] speaking today, my followers on X, what would you say if you had the opportunity today to speak to [41:31] Democrats, Republicans, to everyone across the country about your experience as a sports fan? I would [41:37] encourage you guys to go look at the responses there. Hundreds of them have all come in. None of them [41:43] are happy every single day. Sports fans are getting gouged now for the opportunity of watching their [41:51] favorite teams. And I would say under the Sports Broadcast Act, as a very easy summation, fans now pay [41:57] far more money every year for something that by law in 1961, you all guaranteed for them should be free. [42:07] For anyone out there who is saying, why is Congress involved in this? You interjected yourself in 1961 [42:13] at the behest of these leagues to provide them an exemption that they have now taken advantage of [42:19] and they are gouging so many different fans out there across the entire sports landscape, regardless [42:25] of who you are a fan of. Let me hit you with just a couple of ideas. The NFL in particular, CBS, Fox, [42:32] NBC, ESPN, ABC, Amazon, Netflix, the NFL Sunday ticket, Paramount, Peacock. Most of your constituents [42:41] are frustrated. They don't know how to find games and they are having to pay far too much [42:46] when they have the opportunity to actually watch those games. I don't know how many of you remember [42:52] back in the day when you could have one remote control in your hand and you could easily flip [42:57] from any different game. Nowadays, with passwords, with sign-ins, how many of your constituents on an [43:04] average Saturday or Sunday are extremely frustrated because they just can't even get logged in to watch [43:10] their favorite games and these are things that they're already paying for. I hear from fans every [43:15] single day about how frustrated they are with what the leagues are doing. They just want to be able to [43:22] watch their favorite team and not have to struggle to do so. Think about this perspective. Remember [43:29] when flat screen televisions were very expensive? I spent $4,200 in 2006 for my first ever flat screen [43:37] television. Now they are a few hundred dollars. Capitalism has worked when it comes to flat screen [43:44] television. Sports fans now can watch huge flat screens in their home for a fraction of the cost [43:50] that they paid in 2006, but they now have to pay a massive amount to be able to watch all of their [43:57] favorite teams. Your investigation has actually uncovered that the NFL Sunday ticket, which is one [44:02] of the most expensive packages out there, the NFL doesn't even offer to the average fan what they [44:08] actually want, which is the ability to subscribe to their favorite team if they live out of market. [44:14] Something that many of you know all about because you travel all the time and you probably want to [44:19] watch your favorite NFL team, your local constituent team. You don't have the ability to do it. They don't [44:24] offer that product even though the marketplace is telling them that's what people most want. [44:29] I love college football. I love the NFL. I have three boys. We spend all day Saturday and Sunday [44:34] watching games. In the college football world, you know I get 10 broadcast games for free every single [44:43] Saturday. The market for college football is robust. In the NFL, at most you only get four. The NFL is going [44:51] to argue that 87% of their games are still free. That still means that they're violating the law with [44:57] 13% of the games that they are putting behind streamers. It also means that the reality is if [45:04] you look at your individual constituents, none of them are getting 87%. And let me close with this [45:11] one example here, and I look forward to your questions. Buffalo Bills, great new stadium opening, [45:17] $850 million in taxpayer funds. Their very first home game is on a Thursday on Amazon. Most of the [45:28] taxpayers in the state of New York who paid for that stadium are not able to watch for free a Buffalo [45:36] Bills home opener. That's wrong. You guys have an important responsibility and an opportunity to apply [45:42] the law fairly, freely, and help fans everywhere across the entire nation pay less and get more. [45:50] Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Travis. Ms. Gomez, you may begin. Chairman Jordan, Ranking Member Raskin, [45:57] Chair Fitzgerald and Ranking Member Nadler, and distinguished members of the committee, [46:01] thank you for the opportunity to testify today. In living rooms and sports bars across the country, [46:07] millions of Americans who may agree on little else will be gathered tonight to watch the NBA finals, [46:12] rooting together for their respective team. There are a few things left in American life that cut [46:17] across every line of division the way sports does, and I say that as a proud national and wizards fan [46:24] who knows exactly what it feels like to believe that your team might actually pull it off this year. [46:29] We are living through a genuinely remarkable era for sports fans. More games, more leagues, more athletes, [46:36] more stories are accessible today than any previous generation could have imagined. At the same time, [46:42] the economics of how fans actually watch have shifted in ways that deserve serious attention. [46:48] What used to arrive through an antenna available to anyone regardless of income has increasingly [46:53] migrated behind a growing stack of subscriptions and league-specific apps. For a family trying to [46:59] follow their team through a full season, the cost of piecing together across multiple platforms adds up [47:06] quickly. How we ensure sports content remains accessible and available to all Americans is a question I want to [47:12] situate within a much broader set of concerns about who controls the media that carries the games [47:17] and what they are doing with that power. The FCC has a legitimate interest in helping gather information [47:24] about how the sports broadcasting act is functioning in a changing media environment, [47:29] and I support efforts to ensure fans can access their teams without paying a fortune. [47:33] When sports programming migrates behind paywalls, fans lose access, local broadcasters lose the revenue [47:39] that keeps their stations alive, and the local journalism those stations produce loses the [47:44] funding on which it depends. I also want to be candid about where the FCC's authority ends. [47:51] The commission can gather information, raise concerns, and call out fouls when we see them, [47:56] but any meaningful update to the sports broadcasting act will ultimately require legislative action. [48:01] Despite growing public concern about the challenges facing the media ecosystem, [48:06] this administration does not appear to be prioritizing consumer protection. According to reports, [48:12] the scrutiny now being applied to sports leagues through government agencies like the FCC and DOJ appears [48:18] to be driven less by a genuine interest in protecting fans and more by the influence of powerful media [48:23] companies with close ties to this administration that stand to benefit financially from the outcome of that [48:29] scrutiny. I've called this pattern the billionaire buddy bypass, where the public interest gets bypassed in [48:35] favor of a powerful few, and it extends well beyond sports broadcasting into a sweeping consolidation [48:42] of media power that poses serious risks to journalism, to free expression, and to the Americans that depend on both. [48:49] That consolidation is where I want to spend the remainder of my time because the stakes are high [48:54] and the pattern is clear. When the FCC unlawfully waived federal law to let one broadcaster reach 80 percent of [49:01] local television households, more than double the cap set by Congress by statute, it signaled it was [49:08] willing to move the goalposts for the entire industry for the right relationships. When Paramount settled a baseless [49:15] lawsuit just two days before its merger with Skydance was approved, and that approval was conditioned on [49:21] commitments to reshape the editorial direction at CBS News, we saw what unchecked media consolidation leaves in its wake, [49:29] including the collapse of 60 minutes and the irreparable damage done to one of the most trusted [49:34] names in broadcast journalism. And now that same ownership is seeking to add CNN, HBO, and Warner Bros. to [49:41] that portfolio, financed by $24 billion from sovereign wealth funds controlled by foreign governments with [49:48] documented records of press suppression. Nearly half of the combined company would be in foreign government [49:54] hands. Paramount has asked the FCC to authorize up to 100 percent foreign ownership of its broadcast [50:01] licensees, and the FCC has shown every sign that it intends to waive that through. Whether to authorize that [50:07] level of foreign government control over media broadcast infrastructure, cable news networks, and Hollywood [50:13] studios is a national security question that demands far more than a rubber stamp. Media consolidation on this [50:21] scale requires and, I mean, creates the conditions for exactly the kind of editorial control this [50:26] administration has shown it intends to exercise, pursuing investigations and threatening the licenses of [50:32] news organizations whose coverage it finds unfavorable. That campaign of censorship and control does not happen [50:38] without the consolidated media power that enables it. The American people deserve a government whose approach to media [50:45] policy starts and ends with their interests, not those of powerful companies, foreign governments, [50:51] and an administration that has made clear it views media ownership as a tool of political control. [50:57] I'm grateful for this committee's attention to these issues, and I welcome any questions you may have. [51:01] Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Gomez. We'll now proceed under the five-minute rule with some questions. [51:06] I'm going to recognize myself. Mr. Travis, when the NFL came to Congress in 61, they warned that smaller teams [51:13] wouldn't survive if the league could not pool their broadcast rights. So it created shared revenue, [51:19] of which I'm not really concerned. I don't care how they slice up the pie. But today, professional [51:24] sports leagues are amongst the most profitable businesses in the world. Is it safe to say that [51:30] the survival of professional sports is no longer dependent on a special exemption from Congress? [51:36] I feel pretty good that the NFL is not going to start to lose money anytime soon. And I think [51:43] everybody understands that the NFL's power today is drastically different than it was in 1961. [51:51] So to me, the straw that kind of broke the camel's back was when we saw the NFL [51:56] sign a contract with Netflix. Yeah. At that point, I think they went from kind of pushing on the edge of [52:03] the law to jumping head first through it. Given the NFL has effectively kind of thumbed its nose at [52:10] sports broadcasting. Is there something there that Congress is missing? Or are they simply flouting [52:20] the whole concept at this point? I think the NFL under the plain reading of the 1961 broadcast act, [52:26] I also have a law degree, so I'm not entirely out of out of scope here when I analyze it. I think the [52:32] NFL quite clearly for at least 13% of its overall television package, which now has moved to streaming, [52:38] is violating the plain intent of the law. And in fact, if you read the 1961 act, [52:43] there's a pretty clear discussion in there. Certainly we didn't understand the concept of [52:48] streaming. Even the idea of cable was hard to comprehend of where we were headed. But they [52:53] specifically say that they wouldn't have been allowed under that 1961 act to put this, these games [53:00] behind what was then sort of a pay-per-view concept that they understood in 1961, closed captioning style, [53:07] where it wasn't available for free. So I think clearly, if you look at that 1961 law and apply [53:14] it to modern technology, the 13% Netflix, Amazon, and other streaming assets clearly violate the intent [53:23] of the 1961 law, which is pretty clear. It was designed to make sure that fans get free access to games. [53:31] Anything that fans are having to pay for outside of broadcast television arguably is outside the scope [53:37] of that 1961 exemption. Very good. Thank you. Mr. Hollers, as a sports bar owner, I would be, [53:44] I would guess that showing your customers the games they want to see is a central part of the business. [53:49] But as we have already spoken about, unfortunately, purchasing premium packages like the NFL Sunday [53:56] Ticket is not an option for a business like yourself. And now that's changed. Can you just [54:02] try and describe the changes that would have to be made within your own restaurants and bars [54:08] to accommodate the new NFL package? Right. Basically, it's still, I guess, called Sunday Ticket, [54:14] but they've moved it from Direct TV, which is basically what all of the bars and restaurants that [54:20] have shown football on Sundays for 30 or 40 years have used, they're moving it to a streaming-only [54:26] platform called EverPass. And it's been available on both Direct TV and EverPass for the last couple of [54:33] years. But here in 2026, they said, no more for Direct TV. Everybody has to move to streaming. And so [54:41] literally now we have to buy streaming boxes. And in a typical small, smaller bar where I have maybe [54:50] 30 or 40 TVs with a Direct TV box mounted behind every television, I now have to get an EverPass [54:57] streaming box. But you can't put an EverPass streaming box behind every TV. It doesn't work like [55:03] that. You have to bring in like eight of these boxes, and then you have to put in the wiring and [55:09] the infrastructure to distribute that signal out to all of your 30 or 40 TVs. This is because your [55:15] typical internet bandwidth at a bar can't handle 30 or 40 streams. Just imagine at home, if you tried [55:22] to stream, you know, 30 Netflixes at once, your internet's just going to die. Well, it's the same [55:27] way for most bars and restaurants today. I buy an internet that's big enough to run my POS and to run [55:33] systems and give customers some Wi-Fi. But when I put this in, I'm going to have to go get like gig fiber [55:39] connections. And I can only imagine there's bars and restaurants out there that don't even have [55:44] that ability to go buy, you know, high-speed internet maybe at a reasonable price. But for sure, [55:50] once you bring this in with this infrastructure, you have to make sure every part of it actually works. [55:57] You know, so if I need to show 10 games at noon on Sunday, there's two on broadcast TV, which I'll be [56:04] watching with my direct TV boxes, eight on the streaming boxes. And the other problem is the [56:10] eight streaming boxes. So almost all sports bars have went and bought these, even the best sports [56:16] bars, they have these video distribution systems where you bought a certain number of inputs and a [56:21] certain number of outputs. Well, now we're bringing in eight new inputs and everybody's looking at their [56:25] equipment going like, I don't have eight spots to plug in new boxes. So we're left with, do we go back [56:33] and buy even bigger and more expensive equipment of which there's a very limited amount of in the [56:37] marketplace because only so many sports bars open a year? Or do we rip out direct TV boxes on Sunday or [56:46] put in some kind of switches to switch over? You know, imagine the typical manager in a restaurant, [56:51] you know, okay, at noon, switch all these boxes over. And then after that game's over, [56:57] this one's going to be on broadcast. Let's switch these TVs over. It's just mayhem. [57:01] Thank you. Mr. Nadler, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Gomez, [57:07] you mentioned in a recent letter that Disney and ABC are facing a quote, sustained coordinated [57:13] campaign of censorship and control from the Trump administration. Can you tell us about how the [57:18] Trump administration has weaponized the FCC and what that does to free speech? Put on your mic. [57:26] Sorry. Thank you. Yes, this administration has used every lever in its power, including weaponizing [57:35] the FCC, in order to wage its campaign of censorship and control over any content it doesn't like. And [57:43] one of the ways that it has done so is through its actions against Disney. It's clear. The White House [57:49] issues a statement that it is unhappy with some kind of content that is on an ABC station and the FCC [57:55] initiates an investigation against that station. And most egregiously, the FCC has now called up [58:01] all of the local ABC stations of Disney under the pretext of an investigation in order to retaliate [58:10] against Disney because it has refused to capitulate this to this administration's demands that it fire [58:16] Jimmy Kimmel or regulate the content of its media reports. And what are some of the more egregious [58:22] incidents that you have witnessed at the FCC? I think the most egregious incidents so far, [58:27] and I've seen a lot of egregious uses of our investigatory authority in order to go after [58:34] content, particularly by news organizations, has been calling up these eight local stations by Disney. [58:41] It is never gone after network content by threatening the licenses of local broadcast stations. And the [58:50] last time it actually took such an action was over a half a century ago. So this is an extreme action [58:56] in order to pressure Disney to cave. Commissioner Gomez, you have been outspoken about the wave of [59:01] consolidation in the media market from the recently approved Nexstar and Tegna merger to the proposed [59:07] paramount Warner Brothers discovery acquisition. How does this kind of media consolidation impact [59:13] American consumers and their monthly bills? Thank you for that question. Media consolidation leads to [59:21] higher prices for consumers. When it comes to the local broadcasters, what it leads to is the higher [59:28] rates that they charge to the cable companies and the satellite companies for their content. That will [59:35] directly lead to consumers paying higher prices. And importantly, it also leads to the loss of local [59:41] journalism and local content. So communities also suffer because the news and the information that they [59:47] rely on for their civic engagement for disasters becomes homogenized and it loses the localism that these [59:56] broadcasters provide when you become too nationalized. And how does this media consolidation affect the ability of [1:00:03] sports fans to watch their favorite teams without paying exorbitant amounts? Media consolidation always affects [1:00:12] any consumers because what you get is a difference in market power, whether it's your higher retransmission [1:00:19] rates. Now, in the case of sports fans, you need to look at where excess market power is actually [1:00:28] leading to less competition, which then leads to higher prices for consumers and viewers. [1:00:33] And finally, can you expand on how these large media mergers affect local journalism? [1:00:40] Large media mergers result in losses in the newsrooms. It results in loss of a diversity of viewpoints. [1:00:52] It results in fewer local content, less local content being provided to consumers, [1:01:02] because the larger consolidations always need synergies. These broadcasters are taking on a huge [1:01:09] amount of debt and debt has to be settled somehow. And the ones that pay for that are the local [1:01:14] journalists and the local communities these broadcasters are meant to serve. [1:01:18] Why do the local broadcasters pay for that? Pardon me? [1:01:21] Why do the local broadcasters pay for that? Well, when we're talking about big consolidation of local [1:01:27] broadcasters, it's the local broadcasters that are in fact taking those actions. [1:01:31] Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. [1:01:34] The gentleman yields back. We now recognize the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Harris, [1:01:40] for five minutes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for the opportunity to [1:01:46] talk with you who are witnesses for us today. Mr. Hallerts, thank you for coming in and testifying [1:01:52] today. It's always great to hear from business owners about how actions in Washington are affecting [1:01:58] day-to-day operations where you are. The chairman started off with you by kind of talking about the [1:02:02] changes that had happened. One thing I just want to give you a chance to elaborate on. On average, [1:02:08] have these changes that you're even considering or looking to do, do you have an idea of what kind of [1:02:13] costs are involved in those kind of changes? Right. For a full-blown sports bar, we're looking [1:02:19] at anywhere from $30,000 to $40,000 of equipment upgrades. And we better get cracking soon because [1:02:28] football season is coming. Correct. And has the rise in streaming services increased or decreased the [1:02:33] number of customers visiting your sports bars? I think really we kind of fill up on Sundays. [1:02:44] But in talking to the fans that come in all week long, they're very frustrated at the difficulty [1:02:49] they're having watching football. Sure. So when they heard I was coming here, they were like, [1:02:54] you go tell them. They're really frustrated. And I'm not just talking about the ones that are sitting in [1:02:58] with me just in general. Mr. Travis, I want to talk for just a moment about the NFL Sunday Ticket. [1:03:04] In a briefing before this committee in 2025, an NFL representative claimed that Sunday Ticket, [1:03:10] and I quote, was meant to be a product that was available for the truly avid fan who wants every [1:03:16] game, end quote, and did not claim that the product was meant for fans to watch every game of only their [1:03:22] team. However, this claim seems to be contradicted by Sunday Ticket's own marketing to Americans who [1:03:29] are attempting to find their favorite NFL teams telecast. And I say that by advertising for Sunday [1:03:35] Ticket warns consumers. And again, I quote, even fans of the Cowboys, Chiefs, Eagles, Packers, 49ers, [1:03:42] Lions, and fans of every other team have needed NFL Sunday Ticket to ensure they could watch every [1:03:49] regular season game of their favorite team, end quote. So due to the work of this committee, [1:03:55] data was obtained which showed that most Sunday Ticket subscribers signed up to watch one favorite [1:04:03] out-of-market team, not every game in the league. This same data also revealed that most subscribers [1:04:10] who cancel their Sunday Ticket subscription do so because it's too expensive. So my question for you, [1:04:16] Mr. Travis, is if the committee can find this data, the NFL can find it too. And in a consumer-driven [1:04:22] market, what reason would the NFL have to ignore this data point? I believe, based on my experience [1:04:31] over the last 20 years of covering the NFL, talking about the NFL daily, the vast majority of NFL fans [1:04:38] who subscribe to Sunday Ticket do that so they can follow their single favorite team. There are also [1:04:45] diehards that want to have access to every single game. To me, a market-based option should be that [1:04:53] the NFL were trying to provide exactly what the consumer wanted and not just charge everybody way [1:04:58] more. You should be able to subscribe to guarantee yourself that you get to watch every game of your [1:05:04] favorite team. That should be an option in the marketplace. And then if you want every single NFL [1:05:10] game available because you're a diehard, you love to gamble because you just maybe you're obsessed with [1:05:14] your fantasy football team, that option should be in the marketplace as well. The fact that the NFL [1:05:20] only provides the huge option and not the targeted option for individual teams, I think is a direct [1:05:26] refutation of what the marketplace at large actually wants. Thank you. Great, great, great response. [1:05:33] Mr. Leggett, it can be argued that the conditions that led to the passage of SBA no longer exist and that [1:05:40] the behavior of the league suggests that the spirit of the law is no longer being honored. However, [1:05:46] the leagues would argue that repealing the SBA would destroy their business models. And I just want [1:05:51] to ask you in the last minute I have, if the SBA's antitrust exemption was removed, would business models [1:05:58] be destroyed like the leagues contend or would it require the leagues to construct contracts that are [1:06:04] more reasonable and consumer friendly? I certainly don't think the league's business model would be [1:06:10] destroyed. But I do want to be clear that the NAB is not asking to repeal the Sports Broadcasting Act. [1:06:16] What we are asking is for this committee to affirm its guardrails, that it is meant to govern the [1:06:23] negotiations between the league when it's pulling rights and broadcasters. It is not meant to enable [1:06:30] sports to be hidden behind paywalls. And is there any other reforms to the SBA you would suggest [1:06:35] for Congress to enact? Well, I think on top of this, we've got to ensure that the law is enforced. [1:06:42] One of the real questions here is the plain text of the law is clear as to the scope of negotiation [1:06:48] that should apply to the leagues and broadcasters, yet it's obviously being misused. So I would ask this [1:06:55] committee to look at those enforcement tools as well. Thank you, sir. And thank you to all the panel. Mr. [1:06:59] Chairman, I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Now recognize the ranking member of the full [1:07:03] committee again, Mr. Raskin. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Mr. LeJet, you represent broadcasters. Do you agree [1:07:10] with Commissioner Gomez that it's wrong for federal agencies to make enforcement and regulatory [1:07:15] decisions based on the president's personal animus towards certain companies or friendship with other [1:07:22] companies? At NAB, I can say unequivocally, we're fighting every day to ensure that our members [1:07:28] have the ability to make programming decisions, to make newsroom decisions that are independent [1:07:34] of any government influence. Okay. Commissioner Gomez, in your view, [1:07:39] what factors have contributed to this recent intensified regulatory scrutiny of the NFL? [1:07:44] Are there political motivations behind it? Well, thank you for that question. What is [1:07:51] this appears to be reported is that, in fact, it was a major broadcast network that asked the administration [1:07:59] to look into this issue, which worries me because what should be motivating the administration is the [1:08:05] actual consumers, the fans themselves. So fans are indeed frustrated, as Mr. Travis identifies, [1:08:16] but while there's this, I think, kind of unserious investigation into the NFL or heckling of the NFL [1:08:24] to satisfy Rupert Murdoch, the administration is waving through massive media mergers that will further [1:08:31] consolidate sports. And I just wonder if you would say a word about what that means for fans. And then, [1:08:37] Mr. Travis, I want to get your perspective on that. [1:08:38] Yes. These major mergers lead to, in fact, less competition, particularly among the portions of [1:08:50] these merged companies that actually provide services to the fans. So does less competition [1:08:56] mean higher prices? Less competition means higher prices, and it means more harms to consumers. [1:09:01] What kinds of harms are you thinking of? Again, higher prices, maybe less choice. [1:09:06] It's the usual pattern that we see when we see major consolidation. [1:09:11] So when you see centralization, consolidation, monopoly-type practices, [1:09:15] that inevitably is going to be to the detriment of consumers, to the people. [1:09:20] Yes, absolutely. And importantly for local broadcasters, these revenues are very important [1:09:25] to them. And that is a large part of how they finance the local journalism that so many communities [1:09:30] rely on. [1:09:31] Okay. And Mr. Travis, the same question to you. What do you think the consequence has been for [1:09:39] your constituency, fans across America, of these massive media consolidations and mergers? [1:09:44] Look, I don't think there's any fan in America, regardless of his or her politics, Democrat, [1:09:49] Republican, or Independent, that would say the sports fan viewing experience is getting better. [1:09:54] And that's why I contrasted it with the flat-screen television experience, what the cost is there. [1:09:59] Affordability and access are both getting worse. And in a market-based economy, based on capitalism, [1:10:06] the opposite should be occurring. We should be getting more affordable, better access, [1:10:10] and we're not seeing that. And I think it's gotten worse. It's accelerated. So over the last 20 years, [1:10:16] the fan experience has gotten worse. I mean, every one of you guys up there has sat with a remote, [1:10:21] trying to switch from one game to another and not been able to do it. In 2008, 2010, that wasn't an [1:10:28] issue. And so that's what I'm concerned about, is the average fan experience is degraded. [1:10:33] Yeah. So because that's the focus of your professional life, your personal life, it seems [1:10:40] like it subsumes your whole being there. What are some of the concrete ways in which [1:10:48] the fan experience has been degraded over the last several years? [1:10:51] I'll give you several, and I could probably talk for hours on this, and I have. [1:10:56] Just think about what goes on with streaming now. Streaming is delayed. If you're watching a game on [1:11:03] Amazon or you're watching a game on Netflix and you are sitting with your phone and you are texting [1:11:08] with your friends or family about a game, you might find out what happened on the play a minute [1:11:15] after it actually happened. Some of you know this experience. You've been sitting on your couch. [1:11:19] You don't even want to look at your phone because it's a crucible moment of the game, [1:11:24] and your buddy might have seen it already a minute ago. That didn't happen back in the day. We used to all [1:11:28] watch games together. Streaming is delayed. And I mean, that's a very minimal thing. The password [1:11:34] situation with not being able to get logged in. You've paid for it, but for some reason you're not [1:11:39] getting logged in. The fact that you might travel and try to watch a game and you gotta, you're right. [1:11:44] I'm obsessed with this. All right. [1:11:45] And the average fan is not getting- [1:11:47] I'll ask you one other question before I go and subscribe to OutKick.com. So the NFL has said [1:11:55] they've received no outreach from the DOJ about an investigation that was supposedly open months ago [1:12:01] into the NFL. Does that suggest the DOJ is actually doing their job for consumers or is all of this just [1:12:07] sort of performance art and posturing for Mr. Murdoch? I'm not an expert in DOJ investigations. I do have [1:12:16] a law degree. I would hope personally that the Department of Justice is actually looking into [1:12:21] this on the basis of the 1961 law and on the foundational idea across the political spectrum [1:12:27] of sports fans should get good value and not a degraded experience that they're currently receiving [1:12:33] across so many different sports. Thank you very much. You're back, Mr. Chairman. [1:12:36] Gentleman yields back. Now recognize the gentlewoman from Wyoming for five minutes. [1:12:43] Thank you. Since my time in Congress, I have long advocated for the use of sunsets [1:12:49] in much of the work that we undertake here, ensuring that issues can be revisited as circumstances [1:12:55] change. The Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 is a perfect example of this given that its enactment [1:13:02] came at a time when satellite streaming and modern cable television services did not exist. [1:13:08] Had a sunset clause been in place, Congress would have almost certainly been forced to address [1:13:12] the problems that we are hearing about today, the moment that viewing options moved beyond free, [1:13:18] over-the-air broadcast television. Mr. Travis, given the pace of change in sports broadcasting, [1:13:25] would you agree that whatever reform Congress may seek to undertake with the Sports Broadcasting Act, [1:13:30] that it would be wise to include a mechanism allowing us to continually revisit the issue well into the future? [1:13:36] Yes, I think that would be incredibly important because technology is hard to predict. [1:13:41] And I would point out that there is a discussion surrounding closed captioning [1:13:46] television. Back in the day, I understand to be true, back in the 1950s, 1960s, you could put [1:13:52] pay-per-view for big boxing matches and they would sometimes do it. And the 1961 Act specifically says [1:13:59] that would not be allowed here. In other words, we're moving towards a world, I think, where one day the Super [1:14:05] Bowl might be put on Netflix or Amazon or some streaming device that requires everybody to have [1:14:11] a subscription to be able to watch something that unites us all. I actually agree with Commissioner [1:14:16] Gomez on this. Sports is one of the last places where everybody can come together and common experience [1:14:22] things. I always say, if somebody makes a winning shot, you don't think about the politics or the [1:14:27] ethnicity or the religion of anybody else around you. Chairman Nadler was talking about the Knicks. [1:14:32] So, Mr. LeGate, do you agree that there should be a sunset in whatever bill we adopt? [1:14:37] Go Celtics. This is certainly a rapidly changing marketplace, and I do think that that would be [1:14:46] wise. But I think as important is to reaffirm these guardrails, that the piece of this ecosystem that [1:14:53] is not changing, which is that broadcast remains freely available to all, is the medium that this [1:14:58] act was intended to govern the negotiations with. Well, if we do move forward with a sunset clause, [1:15:03] what market factors would need to be considered when determining the appropriate length, among other [1:15:09] details? What are some of the market factors we need to consider in terms of identifying what that sunset [1:15:15] clause should be? Five years, seven years, ten years, three years? Well, I do think the lengths of these [1:15:22] media deals, by and large, which tend to be in the five to ten year range, are a factor here. But I would also [1:15:29] say that the nature of the professional sports leagues, the scope of leagues to which it should [1:15:34] apply. For a league like the NFL, which is well established, and certainly the principle here of [1:15:40] wanting to ensure that small market teams in Pittsburgh and Green Bay have an equitable chance to [1:15:46] succeed, reinvest in their product, benefit from the unique reach of broadcast, they're at a different [1:15:52] stage in their business than a more nascent sports league. Okay. Wyoming is one of just over 20 states [1:15:58] that lacks a professional sports team with respect to the major North American sports leagues. As a result, [1:16:04] our professional sports fan base can be highly fragmented. Additionally, with Wyoming being one of [1:16:09] America's most rural states, access to reliable broadband and other forms of connectivity is already a [1:16:15] challenge for many of my constituents. Taking football as an example, the most popular NFL teams in [1:16:21] Wyoming are the Denver Broncos and the Buffalo Bills, given the popularity of Josh Allen and his time [1:16:27] as a star quarterback for the University of Wyoming. Mr. Travis, suppose a Buffalo Bill fan lives in [1:16:33] Wyoming, well outside the team's home market, how would that fan access every Bills game during the [1:16:39] season at home? The Bills fan in Wyoming, who loves Josh Allen, who I happen to think is the best quarterback in the [1:16:45] NFL right now. In Wyoming, they may say the best ever. You would have to be an NFL Sunday Ticket subscriber. Now, [1:16:52] some Bills games, and this gets complicated, some Bills games would be carried nationally because [1:16:57] they are a very popular team. But if you had a constituent come to me and say, Mr. Travis, [1:17:02] how do I guarantee that I watch every Bills game? You would have to be an NFL Sunday Ticket subscriber. [1:17:07] You would not be able to only buy Buffalo Bills games, which is what your constituent is asking for. [1:17:14] They would have to buy the totality of the NFL Sunday Ticket package to ensure that they were able to watch [1:17:19] every Josh Allen game. Well, Mr. Hellers, I'll turn to you real quickly. Using the same scenario that I [1:17:25] gave Mr. Travis, what additional hurdles would a bar or restaurant in rural Wyoming need to jump [1:17:31] through to continually display Bills games throughout the season, particularly in instances where [1:17:36] connectivity already poses a challenge? Yes, and I just want to add, even if you buy the Sunday Ticket, [1:17:43] you don't get guaranteed all of the games. You may have to buy the other Netflix and Amazon as well. [1:17:49] So you're talking about having to buy everything. Even though you go buy the NFL's premier product, [1:17:54] it doesn't get you all the games. That's always been one of our gripes. It's like when we're [1:17:57] subscribing, why not give us all of the games instead of making us go negotiate or buy all of [1:18:04] these services. But in rural Wyoming, this is exactly what I'm talking about. You know, you can't get [1:18:10] high-speed streaming. So if I was a real sports bar, which I'm sure there are some in Wyoming, [1:18:16] right now today, they use satellite, which is, you know, beams to everyone equally. So they're not [1:18:23] impeded, and it's worked fine for decades. And today, if they're asked to do that, so now, [1:18:30] can you imagine in a smaller market, somebody going, I need to stream eight games, you know, [1:18:35] and plus show my over the air games? Are they going to go buy a gigabyte internet connection? [1:18:41] Thank you. Well, I appreciate that. Thank you. And I yield back. Thank you. [1:18:44] The gentleman yields back. We now recognize the gentleman from Vermont for five minutes. [1:18:48] Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you to all the witnesses for your time. And from where I sit, [1:18:52] every day is a great day to talk about antitrust enforcement. Because what is at the heart of all of [1:18:57] this is we've got fewer choices. We've got higher costs. We got services that used to be free. And [1:19:05] now they all come with a fee. And that's the modern American experience right now. And you are right. [1:19:12] It cuts across all political persuasions. People are angry. We all feel it. Our paychecks are not [1:19:18] stretching as far. Prices are creeping up. Quality of the products that we're getting is getting worse. [1:19:24] It affects everyone except the very few at the top who benefit from this. So whether you're tuning [1:19:30] into your favorite NFL team when you're trying to go to the doctor, whether you're trying to get online, [1:19:36] on and on, whether you're going to the grocery store, you are having a worse experience because [1:19:42] of this exploitation of the American fan and the American worker because of, from where I sit, [1:19:49] corporate greed. We got to this place because of uncontrolled media consolidation. [1:19:55] When our government does not enforce its own laws around antitrust, and we in Congress allow them [1:20:03] to gather dust, and every once in a while we have a hearing on a salient issue for many Americans, [1:20:08] but we should be doing this every day, then competition exists in name only. And consumers [1:20:15] and fans get ripped off. So I'm going to turn to you first, Commissioner Gomez. I appreciate how [1:20:21] outspoken you have been about the wave of media consolidations that we've seen, including, including [1:20:26] the Paramount Warner Brothers merger. Can you please explain how media consolidation affects fans and [1:20:32] their abilities to watch their favorite team? I know we've been over this, but it's important that we [1:20:37] continue to shine a light on this. Yes. So media consolidation as a whole impacts local communities. [1:20:46] It impacts local communities because they actually get less community content, and that includes sports [1:20:51] content. In this, in the case of national sports content, what media consolidation leads to is market [1:21:02] power and a lack of competition that then ends up impacting consumers because the corporations are more [1:21:10] worried about, obviously, by their bottom lines, paying down debt than they are about the viewers [1:21:15] themselves. And you talked about this earlier too, right? It is driving up costs. And I know fans feel [1:21:22] like they're stuck. They're absolutely stuck. They have no choice but to pay the fees on all these different [1:21:27] streaming services. Now, I want to take a moment to drill down on the Everpass situation for a moment, [1:21:34] because this doesn't just affect everyday costs for Americans. It hurts small businesses, which you [1:21:41] spoke to earlier, Mr. Haller. So I was really interested in what you had to say. For three decades, [1:21:46] Direct TV sold commercial Sunday ticket to bars and restaurants. Now that's ending. And starting next [1:21:52] season, the only authorized way for a business like Mr. Haller's business to show NFL Sunday ticket is [1:21:58] through Everpass Media. And Everpass is a joint venture between the NFL and a private equity firm. [1:22:05] What does it mean for you now that the NFL holds a financial stake in the only company authorized to [1:22:15] sell you its out-of-market games? I mean, this is like the epitome of monopoly right here. Right. Yeah. [1:22:20] Clearly, we see more and more price increases coming our way. That's just what we feel. And it's crazy that [1:22:28] they can't offer this out or have competition. I mean, why wouldn't you actually allow it to come out [1:22:36] on multiple services to ensure everyone can see the game? That's the crazy part. In other words, [1:22:42] it doesn't. What reason would there be not to let them still send it to Direct TV for everybody with [1:22:48] the legacy systems? And then sure. And by the way, they could come along and give a better deal. Hey, [1:22:54] switch to streaming. We'll give you a better deal. But that's, you know, 15% off the first year is not [1:22:59] exactly, you know, the promise of a better deal forever. Yeah. And look, if you have ever worked in [1:23:06] restaurants, as I have multiple times in my life, like your margins are very slim. Yeah. For most of [1:23:15] and that's why I've literally am out talking to different bar owners who are like, we're not even [1:23:20] gonna, we don't, we can't switch. They don't have the money to switch, you know, from Direct TV. They're, [1:23:26] they're all praying that that Direct TV somehow still gets the deal. [1:23:31] Yeah. Well, I appreciate you being here. The last point I just want to make is because I did attend [1:23:36] President Trump's second inauguration and saw all of the folks who were sitting behind him at the [1:23:42] inauguration, including Jeff Bezos. And just want to remind everybody that the CEO of Amazon gave [1:23:49] 10s of millions of dollars for the Melania documentary on top of spending 35 million to [1:23:56] market this, from my perspective, fluff piece on the First Lady. And this is what it's all about. It's [1:24:03] always about payback. It's a quid pro quo. And I just feel like these are issues that we can work [1:24:10] together across party on. And I hope that we will do that. Thank you. And I yield back. [1:24:14] Gentlewoman yields back. We now recognize gentlemen from Texas for five minutes. [1:24:18] Thank you, Mr. Leggett. As of today, a Dallas Cowboys fan in Dallas, where I'm from the Dallas [1:24:25] area, can watch all of their games for free. Is that accurate one? And is that the same for local [1:24:32] teams and other local areas? Thank you for the question. It's not, that is not accurate. It may be, [1:24:41] and let's, let's peel this back for a moment. Please. So if we're talking about a Cowboy fan [1:24:45] who lives in Dallas, um, that fan is going to have access to, uh, to, to, to the vast majority [1:24:55] of games free over the air. And then for the Cowboy games that are on Thursday night on Amazon or on [1:25:01] another streaming service, that game will be aired locally on broadcast to that fan in Dallas itself. [1:25:07] But for the other Cowboy fans across Texas, outside of that singular DMA, uh, they are going to have [1:25:16] to pay for the subscription, the subscription streaming service. There will be no over the air [1:25:21] option. And then certainly out of market, while certainly the Cowboys are popular enough that they [1:25:27] have games with a national distribution, a number of their games will not be available nationally. [1:25:34] So that out of market fan is going to need to pay for the Sunday ticket, probably in addition to [1:25:40] a number of other streaming services, as Mr. Travis just referred to Amazon, Netflix, [1:25:45] to access those games. So the cost still adds up. I, I, something is it's, I'm not Mr. NFL here, [1:25:53] but it just seems as if the point has not been made very well because I've watched everyone speak. [1:25:59] I realize I just walked in, but I've watched everyone. And I think the point has not been [1:26:03] greatly made that you can watch your local team in your local market. The phrase I've heard a lot [1:26:09] of folks say is my favorite team. But if you live in the Houston area, you can watch the Houston, Texas. [1:26:18] You maybe can't watch the Dallas Cowboys every single game. If you live in the Dallas area, [1:26:23] you can watch the Dallas Cowboys and you maybe can't watch the Green Bay Packers without having [1:26:28] to jump through some of these hoops that you talk about. And whether or not we think that's right or [1:26:32] wrong, I just want to make the point that I have not really heard anyone else make the point today. [1:26:37] And I think that's pretty significant that you can watch your local team in your local area. [1:26:43] Yes. And, and let me say, we are exceedingly proud as local broadcasters who are the ones [1:26:49] carrying that game in local markets across the country. We're exceedingly proud of that [1:26:53] partnership with the NFL. It has helped grow the NFL's fan base. It has helped grow our viewership. [1:26:58] We reinvest that in local journalism. So that is an important partnership. But beyond that very singular [1:27:05] local market relationship, the, the balance has eroded. And let me ask you this, Mr. Travis, [1:27:11] one of the arguments was the NFL, the smaller teams were not going to benefit as much, or they [1:27:19] were struggling. A Green Bay Packers team is not in a TV market that the Dallas Cowboys are in, [1:27:23] and that this helps them to be able to revenue share. And if we change it, or if we eliminate it, [1:27:29] rather, then someone like maybe the Jacksonville Jaguars are not going to do as well. Are they all [1:27:35] going to crash and burn? Probably not. But what's your take on if we, if we take away that ability for [1:27:40] them to revenue share and lift all boats? It's an excellent question. And I think the [1:27:45] easy answer is no one knows for sure. What I would point to is I'm a diehard football fan. [1:27:51] Like I said, I watch games all day Saturday and Sunday, way too many, ask my wife. [1:27:55] On Saturday, when I sit down, I can watch 10 college football games on broadcast television for [1:28:02] free. On Sunday, I can watch four. I tend to think that the NFL would be smart enough to continue to [1:28:09] maximize its audience and also maximize its revenue. So I don't think we know. And frankly, [1:28:15] I'm not sure how many people are saying, even in your world, Democrats or Republicans, [1:28:20] that the Sports Broadcast Act exemption should be removed. I think there's a lot of people who say [1:28:26] it needs to be applied fairly in the modern era, but I'm not hearing very many people say it would [1:28:32] be repealed. What your hypothetical is, and I think it's an interesting and a good one, is what if we [1:28:37] repealed this? What would the marketplace look like? And more significantly, how might it impact [1:28:42] competition going forward? And I think the easy answer is no one knows. But if you use college [1:28:46] football a bit as an approximator, they do not have an exemption, antitrust exemption. And you get more [1:28:53] games for fewer or lower costs in college than you do the NFL. I'm with you, but I can't watch my Texas [1:28:59] Longhorns every Saturday for free. I sometimes have to go to trouble. And if you also make that as a [1:29:06] percentage, you said 10 free games. Let's say that's the number. Yeah. How many college games [1:29:11] are going on on a Saturday compared to how many NFL games on a Sunday? The answer is a whole lot more. [1:29:17] Yeah, a lot more. I would say your Texas Longhorns, who, by the way, are really good. [1:29:21] That example to use, perhaps. But they're on ABC a lot for free. Now, it's true that ESPN, [1:29:26] if you get into the weeds, ESPN has the exclusive rights to the SEC. You have the SEC network, ESPN, [1:29:33] ESPN 2, ABC. But an awful lot, I would argue almost all of the big Longhorn games this coming [1:29:39] year. I haven't seen the full schedule, but I think you all will be on ABC a lot. [1:29:43] You're right. But if I told you my team was a smaller school that was playing every Saturday, [1:29:47] they're not always on TV. And those NFL teams, they always are. Some of the smaller town areas [1:29:53] that I don't know what happens if they can't share the revenue. I think it's a great question. [1:29:59] I have faith in the NFL's ability to make money no matter what the rules are. [1:30:02] Let's keep talking about it. I've enjoyed having you on. [1:30:04] Thank you. I appreciate it. [1:30:05] Gentleman yields back. I guess I would just make the point before I call on the gentleman from [1:30:10] California that all the professional leagues handle revenue sharing differently. Very clearly, [1:30:17] Major League Baseball does. So I'll recognize the gentleman from California for five minutes. [1:30:22] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank our witnesses here today. Good information. You know, [1:30:26] I'm a person back home. I prefer going to the Friday night high school football games, [1:30:32] stand on the sidelines. That's can't make, doesn't get any better than that. Hot dog and a drink. [1:30:39] It's a great time. But not all my constituents prefer high school. And to think of a thousand [1:30:47] dollars some people pay. What happened? 1961 antitrust fans first. What do I tell folks back home [1:31:01] that may be watching this today? They send us up here to fix things. And I think that's what people [1:31:06] are frustrated with back home is you guys talk a lot. Like my daughter says, you guys talk a lot. So [1:31:12] after today's hearing, is this going to fix anything? After today's hearing, do we have to pass [1:31:20] legislation to fix things? After today's hearing, do we have to get the executive to do something? And [1:31:26] I'm asking you, I'm going to ask each and every one of you that question or questions. And if you can [1:31:33] be concise with your answer, I'd appreciate it. Ms. Gomez, go ahead. Thank you for that question. I [1:31:39] mean, my advice to this committee is to look at where there's an excess of market power and a lack of [1:31:44] competition that leads to consumer harms. And the answer would be legislative, administrative, what? [1:31:52] Well, it's definitely not the FCC that can do something about this. So it would be us here? [1:31:56] Mr. Travis. My contention would be you've helped to create the situation at play by passing that [1:32:05] law in 1961. So it is incumbent upon you as Democrats, Republicans, independents, in my opinion, [1:32:12] speaking on behalf of a lot of fans out there who don't feel like the marketplace is serving them [1:32:16] well, they're paying more and getting less for you to fix the 1961 act in the context of the modern [1:32:22] era, which is very different. You know how many times I've had to struggle to find the [1:32:26] Chargers game for my wife? You are preaching to the choir. And I lose most of those efforts. [1:32:34] Mr. Legit? I think it's an all of the above approach. [1:32:40] Give me a priority here, not just all the above. The committee needs to reaffirm the scope of this [1:32:46] act, which, as Mr. Travis just said, was enacted by Congress. We're not here to scrutinize the NFL's [1:32:52] business practices. We're here to affirm that if they want to take advantage of an antitrust exemption [1:32:59] granted to them by this body, that there are certain public interest obligations that went along with [1:33:05] that. And there's a clearly defined scope to live up to the spirit of the law. That's exactly right. [1:33:10] And so I believe that this committee is uniquely positioned to deliver that message. And I believe that [1:33:16] the law needs to be properly enforced. Mr. Hillers? I'd just like to say that on Saturdays with college [1:33:25] football, we actually pay for and are able to show like 40 games. And it costs me pennies. The charge [1:33:33] doesn't even equate to anything that's a problem. And we now have more college fans than ever. And we see, [1:33:39] you know, bigger crowds sometimes on Saturdays than Sundays. And you wonder why that is when they've just [1:33:44] made the access so easy. So I'd like the NFL to just go back to being fan first rather than NFL first. [1:33:51] Next to high school, I love college ball. And I do hope that we continue to have access to those games [1:33:56] in a reasonable cost effective method. Last minute I've got here. Mr. Leggett, I want to ask you [1:34:04] just a quick question. There's a proposal to pull more regional games off broadcast, putting them on cable [1:34:10] TV. Would this proposal benefit local TV fans meaning or not? Do you know? I'm not familiar [1:34:19] with the specific proposal, but I can tell you the migration that we have seen in recent years has been [1:34:24] in the opposite direction, which is that teams that for decade plus had had their local had reached their [1:34:33] local fans through cable regional sports networks have have migrated over to back to local broadcast [1:34:40] television. And those teams across the NHL, the NBA and the MLB have seen their ratings surge. I think [1:34:47] it once again reaffirms the unique reach of broadcast. I can provide you and this committee follow [1:34:53] up on the specifics of those deals. They number now in the dozens across the major sports. And does that [1:34:57] raise the price or lower the price local? It's this is a home run for consumers because that game is [1:35:03] available free over the air to every one of those consumers without cost. I want to thank our witnesses [1:35:08] today. And if you get me that information, I would really appreciate it. And Mr. Chairman, [1:35:12] Ranking Member, hope he can continue to pursue this one because we have good information today, but [1:35:18] we still got to fix this these problems. Thank you. And I yield. [1:35:21] Gentleman yields. Gentleman from Virginia is now recognized for five minutes. [1:35:26] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Most Mr. Leggett, you've pointed out that NFL games on free broadcast [1:35:32] draw far larger audiences than the paywalled streams. Thanksgiving games average 45, 57 million [1:35:38] versus about 27 million for the Netflix Christmas game and 21 million for Amazon's Black Friday game. [1:35:45] If broadcast reaches twice the audience, what does it tell you that the league keeps moving marquee [1:35:51] games behind paywalls? I think to some degree you can take you can take for granted what you already [1:36:00] have. The partnership between all of the major sports leagues, but particularly the NFL and broadcast, [1:36:07] has been a testament, first and foremost, to the NFL's product, but also to the reach of broadcast, [1:36:15] which has built their fan base and has increased our viewership and allowed us to reinvest in journalism. [1:36:22] And that's the magic of this partnership. And as the NFL is now looking ahead to maybe a more global [1:36:28] marketplace, they are clearly diversifying the options that they're going to use to reach other [1:36:36] consumers. And I would just affirm for this committee that they're making that business determination. [1:36:42] But this antitrust exemption, which was granted to them, enables them to pool rights in a way that [1:36:48] would clearly be a violation of our antitrust laws. But for Congress's action was intended only to govern [1:36:56] those negotiations with broadcasters. The benefit to fans was that free access and the balance is off if [1:37:05] suddenly that act is going to be misused to enable negotiations with Amazon, Netflix or YouTube. [1:37:11] Now, reporting suggests that the NFL is seeking upwards of an additional billion dollars a year from [1:37:17] its network partners. In your view, is the fragmentation that fans experience a byproduct [1:37:22] of serving fans or byproduct of maximizing rights fees? Well, listen, by expanding the pool of media [1:37:32] entities negotiating for these rights, the sports leagues are creating a broad marketplace. [1:37:38] And we know that these global streamers, who have a number of other businesses as well, [1:37:45] don't have the same financial constraints when it comes to bidding for sports rights. So that's [1:37:49] driving up the price for everyone. One point I would make with regard to that reported billion dollar [1:37:55] increase that the NFL is requesting in their rights, that's just with regard to their negotiations with [1:38:04] paramount. That is not their negotiations with the other broadcast networks. They have said explicitly [1:38:12] that they are looking for a 50 percent or more increase in their rights deals, given the increase [1:38:19] that the NBA got during its last round of negotiations. And so that number is much higher than a billion dollars. [1:38:25] Thank you. Mr. Travis, Everpass, the new exclusive commercial distributor that bars and restaurants [1:38:32] now must pay, is partly owned by the NFL's own investment arm alongside Redbird and the owner of WWE and UFC. [1:38:41] So the league sold the rights to a venture it has stake in and then made that venture the only option. [1:38:47] As someone who covers the sports business, how should fans read that? What I would say about the NFL Sunday [1:38:53] ticket is, in my opinion, the NFL should offer single team options in addition to the entire NFL Sunday [1:39:01] ticket. So in general, if an entity is not serving the marketplace what the marketplace is demanding, [1:39:10] that would raise questions about why they're doing that. From a business perspective, I think the answer [1:39:15] is because they can charge 480 some odd dollars for the NFL Sunday ticket if they include all those games. [1:39:21] If they only sold individual games, what it appears the vast majority of fans would prefer, [1:39:26] they might only be able to charge 80 or 100 dollars. And so they are making hundreds of [1:39:32] millions of dollars on a product that the average NFL fan, if given the option to choose between, [1:39:38] would likely not pick. A federal jury in 2024 found that the NFL had conspired to inflate Sunday [1:39:45] ticket prices. A verdict later set aside and now on appeal. Set the legal status aside, [1:39:51] does the behavior that trial surfaced match what you're seeing and how the league prices and [1:39:56] distributes its games today? Well, look, I mean, I think the fact that a jury and a court have been [1:40:01] examining this issue, again, kind of speaks to your ability and your opportunity on behalf of [1:40:08] constituents across the political spectrum to try to make their favorite sport more affordable and [1:40:14] ensure that they're not getting gouged in the process. That feels like a very legitimate perspective, [1:40:18] given that you guys have already interjected yourself into this with the 1961 act. [1:40:24] It feels incumbent upon Congress to address this. I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. [1:40:30] Gentleman yields back. Now recognized gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Johnson for five minutes. [1:40:34] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I imagine that there are some diehard NFL fans out there who, [1:40:40] when they found out that there was going to be a hearing about the NFL on C-SPAN, they locked into C-SPAN, [1:40:50] not because they wanted to see what we or hear what we are talking about, but because it said NFL and [1:40:57] they're just hoping that the games are going to start the season, preseason, just, you know, ready for it already. [1:41:04] And it's coming soon, folks. You know, the NFL is the undisputed champion of American spectator sports. [1:41:15] Very popular. The model works. The American people love NFL football. You know, that's the bottom line. So, [1:41:27] you know, they got this exemption, antitrust exemption in 61, 1961, that allowed for collective bargaining [1:41:38] between the NFL and not streaming services or cable or satellite operators, but broadcasters. And [1:41:46] broadcasters, by the way, are, they serve every community in this country with trusted journalism, [1:41:55] for the most part, emergency information, local sports, weather, public affairs, programming. [1:42:03] We don't want to see our broadcasters go away. And they would only game in town in terms of delivering [1:42:10] NFL content back in 61. And so they got this exemption to competitive, to collectively bargain, [1:42:22] which has led to a competitive balance across the league. Teams are competitively balanced. That's [1:42:29] one of the secrets, I think, that has led to the NFL's success is because any team can win on any given [1:42:39] Sunday. And Mr. Gooden made a great point about people being able on broadcast TV, free TV, [1:42:49] to watch their local NFL team, not necessarily their favorite team. But I hear Mr. Travis wanting there [1:42:57] to be more choice offered by the NFL for viewers who are interested in teams other than their local [1:43:07] team. They want to be able to access those teams without getting soaked financially. And I'll note at [1:43:13] this point that when you try to go to a game, Mr. Travis, if you took your three sons to an NFL game, [1:43:21] the average price, average ticket price is $310, $310 to $350 in the nosebleed section. The cheapest ticket, [1:43:36] $156. So if you wanted to take your boys out to see an NFL game, that's going to cost you $600 and [1:43:46] some odd dollars, which most families are not able to afford. And so, you know, we can't soak the people [1:43:56] who enjoy football when they're watching it on platforms other than broadcast either. But I also [1:44:06] understand that the NFL has been expanding the antitrust exemption by collectively bargaining with [1:44:19] other platforms other than broadcast. Is that correct, Mr. LeJet? That is correct. [1:44:27] And so, and Mr. Travis, you believe, and by the way, Mr. I can't see that far over there, Mr. Hallers, [1:44:40] you're offering it to fans who like to flock to your restaurant and bars and enjoy the game among [1:44:48] friends. Certainly nothing wrong with that. We should be able to do that. Shouldn't be confined [1:44:53] to the house to watch our football. But I guess, you know, nobody is here advocating that the NFL [1:45:04] should be offering games every each and every game for free across all platforms. Correct? Got to pay. [1:45:14] So the question is how much and and how? And, you know, we do have artificial intelligence available [1:45:21] for those fans who want to access JetGPT or some other artificial intelligence vehicle and ask, [1:45:30] how can I watch my favorite team on this particular Sunday at the cheapest price? But then you have to [1:45:37] have all of these different sticks to to plug in. And that's costing you, you know, more than a football [1:45:44] game per year. I mean, per per month, if you want to get all of the sticks. So, you know, how do we make [1:45:51] the game available to as many people as possible for as cheaply as possible? And sometimes if it ain't broke, [1:45:59] don't fix it. And gentlemen, and let the technology let let the free market system work its will that I guess [1:46:06] some of my folks on the other side of the aisle would would appreciate that particular perspective. [1:46:13] I'm not arguing for it, but I don't know what we should do. But I do know I'm looking forward to watching [1:46:18] NFL football coming up. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to claim the 45 extra seconds that we [1:46:24] And gentlemen, gentlemen yields back. Now recognize the ranking member for some UC requests. [1:46:30] Mr. Chair, thank you. Mergers FCC pressure, threat and integrity of American journalism from the Seattle [1:46:35] Times. Without objection. Rupert Murdoch's high stakes blitz against the NFL Wall Street Journal. Without objection. [1:46:42] And finally, Paramount's WBD takeover explained how the US $111 billion deal could reshape sports media [1:46:50] from sportspro.com. Without objection. For the record, I've never met or spoken to Rupert Murdoch. [1:46:55] So we now recognize the gentleman from California for five minutes. I can't say that I once introduced [1:47:02] him to his his twin separated at birth, the other Murdoch, David Murdoch. They'd never met each other. [1:47:11] They both are small with British sounding accents. And I was shocked to find out they didn't know [1:47:17] each other. That's the last time I saw him. But I do want to equal it by a story. I want to note for [1:47:23] the record, as chairman, that it's about $10 if you would like to see the Republicans and Democrats [1:47:29] fight it in a baseball game at the stadium here tonight. So for the ranking member of the subcommittee [1:47:35] who left, hopefully he'll invite you all. It's 10 bucks. He can afford it. [1:47:42] I want to shift a little bit to the antitrust question, followed by the current dilemma we face. [1:47:49] Commissioner Gomez, if we had not granted in 1961 an antitrust exemption, would the NFL otherwise be free [1:47:59] to essentially withhold anything, all broadcast, pick and choose, do whatever they want without any [1:48:07] congressional oversight or another way of putting it, except for that authority that what comes with [1:48:13] that grant. We really don't have any leverage over the private entity that entities that make up the [1:48:19] NFL. They could choose, for example, not to broadcast at all and have everything be private. [1:48:25] Oh, yes, that is actually true under the First Amendment. You can't force people to [1:48:31] Okay, so we are dealing with, all of us on this side of the dais, with an authority we get by giving [1:48:38] something. We're giving antitrust. Antitrust exemption has allowed the NFL, as other professional sports, [1:48:47] to essentially conspire to maximize their revenue. Is that in a nice way? Conspire might be the least nice [1:48:54] way, but to come together to maximize their revenue without fear of the trust laws adversely affecting [1:49:00] them. So my understanding of the original intent of the SBA was to protect small market teams and fans [1:49:11] in the negotiations for being able to actually access. Sure. They try to equalize it so that Green Bay, [1:49:19] with its vast amount of loyal people, can in fact do at least as good a job as San Diego did when they [1:49:25] failed to protect the Chargers and allowed them to leave for LA. That small, large is kind of [1:49:31] interesting when you have real fans in Cleveland and Green Bay and apparently not enough in San Diego. [1:49:37] But getting past my personal challenges on all of that as a San Diegan, let me move the question back [1:49:45] over to the other three. Broadcast, for example, Mr. Leggett, is what created, to a great extent, [1:49:55] a massive amount, including radio in the old days more than today, created each of these sports, [1:50:01] baseball, football, and so on. The ability to be captured even when they couldn't go to the game, [1:50:08] whether they could afford it or not, many of them had to work, it was late at night, they had kids, [1:50:12] whatever the reason is. Isn't Broadcast, in fact, what created the widespread, almost universal love [1:50:19] of these games? This has been an incredible partnership and success. You've got the reach [1:50:28] of Broadcast, freely available to all, in some cases nationally, always locally, delivering a product [1:50:37] and helping to build fan bases. I mean, that's what we've seen here and it's been remarked upon [1:50:42] throughout this hearing, but in this very polarized environment, sports brings communities together. [1:50:47] So it's a tremendous success story. This antitrust exemption helped to enable it by giving the [1:50:55] leagues the ability to pool rights. There were pro-competitive reasons for it, but there's a public [1:51:00] access bargain implied in it, which is making that distribution available to all. [1:51:05] I want to make a point that hopefully will benefit all of us as we go forward. [1:51:09] An old story, but not that old. There was a company called Circuit City in Richmond, Virginia. [1:51:17] It dominated consumer electronics sales. Another one in Minnesota called Best Buy and a number of [1:51:22] others. Some years ago, Circuit City, the leader in that industry, also sold white goods like many of [1:51:30] them did, refrigerators, washers, and dryers. The CEO made the decision that they were simply going to [1:51:36] get rid of the low margin part of it and concentrate on where they made the high margin. Circuit City was [1:51:43] gone in a few years. Their bankruptcy in no small part was attributed to the lack of traffic they had [1:51:50] in their stores. That traffic dropped off because without white goods, which were low profit, but brought [1:51:56] in mom and dad and the kids to look at the other products that ultimately sold. That is the story that I'm [1:52:04] concerned about today. From a standpoint of the FCC's obligation, they know it's clear. What I'm [1:52:13] concerned about, and I'm making the point here today rather than a lot of questions, is if NFL [1:52:22] doesn't see that maintaining that broad appeal through markets that are not highly profitable, [1:52:30] they may find that the product profitability drops off as the fans drop off in no small part because [1:52:37] of each of your locations not being at the center of the ability to see the product. And, Mr. Chairman, [1:52:44] I appreciate you giving me that 45 seconds to opine on that. Go Chargers. I yield back. [1:52:50] The gentleman yields back. We now recognize the gentleman from Washington State. [1:52:54] Well, thank you, Mr. Chair, and I want to thank our panelists for this very important discussion. [1:52:59] I'm pretty sure that this body needs to take a strong look at the 1961 Broadcasting Act and update [1:53:08] it, I think, at a time that streaming wasn't even conceived of, that if the underlying piece of [1:53:13] legislation is going to be appropriately applied, that we need to rethink through this. I'd also say, [1:53:18] I think it's to the detriment of this conversation and to the NFL that Commissioner Roger Goodell [1:53:23] was not here. I'm sure at some point he's either watching or listening, [1:53:28] or this message will get to him, but I think, Commissioner Goodell, you would be well served [1:53:31] if this thing's going to turn out in the direction you would like to come before this committee [1:53:35] and participate. You know, my colleague from Wyoming commented how Josh Allen made most people [1:53:44] in Wyoming Buffalo Bills fans. We in eastern Washington had a similar phenomenon with Gardner Minshew. [1:53:51] We are certainly all Seahawks fans, but when Gardner was playing with Jacksonville and then with [1:53:57] the Indianapolis Colts, we would go through the regular process of trying to find those games. [1:54:02] Does that mean that we're entitled to watch all those games for free? I'm not sure, but it matters to [1:54:08] my voters. Mr. Travis, I really appreciate you being here. I've long been a fan. Both my wife and I [1:54:14] and I liked reading an anonymous mailbag. I appreciate your evolution of political philosophy, [1:54:21] and I really admire you as just an American entrepreneur. I also know you're a big sports [1:54:26] fan. You have boys. I have boys. And so a lot of what you say appeals to me. Now, you're a big SEC [1:54:32] guy. I get it. You're from the South. You know, I'm from the West Coast, but we do play football out [1:54:37] there a little bit as well, too. It looks like you want to make a comment, then I'll go on. [1:54:41] Yeah, I mean, SEC football is the best in the country, but I appreciate other parts of the [1:54:45] country. Well, let me say that I was really good friends with Mike Leach. He was one of my best [1:54:51] friends. We taught a class together called Insurgent Warfare Football Strategy, traveled [1:54:55] around the world together, and as he got to know you, he would tell me about his interactions with [1:55:00] you. I want to talk a little bit about both pro and college football in my time here. I think, [1:55:07] would you agree that one of the things that makes pro football special and compelling is the [1:55:11] competitive parody? Yes. And if the NFC East had a higher salary cap than the AFC West, [1:55:20] that would be a product that would be less fun to watch. Is that correct? 100%. [1:55:25] And if the NFC East got significantly higher TV revenue distribution than the AFC West, [1:55:33] that would make that product less fun to watch. Look, I think the NFL's ability to share revenue [1:55:39] and create. The NFL is unique. The way that I would sum it up is the NFL is the business is the [1:55:46] competition. Okay. If the games are not fun, nobody watches. If they're not competitive, [1:55:51] no one watches. So that's the essence of the sport itself. And so, you know, as we turn to the college [1:55:55] example, and as behind me, you see some graphics of how much more the NFL and pro sports are squeezing [1:56:03] out of TV dollars per viewer than college sports are, as we deal with college sports issue. And [1:56:07] I really appreciate you talking about the Buffalo Bills example as a publicly funded entity that [1:56:12] should be publicly regulated. You know, I am very, very free market. I sponsored right to work [1:56:18] legislation when it was our state Senate. But when it comes to college sports, you know, my view is that [1:56:23] these are highly subsidized public goods and they should be regulated as such. And with all due respect to [1:56:29] the SEC and the Big Ten and the large market schools, what makes that system special is the [1:56:36] entire country. And what my school went through, Washington State University, was to get its guts [1:56:42] ripped out through conference realignment and not for competitive reasons. I mean, we beat Wisconsin [1:56:49] the last two times that we played. We had beat Oregon four times in a row. We competed at the highest [1:56:55] levels of college sports and then through no fault of our own had that ripped away, had our guts ripped [1:57:01] out. And I think the solution for keeping what's special about all sports is to adopt some of these [1:57:08] TV revenue aspects in the name of competitive parody at the college sports level. And so just in the [1:57:15] remaining time, Mr. Travis, you know, I know you're an SEC guy. I know you have a big time network and I know the [1:57:20] incentives that drive you towards creating a second NFL model, but what would you say about [1:57:26] legislation for my voters? You know, my fans, Wash State University, the small schools, what is your [1:57:31] message to us? This is a great question. We could probably do hours on this. First, I should say, [1:57:37] since I'm under oath, Mike Leach belongs in the College Football Hall of Fame. I absolutely love Mike [1:57:43] Leach and the run that he had at Washington State, I think is emblematic of why so many people love [1:57:48] college football. College football needs to be fixed. It is broken. And there's a lot of discussions [1:57:54] about how to fix it. I think that it's being underutilized dollars wise. I think the value of [1:58:02] college football is second only to the NFL and figuring out how to allocate more resources to [1:58:08] college football that also can then support Olympic sports. Because remember, most of the money for college [1:58:13] athletics comes in through college football, a little bit for men's basketball. We have to make more [1:58:18] money and reallocate it better to create a better quality of competition in college athletics, [1:58:25] college football in particular. I agree with you. I think it's awful that Washington State was left [1:58:30] behind, that Oregon State was left behind, and that the Pac-12 was ultimately destroyed in that process. [1:58:37] We need to create, I think, a system that allows everyone to be more successful, more money, SEC, Big 10, [1:58:44] Big 12, ACC, but also provide a pathway to high-level competition for outside of those four major [1:58:51] conference schools. Yeah. And thank you for being a fan, by the way. [1:58:54] The gentleman yields back. I should ask to have his words taken down. His attack on University of Wisconsin [1:59:04] Wisconsin was unwarranted. And I now recognize... But accurate. Yeah. And I now recognize the [1:59:12] chairman of the full committee, a former Wisconsin Badger, sitting to your right. [1:59:16] Yeah, I was going to say, a graduate from Wisconsin. For five minutes. [1:59:19] I'm a former, always a Badger. I always joke, I majored in wrestling, but you're supposed to get a degree, [1:59:24] so I got one there. Let me go right back where the good the good gentleman from Washington was, [1:59:30] Mr. Travis. So should there be an SBA for college sports? Oh man, I think it's a super fascinating [1:59:37] question. My general perspective on it would be, I don't know that it needs to be classified as an SBA. [1:59:43] There needs to be an antitrust exemption that is created for college sports, because right now there [1:59:48] are no rules. I don't know how many of you paid attention to what just happened in Lubbock, Texas, [1:59:53] with a star quarterback who's suddenly, even though he was gambling on sports, now eligible, [1:59:59] according to a federal district court judge. We can't have college sports run by different [2:00:04] individual federal district courts all over the country. We have to have a uniform set of rules [2:00:09] that everyone understands and follows. Of course. And I mean, we had someone ask me like, [2:00:14] well, why is, why is Congress getting involved in college sports? You guys just screw everything up. [2:00:17] And not like, I get that general point, but it's because we have an antitrust law and you got to [2:00:21] have some kind of relief from antitrust law. If the governing body can have the ability to make [2:00:27] every rule to kind of simplify it, every rule that's put in place by any governing body is [2:00:32] immediately challenged under antitrust law. So without the antitrust exemption, [2:00:36] every athlete can sue and argue that they're being unfairly discriminated against under antitrust law. [2:00:41] Yeah. So that's why we got to pass either the score act or the, excuse me, the one that's [2:00:46] introduced by the senators protect college sports act. We got to get, I think we got to get something [2:00:52] to use the sports analogy, some ball in place. I agree. [2:00:55] We can address at least that fundamental question on the college side. Okay. On the professional side, [2:00:59] seems to me there are two fundamental questions. One is consumer welfare standard. Is that standard [2:01:03] being met in the current environment? And two is the statute, the 1961 statute being followed [2:01:10] with the judiciary committee. That's the standard in the courts is consumer welfare. And there's a [2:01:15] statute is the statute being followed. So let's go with the first one. Let's deal with the first [2:01:21] question. If we can do cartels consolidate power. I don't know who wants to, who wants to do the [2:01:26] economics analysis here. Mr. Legat, we'll go with you at the broadcaster. The blanket question of [2:01:31] the cartels consolidate power. They do. Yeah. Do they undermine competition? They do. Do they just do [2:01:37] decrease output? They do. And when all that happens, what happens to price? Prices go up. Prices go up. [2:01:43] So that's the concern we have for consumers. That's just fundamental economics. I'm glad I was an economics [2:01:48] major, by the way. You were an economics major too. See, I got lucky there. So, um, [2:01:54] and the way we give people choices that they want, and that is that the best price is the marketplace. [2:01:59] And so that's, that's what we're, we're, we're trying to deal with. Now, how about the statute [2:02:03] is the 19, I think, I think Mr. Travis talked about the series, the 1961 statute being followed. [2:02:10] In my opinion, no, the title tells you, yes, the sports broadcasting act, not the sports streaming, [2:02:17] not the sports satellite, the sports broadcasting act. So there's a concern there. And I think [2:02:20] when you read the statute, it talks about telecasts, which obviously at the time, [2:02:23] because that's all they basically had was broadcast telecasts, it's there. [2:02:28] And maybe more importantly, did a jury find the NFL in violation of these two things, [2:02:34] the statute and the consumer welfare standard, according to the Sherman antitrust act? [2:02:39] They did. They did. And what was the verdict? Do you remember? [2:02:42] It was a lot of money, a lot of money. It's trebled. So I think it was like $14 billion. Now, [2:02:48] the judge said timeout. He didn't necessarily agree with what the expert witnesses said. So [2:02:53] we're going to reevaluate this, but that's the situation we're in. We got the college sports [2:02:57] issue where some people are saying we need to do something with the sports broadcasting. Maybe we [2:03:01] do. We've got the NFL where consumers are talking to us and we're just trying to wrestle with what's [2:03:06] the best thing to do. So I got one minute and 13 seconds. What's the best thing to do, Mr. Howlers? [2:03:13] Well, I think they just for the fans. Or the price for bar owners, right? Whatever that is. [2:03:18] Look, I'm not here complaining about what they charge us for the programming. And you guys know, [2:03:23] we haven't talked about that. But for a small bar, they charge for the Sunday ticket $6,000 a year. [2:03:28] For a larger bar, $14,000 a year just for that Sunday ticket for an occupancy $195 bar. [2:03:34] Travis is probably the only fan that would ever pay that. [2:03:36] It's even more for the bigger bars. But we're saying charges. Just don't take away our choices. [2:03:44] Just let us get it everywhere fairly. And that's what the fans want, too. They just want access [2:03:50] to the program in a fair way. And for the fans, of course, they're like, don't overcharge. [2:03:56] Commissioner, I will include everyone. I'm being bipartisan today. I want the Democrat witness. [2:04:00] Go ahead. Thank you. I think it's very important that we look at where there is market power and [2:04:06] where there's no competition that is harming consumers. We've seen this in the consolidation [2:04:10] of major media companies, where we have seen local communities get harmed because they lose [2:04:15] content. They lose the local journalism. They lose diversity of viewpoints. And this really matters [2:04:22] to the local communities that these broadcasters are serving. And the last word for Mr. Leggett, [2:04:29] Mr. Travis. Look, the NFL is saying 87% of their games are available to nationwide consumers. [2:04:40] That's not true in any of your markets. No market in America gets 87% of the games for free. [2:04:47] And my point would be, if the NFL is saying we're doing it 87% of the time, [2:04:51] that still means you're violating the law 13% of the time, almost by your very admission. And that's [2:04:57] why I think you guys have an obligation or responsibility and a duty to figure out how to [2:05:01] apply this law going forward in modern era. The plain text of the law, as you alluded to, [2:05:07] Mr. Chairman, it is clear that it applies to broadcast only, those pooled negotiations. [2:05:13] Frankly, the legislative history is even more clear that the committee considered a broader [2:05:18] application of the law to paid services and narrowed it to broadcast. So very clearly here, [2:05:24] if the league is using the antitrust exemption to negotiate with Amazon, Netflix, Google, [2:05:31] that's not what the law contemplated. As you're thinking about college sports, our simple ask would [2:05:36] be that this migration of sports away from broadcast behind paywalls is a net harm to consumers and need [2:05:43] to be very, very cautious as to how we don't further that trend as it relates to college sports. [2:05:51] Mr. Chairman, thanks for your good work. I yield back. [2:05:53] Chairman, I yield back. That concludes today's hearing. We thank our witnesses for appearing [2:05:57] before the subcommittee today. Without objection, all members will have five legislative days [2:06:02] to submit additional written questions for the witnesses and additional materials for the record. [2:06:06] Without objection, the hearing is adjourned.