In a significant development for sports broadcasting and antitrust law, a panel of judges from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals expressed skepticism during oral arguments about a lower court’s decision to discard a substantial jury award against the National Football League according to Law360. The hearing, held on March 9, 2026, focused on whether the district judge appropriately intervened in a case involving the league’s Sunday Ticket package, which allows fans to watch out-of-market games. This appeal stems from a long-running class action lawsuit that could reshape how professional football games are distributed and priced for viewers across the United States.
The controversy centers on allegations that the NFL and its 32 teams engaged in anticompetitive practices by collectively pooling their television broadcast rights and granting exclusive licensing to a single provider. For years, this arrangement meant that Sunday Ticket was available only as a comprehensive bundle through DirecTV, and later YouTube TV, without options for fans to purchase access to individual teams’ games. Plaintiffs, representing over 2.4 million residential subscribers and more than 48,000 commercial establishments who bought the package between 2011 and 2023, argued that this setup artificially inflated prices and limited consumer choice, violating federal antitrust statutes under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.
The case has a protracted history, beginning with its initial dismissal by the district court, only to be revived by the Ninth Circuit in 2019. That earlier appellate ruling found that the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged harm to competition, paving the way for a full trial. In June 2024, after a three-week proceeding in a California federal court, a jury sided with the subscribers, awarding them $4.7 billion in damages. Under antitrust provisions, this amount could have been tripled to approximately $14.1 billion, representing one of the largest such verdicts in sports industry history. The decision highlighted concerns over how the league’s centralized control over broadcasting rights suppressed potential competition from smaller networks or individual team deals, forcing fans to pay premium prices for unwanted content.
However, just over a month later, in August 2024, U.S. District Judge Philip S. Gutierrez overturned the jury’s finding. He ruled that the methodologies used by the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses were unreliable and did not adequately demonstrate class-wide injury or quantifiable damages. The judge criticized the experts’ approaches as flawed, suggesting that the awarded sum amounted more to speculation than evidence-based calculation. This move granted judgment as a matter of law to the NFL, effectively nullifying the verdict and dismissing the claims for both monetary damages and injunctive relief that could have forced changes to the Sunday Ticket model.
Undeterred, the plaintiffs appealed once more to the Ninth Circuit, contending that the district court overstepped by rejecting admissible expert testimony post-verdict and failing to consider the sufficiency of evidence for injunctive remedies separately from damages. They emphasized that even without precise quantification, the evidence supported findings of anticompetitive behavior, including the league’s interlocking agreements that mirrored restrictions previously deemed unlawful in other sports broadcasting contexts, such as college football.
During the March 9 arguments, the appellate panel appeared receptive to these points. Judges probed the rationale behind the trial court’s reversal, with indications that they viewed the intervention as potentially undermining the jury’s role in weighing evidence. One key concern raised was whether the district judge properly applied standards for post-trial motions, which require viewing facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and avoiding credibility assessments. The panel’s questioning suggested a willingness to reinstate at least parts of the verdict, possibly including the injunctive claims that could compel the NFL to offer more flexible viewing options, like single-team packages, to foster greater market competition.
The NFL, in defense, maintained that the lower court’s ruling was correct, arguing that without reliable expert input, the plaintiffs failed to prove essential elements of their case, such as widespread harm and measurable economic impact. The league has long contended that its broadcasting model benefits fans by ensuring broad revenue sharing among teams, which supports parity and overall league stability. Critics, however, see it as a cartel-like structure that prioritizes profits over consumer interests.
A decision from the Ninth Circuit could arrive in the coming months, potentially affirming the overturn, partially reviving the award, or fully reinstating the jury’s determination. If the verdict is upheld, it might lead to billions in payouts and force structural changes in how NFL games are packaged and sold, influencing similar arrangements in other professional sports leagues. Beyond the financial stakes, the outcome underscores broader debates about monopoly power in media and entertainment, where exclusive deals often clash with demands for affordability and choice.
This case also draws attention from the U.S. Department of Justice, which filed an amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs’ position on injunctive relief, stressing the importance of antitrust enforcement to open markets. As streaming services continue to dominate sports viewing, resolutions here could set precedents for future disputes involving platforms like Amazon Prime or ESPN+. For now, football enthusiasts and legal observers alike await the appellate court’s ruling, which promises to impact both the economics of the game and the principles of fair competition in American business.
Please add Cord Cutters News as a source for your Google News feed HERE. Please follow us on Facebook and X for more news, tips, and reviews. Need cord cutting tech support? Join our Cord Cutting Tech Support Facebook Group for help.