In recent months, the NFL has found itself under unprecedented scrutiny regarding its long-standing antitrust exemption. From the question of whether the exemption applies to packages sold to broadcasting companies whether (as suggested by Fox owner Rupert Murdoch’s The Wall Street Journal) it must be completely goneA very important part of the league’s profit sharing model has been attacked, in various areas of the organization.
So what is it all about? After Friday’s effort by several league officials to protect the current broadcast model during a conference call to discuss the 2026 regular season schedule, it makes sense to understand what is motivating it.
Advertisement
The following is my personal assessment of the situation, based on everything I’ve seen and heard since antitrust deregulation first appeared on the radar screens of certain members of Congress, the FCC, the Department of Justice, and (more recently) President. Despite the presence of a peacock in the upper left corner of the page, this is PFT’s analysis – not NBC’s opinion.
Clearly, NBC is interested in the NFL continuing its long-term commitment to traditional, FCC-regulated network television, and in NBC continuing to be a profitable, active network. I have set those facts aside for these purposes. (And, on another level, caution in the air in the name of calling it as I see it.)
This situation, in my opinion, is caused by the convergence of many political ideologies. The 2022 switch of the Thursday night package from Fox to Prime Video required fans for the first time to purchase a streaming package to gain access to each regular window of the week. (Prior to that, cable access was required for some Thursday night games on NFL Network and for Monday night games televised by ESPN and not simulcast on ABC.)© shows (starting with a Christmas doubleheader) on Netflix added another layer of cost to consumers, as did the Peacock specials purchased by NBC.
This year, Netflix will have five independent shows spread between September, November, December, and January. To see them all, a consumer will have to purchase the service for most of the upcoming football season.
Advertisement
The financial impact on consumers has drawn the attention of many members of Congress. Most recently, Wisconsin Senator Tammy Baldwin we contested the decision to put the Packers-Rams game the night-before-Thanksgiving on Netflix, which would require residents of states not served by Green Bay/Milwaukee broadcast companies to buy Netflix to watch. (He has separately introduced legislation (which would require that all nationally televised games be available free of charge to all residents of the region where the participating teams are headquartered.)
Another source of political pressure comes from the NFL’s decision, following a huge increase in recent NBA TV deals, to go back to the table with its broadcast partners and get more out of the current weekly packages – not when the deals expire but sooner rather than later. And our current broadcast partners (Fox, CBS, NBC, Prime Video, YouTube, and ESPN/ABC) are generally not happy about the possibility of raising payments that were set in stone for the 2029 season.
The most obvious “or else” comes from the fact that, from 2030, one or more current partners will lose their packages. Maybe from streaming companies like Netflix or Prime Video or Apple TV or whoever else can get the money the NFL hopes to make it a very attractive asset not only in sports but in all of entertainment. Nothing draws more live viewers together like the NFL. Even as the wider audience breaks down between the many sought-after options, football continues to be a top magnet.
Every week, millions tune in to watch live sports. There is real value in that, and the NFL hopes to expand it. As you absolutely should.
Advertisement
But there is a limit. The time when the golden goose runs out of eggs. As soon as the waterfowl become flatline.
This prompted Murdoch to sound the alarm, and to rally politically against the NFL’s efforts to get more money for settled contracts through a not-so-subtle proposal to be acquired by the broadcast networks. Khartoum’s head in their bed unless they climb up. Murdoch, instead of Fox, went he put it as an existential threat. (These days, what threat isn’t there? It’s become a knee-jerk reaction to anything and everything anyone wants to do. Which makes it harder than ever to figure out when a threat actually exists.)
The effort has gotten real traction in the DC NFL recently made its case to the FCC about the current business model. During Friday’s conference call about the 2026 schedule, the first question (Ian Rapoport of NFL Network/ESPN) gave NFL Media VP and COO Hans Schroeder a chance to state the league’s position.
“We love our model,” Schroeder said. “We think we have a more fan-friendly model than any sports or entertainment in terms of distribution. One hundred percent of our shows are on the air in our home markets. Eighty-seven [percent] they’re distributed by broadcast, and we think that’s the place to be.”
Advertisement
Schroeder also noted, citing the 27.5 million Christmas Day audience for Lions-Vikings on Netflix, that fans are already on some paid platforms. (It’s unknown, though, how many fans specifically bought a month of Netflix to watch the NFL’s Christmas doubleheader.)
It becomes a chicken and egg question. Does the league create a path to meet fans where they are, or make them go there? For broadcasters like Netflix, Prime Video, and Peacock, the financial investment is partially justified by the potential increase in customers. Simply put, they buy the service to watch an NFL game, and hopefully stick around.
Right now, the broadcast networks don’t seem to be trying to recoup the number of games the NFL sells on broadcast platforms. It’s more about playing defense than going on the attack. Drawing a line in the sand when it comes to broadcasting. And, finally, to get the league to move away from the unspoken threat of removing complete packages from broadcast TV and selling them to broadcasters.
If nothing else, the political campaign led by Murdoch has forced the union to announce its commitment to social media. The obvious goal is to shorten the thought that they will take out their budget to increase their current prices by 50 percent and that, if they don’t, one or more of them will lose their packages in 2030 from the broadcasting companies.
Advertisement
That seems to be the heart of the matter. Broadcast networks don’t want the NFL to be able to use streaming companies as leverage to get more out of regular game packages. And the broadcast networks need the NFL to recognize that, while broadcasters may have the capital to win an unfettered auction of weekly windows, the pressure to compete with broadcasters could leave traditional broadcast networks teetering on the brink of bankruptcy.
On the other hand, the networks should take the NFL at its word regarding its continued commitment to broadcast TV. On the other hand, the networks have to face the ever-changing reality that broadcast companies have the money and subscriber base to allow the NFL to get the same kind of reach it has with broadcast TV, and a huge financial return.
The long-term question is whether it’s inevitable that the networks will eventually give to the broadcasters. Already, the networks have become a shell of what they used to be. Prime-time programming, once seen in prime time, is now part of an ever-expanding menu of options that consumers can watch at a time that fits their schedules. Night programs can be canceled. (Stephen Colbert’s show is ending this week due to chronic financial loss, if we are to believe that the decision was only about red ink and not about The Color Orange.) The nightly newscast, the longtime primary vehicle for keeping Americans up to speed on the world we live in, may be going the way of the dodo bird.
While network TV is far from dead, it doesn’t take an advanced degree in economics to know that it’s on the decline.
Advertisement
So, even if the NFL is currently responsible for televising, there is a deep problem that really exists with the traditional three-character networks. That makes the ongoing political pressure seem less like guilt or defensiveness but good, old-fashioned desperation.
At times, getting the government to act can be seen as a Hail Mary game to save the entire broadcasting model from an end that is starting to feel like a question of when, not if. That move would be the league’s biggest risk. If the government ever limits or waives antitrust exemptions, the NFL could face an existential threat.
That’s why the best outcome for the NFL and the networks would be to accept the fact that they need each other, and work together to keep both the league and broadcast TV as strong as possible, for as long as possible. All football fans should focus hard on that result.
