Rep. Fitzgerald Chairs Judiciary Subcommittee Hearing on Sports Broadcasting Act as Rising Streaming Costs Are Hurting Consumers

WASHINGTON, DC - Today, Congressman Scott Fitzgerald (WI-05), who serves as Chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust, held a hearing entitled, "Examining the Sports Broadcasting Act." Rep. Fitzgerald issued the following statement about the hearing:

"When the Sports Broadcasting Act was enacted in 1961, the rationale was simple: Congress believed that joint television agreements would help make games more widely available to the public, preserve the competitive balance among different teams, and keep the professional sports leagues financially viable. Sixty-five years later, it's fair for this body to ask whether the professional sports leagues have kept up their end of the bargain. In my opinion, they have not, and sports fans are paying the price.

"Since 2021, the NFL and other professional sports leagues have stretched the bounds of their antitrust exemption to sign exclusive distribution agreements with streaming platforms, including Amazon Prime, Netflix, Peacock, and ESPN.

"Consumers who wish to follow their favorite teams increasingly find themselves paying for multiple services, navigating fragmented viewing arrangements, and facing higher overall costs. According to Fox News, access to all NFL games during the 2025 season cost the average sports fan at least $575, or upwards of $800 for those without existing subscriptions. Likewise, watching all in-market MLB games can cost consumers upwards of $500 annually, according to the news site Kiplinger.

"In 2024, a jury found the NFL guilty of violating antitrust law for colluding to limit consumer choice and charge supracompetitive prices for access to games through its Sunday Ticket platform. The jury awarded the plaintiffs more than $14 billion in damages. This ruling is currently on appeal, but regardless of the litigation's final outcome, the allegations themselves reflect a broader reality: the NFL has used its unique ability to coordinate among otherwise competing clubs to maximize revenue rather than expand consumer access.

"The Sports Broadcasting Act was enacted to expand access to sports broadcasting, not to facilitate exclusive streaming arrangements that force fans to pay more for less. In my view, the NFL has lost sight of the original purpose of the legislation.

"Today, we had a constructive debate about what reforms Congress should consider to ensure the marketplace works for consumers."

Watch Congressman Fitzgerald's opening statement from the hearing:

Background: This hearing examined the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 and its effect on the modern broadcast market for major sports leagues. It also explored how the distribution of professional sports has evolved since the Sports Broadcasting Act was first enacted sixty-five years ago. Additionally, the hearing evaluated the extent to which the antitrust exemption created by the Sports Broadcasting Act has been used by professional sports leagues in ways that harm consumers, and it discussed potential legislative reforms to address those concerns.

###