Follow Beinsure
A US federal appeals court has reinstated a jury’s finding that the National Football League (NFL) violated antitrust laws through its Sunday Ticket television package, reversing a lower court decision that had dismissed a $4.7 bn verdict in 2024.
The San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday that the jury’s finding of antitrust liability should stand, but ordered a new trial to determine damages. The decision revives a long-running lawsuit alleging that the NFL overcharged Sunday Ticket subscribers for more than a decade.
- The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated a jury’s finding that the NFL violated antitrust laws through its Sunday Ticket broadcasting arrangements.
- The ruling reverses a lower court’s decision to dismiss the 2024 verdict, but the original $4.7 bn damages award will be reconsidered in a new trial.
- The appeals court found that expert testimony comparing NFL broadcasting rights with college football arrangements was admissible and should have been evaluated by the jury.
The case concerns allegations that the NFL and its 32 teams conspired to restrict competition by entering exclusive broadcasting agreements covering out-of-market games. Plaintiffs argued that the arrangements limited alternative ways for consumers to watch games outside their local television markets and resulted in higher subscription prices.
A jury sided with consumers in 2024 and awarded approximately $4.7 bn in damages. US District Judge Philip Gutierrez subsequently overturned the verdict after finding that certain expert testimony presented during the trial should have been excluded.
The appeals court disagreed with that assessment, concluding that the district court had improperly rejected evidence that jurors were entitled to consider.
A jury’s “verdict must stand unless it is clearly not supported by the evidence,” the appellate court wrote.
Appeals court reinstates NFL antitrust liability verdict
The three-judge appeals panel determined that Gutierrez had exceeded the proper limits of judicial oversight when evaluating expert testimony used to support the plaintiffs’ antitrust claims.
Central to the dispute was testimony from economist Daniel Rascher, who examined how NFL broadcasting rights might have been distributed in the absence of the league’s exclusive arrangements.
Rascher used college football as a comparison, explaining that individual teams and conferences could potentially sell their out-of-market broadcasting rights separately, as occurs in college football.
His analysis formed part of the plaintiffs’ argument that alternative distribution arrangements could have existed without the NFL’s restrictions.
Gutierrez considered Rascher’s conclusions too speculative and excluded the testimony when deciding to overturn the jury’s verdict.
The appeals court found that the lower court had abused its discretion in excluding the evidence.
Opinions are neither unfounded nor unreliable merely because they are impeachable,” the three-judge panel wrote. “Such opinions are for the jury to weigh at trial.
The judges acknowledged that Rascher’s comparison between professional and college football could be challenged, but concluded that disagreements about the strength of the analysis did not justify excluding it.
“Reasonable jurors may debate whether college and professional football telecasts are sufficiently similar or how out-of-market NFL games would have become available in the absence of the NFL’s anticompetitive conduct,” the court wrote. “But those questions are for the jury to decide. Dr. Rascher’s testimony was admissible.”
The ruling restores the jury’s determination that the NFL’s Sunday Ticket arrangements violated antitrust law, reversing the district court’s earlier decision to set aside that finding.
NFL faces new trial over $4.7 bn Sunday Ticket damages
Although the appeals court reinstated the finding of liability, it declined to restore the original $4.7 bn damages award.
The panel concluded that the jury’s damages calculation had not been based on a proper consideration of the evidence, requiring the financial award to be determined again.
The distinction means the NFL’s antitrust liability verdict remains in place, but the amount the league may ultimately be required to pay has not been established.
The case will now return to the federal district court in California for further proceedings and a new trial addressing damages.
The decision preserves the consumers’ successful antitrust claim against the NFL’s exclusive out-of-market broadcasting arrangements while reopening the question of financial compensation arising from the alleged subscription overcharges.
