The NFL’s Subscription Maze May Have Finally Met Its Match

During a hearing on the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 (SBA) Wednesday afternoon, Congress spoke out on the NFL’s antitrust exemption, arguing that the league is exploiting the law to make fans pay absurd prices across multiple streaming platforms to watch their favorite teams suit up.

The hearing followed a Monday press release from the House Judiciary Committee, accusing the NFL of veering away from the original intent of the law created 65 years ago. Rep. Scott Fitzgerald (R-WI), chair of the House Judiciary Committee’s antitrust subcommittee, voiced his concerns.

“Sixty five years later, however, it is fair for this body to ask whether the professional sports leagues have kept up their end of the bargain,” Fitzgerald stated. “In my opinion, they have not, and sports fans are paying the price because of it.”

To watch every game in 2026, it costs nearly $800 across nine different streaming services. 

Originally, the NFL benefited from making as much money in media as possible for “revenue-sharing arrangements” to keep competitive balance alive, but the league is not in the same financial position now as it was in 1961. Both Fox Corp. and Fitzgerald argue that the SBA was never intended to allow the NFL to distribute the media rights across numerous platforms for its own benefit. 

“The Sports Broadcasting Act was designed to facilitate the distribution of games through free over-the-air television,” he explained. “It was not intended to provide a perpetual shield for leagues to coordinate the sale of media rights across every new technology and distribution platform that emerges.”

The question that arises is whether or not fans really benefit from the SBA, given how watching sports has drastically changed over the years. Congress will now have to make a decision on whether they are going to revise the antitrust exemption, leave it as is, or ban it altogether.