Congress summons Roger Goodell to hearing on NFL TV and streaming deals
The U.S. Congress is increasing pressure on the National Football League at a time when an ever larger share of professional sports is moving from traditional television channels to subscription streaming services. The House Judiciary Committee has requested that NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell testify at a hearing scheduled for June 10, with the topic being the league’s game broadcast agreements and the question of whether the existing rules still protect the public interest. According to an Associated Press report, the request was sent to Goodell by committee chairman Jim Jordan, a Republican from Ohio, as part of a broader review of whether the NFL’s distribution model complies with the U.S. Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961. That law gives professional leagues limited protection from antitrust lawsuits when jointly selling certain television broadcasting rights, but the debate is now focusing on whether such a framework can be applied to a market in which games are increasingly locked behind several separate subscriptions.
In the letter that, according to AP, was sent to the league commissioner, Jordan states that the hearing will examine the extent to which the antitrust exemption created by the Sports Broadcasting Act has been used in a way that may harm consumers and whether legislative changes are needed. This does not mean that Congress has already concluded that the NFL violated the law, but it shows that the political debate is no longer only about the price of television rights, but also about the availability of games to fans. The debate comes after months of warnings from regulators, individual senators and local television stations that fragmentation of sports broadcasts increases costs and makes watching games more difficult. At the center of the debate is a simple question: can the league continue to enjoy protection designed for the era of free over-the-air broadcasts if it sells increasingly important content to platforms that are paid for separately?
Why the 1961 Act is back in focus
The Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 was created in a completely different media environment. According to the text of the U.S. Code, antitrust laws do not apply to joint agreements by professional leagues in football, baseball, basketball and hockey when league members jointly sell or transfer rights for so-called sponsored telecasting of games. In practice, this allowed leagues to ensure that rights were not sold separately by each team, but contracted by the league as a single package. The intention was to create a more stable system for clubs, especially smaller-market franchises, and to enable national TV deals that made professional sports available to a broad audience. But the expression "sponsored telecasting" is now the subject of new interpretations because streaming services, cable packages and digital platforms are technologically and commercially different from classic free television networks.
The House Judiciary Committee had already requested briefings in August 2025 from the leaders of the NFL, NBA, NHL and MLB about the sports broadcast market and so-called blackout exemptions. In that announcement, the committee stated that the market had changed significantly since the 1960s and that most sports viewing no longer takes place exclusively through traditional network television. The committee warned at the time that a narrow part of distribution agreements has antitrust protection, while other forms of distribution are more exposed to legal challenges, creating legal uncertainty. The current summons to Goodell is a continuation of that review, but also a sign that the political focus has turned particularly toward the NFL, the most valuable American sports league in terms of media influence and broadcast revenue.
According to AP, courts in earlier cases have concluded that the protection under the Sports Broadcasting Act applies to television networks, but not necessarily to cable, satellite or streaming distribution. That distinction is precisely what is crucial for today’s debate. If a game is shown on a free local channel, the public interest can be defended by the claim that a broad audience still has access. If a game is available only on a platform that requires an additional subscription, the debate shifts toward the issue of price, market fragmentation and consumers’ real choice. That is why an argument is increasingly heard in Washington that a law more than six decades old may no longer match the way sports content is sold and watched today.
Streaming has changed the cost and simplicity of watching games
The main objection to the NFL’s policy is that fans can no longer simply turn on the television and find a game on one of several channels. According to a public notice from the Federal Communications Commission in February 2026, many games are still available free through television broadcasting, but in recent years the number of sporting events that have moved behind the paywalls of different streaming services has increased. The FCC requested public comments on whether such fragmentation harms consumers and local television stations, including their ability to finance local news and fulfill public-interest obligations. The agency particularly emphasized that viewers now often have to pay for one or more distribution platforms and navigate an increasingly complex rights system.
Senator Mike Lee, a Republican from Utah and chairman of the Senate antitrust subcommittee, already asked the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission in March to review the NFL’s deals with streaming platforms. His statement says that watching all NFL games in the previous season could have required almost 1,000 dollars for cable and streaming subscriptions, along with the need for several separate services and fast internet. Lee warned that such a model can create confusion and increase costs, especially when collectively licensed packages are placed behind subscription walls. His argument is not that streaming itself must be problematic, but that it must be examined whether the model remains aligned with the reason the league received a special antitrust exemption.
The NFL responds to those criticisms by arguing that its model remains broadly available. According to AP, the league states that 87 percent of its games are available on free television and that games that are exclusive to cable or streaming are still shown over the air in the home markets of the clubs that are playing. This is an important part of the league’s defense because the NFL is trying to show that streaming is not a replacement for publicly available broadcasts, but an additional distribution channel. Critics, however, point out that local availability does not solve the problem for fans who want to follow several clubs, national games, holiday slots or special broadcasts outside their home market. It is precisely this difference between local access and full access to the entire season that could be one of the central issues at the hearing.
The NFL’s partners now also include technology platforms
According to the Associated Press, the NFL has agreements with a range of traditional and digital partners, including CBS or Paramount+, NBC or Peacock, ABC, ESPN and ESPN+, Fox, NFL Network, Amazon Prime Video, Netflix and YouTube TV. Such a combination shows how much the distribution of sports has changed. Thursday night games moved to Amazon Prime Video as early as 2022, and the league later moved individual playoff games, Christmas games and the Black Friday game to streaming platforms. In the 2026 season, according to AP, Netflix will carry the Week 1 game between the San Francisco 49ers and the Los Angeles Rams in Melbourne and the game between the Green Bay Packers and the Rams on the day before Thanksgiving.
The NFL’s official Christmas 2026 schedule further shows how the league distributes attractive time slots between streaming and classic television. According to the NFL announcement, the Green Bay Packers game against the Chicago Bears and the matchup between the Buffalo Bills and the Denver Broncos will be on Netflix, while the Los Angeles Rams and Seattle Seahawks game in the evening slot will be carried by Fox. In this way, the most attractive holiday programming is not completely separated from free television, but a significant part of it is still placed on a platform that requires a subscription. For the NFL, this is a commercially logical move because streaming platforms are increasingly paying strongly for premium sports content. For regulators, however, the problem is that the same fan interest is increasingly monetized through multiple subscription layers.
The FCC stated in its public notice that sports media-rights fees have increased exponentially since the 1960s and that the newest NFL media deals amount to more than 10 billion dollars annually. That figure explains why the league is extremely important to both television companies and streaming platforms. Sports broadcasts have remained one of the few types of content watched live by mass audiences, making them extremely valuable for advertisers and distribution platforms. At the same time, the growth in the value of rights creates pressure to recover the cost through subscriptions, advertising and more expensive packages. For that reason, the debate about the NFL cannot be viewed only as a sports topic, but also as a broader test of the relationship between consumer rights, market competition and the digital distribution of entertainment content.
Regulatory pressure is spreading beyond Congress
The summons to Goodell is not an isolated political move. According to AP, the Department of Justice is investigating the NFL over possible anticompetitive practices, and an unnamed government official described the focus of the investigation as the issue of affordability for consumers and the creation of a level playing field for service providers. AP also reports that the Federal Trade Commission requested public comments on the shift of sports broadcasts from broadcast channels to streaming services. This creates multi-layered pressure: Congress is considering whether the law should be changed, the FCC is examining the consequences for the media market and local stations, and antitrust agencies are looking at whether certain agreements may restrict competition or increase costs for viewers.
In a broader legal context, the NFL has already faced antitrust disputes related to game distribution. In the "Sunday Ticket" case, a jury in 2024 awarded billions of dollars in damages to users, but a federal judge later overturned the verdict and ruled in favor of the NFL, citing problems with proving harm and calculating the amount. That case is not the same as the current congressional review, but it shows how legally sensitive the issue of packaging and selling games outside local markets is. For lawmakers, it is particularly important that sports rights are no longer divided into simple categories of "free television" and "paid cable", but spill across national networks, local stations, streaming, special packages and digital add-ons.
Local television stations also have their own interest in this debate. In its notice, the FCC stated that sports and television had a mutually beneficial relationship for decades: leagues built audiences and revenue through broad distribution, while stations used sports programming for advertising and financing local news. If the most valuable sports content gradually moves to subscription platforms, local stations may lose part of their audience and revenue. That issue gives Congress an additional argument for oversight because it is not only about the subscription price for an individual fan, but also about the possible effect on the local information ecosystem.
What the hearing could change
The hearing scheduled for June 10 does not mean an automatic change in the law or the repeal of the NFL’s antitrust exemption. Above all, it opens space for publicly questioning Goodell about how the league defines game availability, how it decides which games go to streaming, how it protects local markets and whether it believes the Sports Broadcasting Act can be applied to today’s digital market. If the committee concludes that the existing framework is outdated, Congress could consider more precisely defining the exemption, restrictions on paywalled games or new transparency obligations. Such changes would be politically and commercially very sensitive because they could affect the value of future media deals, but also the way other professional leagues sell their rights.
For fans, the most visible part of the problem is practical: how many apps, subscriptions and packages are needed to follow a season without missing important games. For the NFL, it is crucial to prove that it is expanding distribution and following audience habits, not using market power to make the same content more expensive and harder to access. For regulators, the central question is whether the market is still competitive enough and whether the 1961 exemption serves the public interest or primarily protects the league’s commercial bargaining power. That is why Goodell’s testimony could become an important moment in the debate on the future of sports broadcasting in the U.S., especially if committee members demand concrete answers about prices, local availability and the role of streaming platforms in new agreements.
The debate is taking place at a time when sports content is increasingly important for the survival of traditional television and the growth of digital platforms. The NFL is the most influential example in that change because its broadcasts gather large audiences and drive enormous deals, but the same pattern is already spreading to other sports. If Congress concludes that the old law does not cover the new reality, the changes could affect the entire sports-rights market. If, on the other hand, the NFL convinces lawmakers that its model still ensures broad access, the league will gain an additional argument for continuing a strategy that combines free local broadcasts, national networks and exclusive streaming games. Until then, the question remains open whether American fans will in the future pay for an even more complex package of sports content or whether politics will try to return some of the most important games to more accessible frameworks.
Sources:
- Associated Press – report on the summons for Roger Goodell to testify, the NFL’s media partners and the league’s position on game availability (link)
- House Judiciary Committee Republicans – statement on the review of sports broadcasts, the broadcasting market and blackout exemptions (link)
- Federal Communications Commission – public notice DA 26-188 on sports broadcasts, market fragmentation and the effect on consumers (link)
- U.S. Code, Title 15, Chapter 32 – text of the Sports Broadcasting Act and the provision on the antitrust exemption for sponsored telecasting (link)
- Office of Senator Mike Lee – statement and letter on the request for a review of the NFL’s streaming practices and prices for viewers (link)
- NFL.com – official announcement of the Christmas game schedule for the 2026 season and broadcast platforms (link)
- NFL.com / Associated Press – report on the overturning of the 4.7 billion dollar verdict in the "Sunday Ticket" case (link)