Judge’s Growing Frustration Highlighted in NFL 'Sunday Ticket' Class-Action Lawsuit

Judge’s Growing Frustration Highlighted in NFL 'Sunday Ticket' Class-Action Lawsuit

LOS ANGELES -- The federal judge presiding over the class-action lawsuit filed by "Sunday Ticket" subscribers against the NFL expressed significant frustration Tuesday with how the plaintiffs' attorneys are handling their side of the case.

A Straightforward Case?

U.S. District Judge Philip Gutierrez emphasized the straightforward nature of the case's premise before Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones took the stand for a second consecutive day of testimony. Judge Gutierrez illustrated the frustration of a Seattle Seahawks fan living in Los Angeles who cannot watch their favorite team without purchasing a subscription for all the Sunday afternoon out-of-market games.

The class-action lawsuit represents 2.4 million residential subscribers and 48,000 businesses that paid for the package of out-of-market games from the 2011 through 2022 seasons. The plaintiffs argue that the NFL violated antitrust laws by selling its package of Sunday games aired on CBS and Fox at inflated prices. Moreover, the subscribers contend that the league restricted competition by offering "Sunday Ticket" exclusively through a satellite provider.

The NFL, however, firmly maintains its right to sell "Sunday Ticket" under its antitrust exemption for broadcasting. Meanwhile, the plaintiffs counter that this exemption only applies to over-the-air broadcasts and not pay TV. If the NFL is found liable, a jury could award up to $7 billion in damages, a figure that could increase to $21 billion due to the potential for triple damages in antitrust cases.

Judge’s Concerns and Previous Frustrations

Tuesday wasn't the first occasion Judge Gutierrez has voiced his frustrations with the plaintiffs' side. Just a day earlier, he scolded their attorneys for repeatedly describing past testimony, which he deemed a waste of time. Prior to Jerry Jones resuming his testimony, Judge Gutierrez expressed doubts about the plaintiffs' attorneys referencing Jones' 1995 lawsuit against the NFL, which contested the league's licensing and sponsorship procedures. That case was eventually settled out of court.

In his 1994 lawsuit, Jones supported the league's model for negotiating television contracts and associated revenue-sharing agreements but contested its licensing and sponsorship procedures. Asked on Tuesday whether teams should be able to sell their out-of-market television rights, Jones responded that they should not, asserting it "would undermine the free TV model we have now."

Broadcasting Insights

Former CBS Sports chairman Sean McManus also testified, reiterating his longstanding opposition to "Sunday Ticket" and the NFL's Red Zone channel. McManus argued that "Sunday Ticket" infringes on the exclusivity CBS holds in local markets. Both CBS and Fox had requested during negotiations that "Sunday Ticket" be sold as a premium package.

During the class-action period, DirecTV, not the NFL, set the prices for the package. The league's television contracts with CBS and Fox stipulate that "resale packages (Sunday Ticket) are to be marketed as premium products for avid league fans that satisfy complementary demand to the offering of in-market games." Additional language in these contracts prohibits selling individual games on a pay-per-view basis.

From 1994 through 2022, the NFL received a rights fee from DirecTV for the package. Beginning last year, Google's YouTube TV acquired "Sunday Ticket" rights for seven seasons.

During a deposition, DirecTV marketing official Jamie Dyckes mentioned that MLB, the NBA, and the NHL had suggested retail prices for their out-of-market packages. Dyckes added that there was revenue sharing between the leagues and the carriers, as these packages were distributed across multiple platforms.

What Lies Ahead?

Testimony is set to continue on Thursday, with closing statements scheduled for early next week. Judge Gutierrez mentioned that he would consider invoking a rule that allows the court to conclude that a jury lacks sufficient evidence to rule for a party in a case.

Judge Gutierrez’s Tough Words

In a candid admission, Judge Gutierrez stated, "I'm struggling with the plaintiffs' case." His comments throughout the proceedings have reflected his mounting frustrations. He remarked, "The way you have tried this case is far from simple." Adding to his critique, he commented, "This case has turned into 25 hours of depositions and gobbledygook. This case has gone in a direction it shouldn't have gone."

As the case progresses, all eyes will remain on the courtroom. The crucial question is whether the plaintiffs' attorneys can present a compelling argument that aligns with the straightforward premise Judge Gutierrez initially outlined.