A federal appeals court has reinstated the NFL’s antitrust liability over its lucrative Sunday Ticket broadcasting package, overturning a lower court’s decision that tossed a massive verdict. While the three-judge panel revived the legal challenge, it ordered a fresh trial solely to determine financial damages.
Ninth Circuit Reinstates Antitrust Liability and Orders New Damages Trial
The legal battle surrounding the National Football League’s out-of-market broadcasting package has taken a sharp turn in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. A three-judge panel ruled that a California district court judge erred when dismissing key expert testimony during the 2024 class-action trial.
The underlying class action was initially filed in 2015 by residential subscribers and commercial establishments, including bars and restaurants. Plaintiffs argued that the league and its 32 teams conspired to artificially inflate the price of Sunday Ticket to protect local broadcast arrangements with CBS and Fox. Following a trial in 2024, a federal jury awarded $4.7 billion. U.S. District Judge Philip Gutierrez later threw out that verdict, ruling that the economic methodology employed by the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses was speculative and unreliable.
An appeals court ruling puts the NFL back on the hook for $14.1 billion in the Sunday Ticket class action. https://t.co/B7G5oxn3tp
The appeals court disagreed with that gatekeeping approach. Writing for the panel, Judge Anthony Johnstone noted that the lower court had exceeded its role under Federal Rule of Evidence 702.
We conclude that the district court abused its discretion by excluding the subscriber’s expert testimony.
U.S. Court
Although the panel restored the jury’s finding of liability, it upheld the decision to scrap the initial financial award. The appellate judges determined that the jury had improperly calculated damages based on speculation rather than adhering to trial instructions. The case now returns to the district court for a new jury to decide how much the league must pay.
Ninth Circuit Rules College Football Comparison Is Admissible
The dispute over the expert testimony centers largely on analysis provided by economist Daniel Rascher. To prove antitrust injury, the plaintiffs had to establish a counterfactual “but-for” world where individual teams or conferences could sell their out-of-market games separately.
Rascher used college football as a benchmark, pointing to how collegiate games are distributed when individual conferences market their rights independently. Judge Gutierrez had deemed that comparison too speculative to put before a jury. The Ninth Circuit panel ruled that dismissal was an abuse of discretion.
The appellate court emphasized that while the NFL was free to challenge Rascher’s methods during cross-examination, disagreement over the strength of an analysis does not justify keeping it out of court entirely. Jurors are fully equipped to debate whether professional and collegiate football telecasts share sufficient similarities to serve as a valid yardstick.
NFL Response and the Evolution of the Sunday Ticket Distribution Model
Representatives for the league expressed dissatisfaction with the appellate outcome while defending the structure of their media operations. An NFL spokesperson maintained that the organization’s distribution strategy remains a fan-friendly framework for viewers.
🚨 BREAKING: Appeals Court reinstates $4.7 billion verdict against NFL in "Sunday Ticket" antitrust case!
We continue to believe that our media distribution strategy – which features 100 percent of NFL games broadcast on free over-the-air television in the markets of the participating teams and national distribution of our most popular games, supplemented by many additional choices including RedZone, Sunday Ticket and NFL Plus – is by far the most fan-friendly distribution model in all of sports and entertainment.
The league also noted that it is actively considering options for further appellate review, leaving open the possibility of petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the Sunday Ticket case for a new trial on damages. A federal judge previously had thrown out a jury's $4.7 billion verdict against the NFL.From the opinion: “The jury clearly awarded damages based on its improper consideration of… https://t.co/EZnDUYsQXN
The operational landscape of Sunday Ticket has shifted significantly since the lawsuit began. For nearly three decades, the package was synonymous with DirecTV, which held the distribution rights from 1994 through the conclusion of the 2022 season. Amid the ongoing litigation, the NFL inked a seven-year agreement worth $14 billion with YouTube TV in 2023, migrating Sunday Ticket to streaming.
| Subscriber Class | Original Jury Award | Distribution Era |
|---|---|---|
| Residential and Commercial Subscribers | $4.7 billion | 2011–2022 Seasons (DirecTV) |
Under federal antitrust statutes, damages awarded by juries can be trebled, meaning the financial exposure for the 32-team league could have exceeded $14 billion had the original monetary judgment stood untouched. With the liability verdict now restored and a new trial on damages ordered, the litigation moves back to the lower court in Los Angeles to settle the financial penalty.
Related reading