With the NFL moving more games to paid platforms, it’s getting pricier for fans to follow some of their favorite teams. Our parent company, Sinclair, argues that paywalls raise costs, shrink audiences, and undercut local stations that depend on those games. Sinclair Broadcast Group, Fox Corporation, and the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) filed joint concerns with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) earlier this year arguing that the shift of live sports rights to subscription streaming platforms severely threatens local news funding models. Scott Thuman reports on complaints over the escalating cost of a TV ticket, and what the NFL has to say about it.

The following is a transcript of a report from “Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson.”
Watch the video by clicking the link at the end of the page.

It is a long-held American tradition synonymous with fall, football and, for many fans, those lazy Sundays rooting for their team from the couch. But change is in the air.

Sharyl Attkisson: Your Justice Department is investigating the NFL for moving a lot of viewers from free broadcast television to more expensive pay programming, like Amazon Prime, Netflix, Peacock and YouTube, where the NFL makes more money. Do you think this is price gouging on America’s favorite sport, and should the government do anything about it?

President Trump: You’ve got people who love football; they’re great people. They don’t make enough money to pay this. It’s tough, and they could be killing the golden goose.

That was President Trump telling Sharyl last spring that the process of watching games has taken a troubling turn.

President Trump: They’re making a lot of money. They could make a little bit less. They could let the people see; you have people that live for Sunday, they live for… they can’t think about anything else, and then, all of a sudden, they are going to have to pay $1,000 a game! It’s crazy. So, I’m not happy about it.

He’s talking about what amounts to a requirement for viewers to subscribe to multiple streaming services to watch games. And the costs pile up like a heavily penalized play.

And it’s hardly just Trump crying foul. Lawmakers of both parties have been getting an earful from fed-up constituents, demanding they intervene. And they are.

Sen. Ted Cruz: But those millions of fans are asking a simple question: Why does it seem to be getting harder and more expensive to just watch the game?

John Bergmayer: Almost everyone agrees it’s a bad system. The sports executives often agree it’s a bad system. It’s understood that we’re in a time of transition. So you expect that the business models are going to shift and there’s going to be some disruption. But I really think it’s leaving the fans behind.

John Bergmayer is with Public Knowledge, a group that focuses on media that has been pushing back against professional sports leagues, and the NFL in particular, for moving more games to paid streaming platforms.

John Bergmayer: I think basically they take their single season of games and playoffs and they try to cut it up in as many different ways as possible and auction each one off separately to someone. I think that does make them more total money. So no one’s doubting their capitalist acumen in cutting these deals. The question is, it becomes really hard as a consumer to keep track, and the reason they’re doing it is that they make more money, which means that you, the viewer, are having to pay more money because it always comes from the viewers in the end.

The costs? To access all of the NFL’s games in 2025, based on the numerous subscriptions to services like YouTube, Amazon Prime, Peacock and Netflix. One breakdown shows it costs a minimum of $575, and upward of $1,000 for the season, depending on where you live and which games were showing for free on your local airwaves.

The first NFL game ever televised was a matchup between the then-Brooklyn Dodgers football team and the Philadelphia Eagles on October 22, 1939. It became an American staple on the Big Three networks for decades. For free. Now fans who already pay for teams to play in their hometowns are outraged at what they see is a double charge.

The NFL, which agrees to those deals with broadcast and streaming companies, is well aware of the complaints, but it’s pushing back. NFL Executive Vice President of Media Distribution Hans Schroeder said recently: “We think we have the most fan-friendly model there is of any sport or entertainment as far as distribution.”

Scott: Because the average fan in whatever host city, the average fan who may have a team that plays in their city—you live in Philadelphia, you live in Washington, D.C.—you’ve helped pay for that team’s new stadium through tax dollars.

John Bergmayer: Absolutely.

Scott: So there’s an argument: Why do I have to pay again for this just to watch them play? I helped pay for the building they’re in.

John Bergmayer: Yeah, absolutely. They get special tax districts, they get all sorts of laws changed, as well as direct subsidies. And it’s like, okay, this is great. We understand sports are a civic institution. You’re a little bit different than your average private business. So we give you this, and in exchange it has been understood that you’re part of the community and you try to reach out and make the games accessible. And I think that’s what really has been left behind as the leagues are just pursuing, viewing themselves as pure entertainment companies no different from HBO.

And it’s not just the NFL. All the major sports leagues have in recent years made deals to put at least some of their games on platforms you have to pay for.

Bergmayer says the move to streaming (SH: Many people don’t know what streaming is maybe use another phrase?) isn’t just an issue of cost; it’s also impacting the viewing experience with technical troubles, frozen feeds and buffering, sometimes meaning fans see social-media push alerts about pivotal plays seconds before they actually see them on the service they pay for.

Despite the complaints, NFL viewership is actually up, averaging 18 million viewers a game—about a 10% increase over the previous season.

Scott: Will they do anything about it? If I’m running the NFL and I hear President Trump say, “Yeah, this is a bad system. This needs to change.”

John Bergmayer: I think slowly, as they’re negotiating deals, they’re going to defend their bottom line. They’ll try to find ways to sort of just wait out the pressure. But I don’t think this pressure is going away because it’s not just something that’s ginned up by President Trump. It wasn’t something that’s ginned up by anyone in Congress. This is like people responding to—it’s a grassroots angle. So I think it is in the best business interests of the leagues to be more fan-friendly because that’s ultimately where their bottom line comes from.

And with the kickoff of the NFL season underway, the contest yet to play out may be the NFL vs. the fans.

Sharyl: What’s the latest on the Trump administration’s review of the NFL’s paid deals?

Scott: The Justice Department is reportedly still investigating. Separately, the FCC sought public comment on this and the idea of moving sports moving behind streaming paywalls. They got 11,000 responses, so popular debate. The next step could possibly be, still waiting to see, but possibly could be that they require that these exclusive streaming games remain available over-the-air and broadcast in the football or sports teams’ home markets. So, we’ll have to see.

Watch the video here.

The post (WATCH) Sports Fans appeared first on Sharyl Attkisson.

 

IPAK-EDU is grateful to Sharyl Attkisson as this piece was originally published there and is included in this news feed with mutual agreement. Read More