A federal appeals court has brought back the consumer verdict that the National Football League overcharged Sunday Ticket subscribers and ordered a district court to retry the damages. The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Friday that a lower court judge overstepped when she tossed a $4.7 billion award.
What the appeals court changed
The underlying case centres on whether the NFL and its 32 teams used exclusive out-of-market broadcast deals to overcharge consumers for Sunday Ticket. In 2024, a jury sided with subscribers. U.S. District Judge Philip Gutierrez then set the verdict aside, ruling that expert testimony from Daniel Rascher was too speculative. Rascher had compared the NFL’s model to college football, where teams and conferences could sell out-of-market rights separately.
The appeals panel rejected that gatekeeping call. “Opinions are neither unfounded nor unreliable merely because they are impeachable,” the three judges wrote. How similar college and professional football telecasts are is a question for the jury, not a reason to exclude the analysis before trial.
A timeline for the case
- 2024: A jury finds for consumers and sets damages at $4.7 billion.
- District court: Judge Gutierrez throws out the award over expert testimony concerns.
- Appeals court: The Ninth Circuit revives the overcharge verdict and says the judge overstepped.
- Next: The case returns for a new trial on damages only.
The existing $4.7 billion award cannot stand because the appeals court found the damages finding was not based on a proper consideration of the evidence. That leaves the financial penalty open while the underlying overcharge finding is back in play.
Why rights buyers should pay attention
Sunday Ticket is a flagship out-of-market package for pay-TV and streaming sports. The case affects how exclusive sports rights are packaged, priced, and sold as ad inventory. If the NFL’s model faces a new damages trial and continued antitrust heat, media planners and entertainment marketers will be buying and forecasting against an unresolved rights environment.
The ruling also sends a broader signal about expert economic models. Courts are drawing the line between a judge’s screening role and a jury’s job to weigh competing analyses. That line matters in any rights or pricing dispute where the economics are complex.
For teams planning around sports sponsorships and scatter buys, the practical takeaway is to track the retrial rather than bake the old figure into budgets. The liability signal has shifted, but the final damages number has not.
Source: The Hollywood Reporter
