The high-stakes legal battle over the NFL’s Sunday Ticket broadcasting model returned to the spotlight on March 9, 2026, as a three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments in the ongoing antitrust litigation.
The Core Conflict: Jury Verdict vs. Judicial Overturn
This hearing marks a pivotal moment in a case that has spanned over a decade. In June 2024, a Los Angeles jury found that the NFL violated antitrust laws by pooling broadcasting rights for out-of-market games, effectively forcing consumers to pay inflated prices. The jury awarded residential and commercial subscribers $4.7 billion in damages—a figure that, under federal antitrust law, would be subject to mandatory trebling, potentially reaching $14.1 billion.
However, just over a month later, U.S. District Judge Philip S. Gutierrez granted the NFL’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, overturning the jury’s verdict. Judge Gutierrez ruled that the economic methodologies presented by the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses—specifically regarding how out-of-market games would be distributed in a “but-for” world without the Sunday Ticket pooling arrangement—were fundamentally flawed and should have been excluded from the trial.
Ninth Circuit Panel Signals Skepticism
During the March 9 oral arguments, the appellate panel—comprised of Judges Holly Thomas, Anthony Johnstone, and Joan Lefkow—appeared notably skeptical of the trial court’s decision to override the jury.
- Judicial Deference: The judges questioned why the lower court intervened so decisively after the verdict, noting that as long as jury instructions are valid, courts typically defer to the jury’s role in weighing evidence and reaching a conclusion.
- Expert Testimony: A central debate remains whether the trial judge abused his discretion by ruling that expert testimony comparing NFL distribution to college football models was inadmissible. The appellate judges probed the NFL’s legal team on whether jurors should have been allowed to hear this testimony and decide for themselves if the comparison held weight.
- The “But-For” World: The NFL’s counsel, Paul Clement, maintained that the trial judge acted correctly as a gatekeeper of evidence, arguing that plaintiffs failed to show a reliable scenario where out-of-market games would have been available on basic cable for free.
Potential Outcomes
The Ninth Circuit’s decision, expected in the coming months, will be highly consequential for the future of sports broadcasting. The court could choose to:
- Affirm the trial court’s decision to overturn the verdict.
- Reinstate all or part of the jury’s award, which could force the NFL to pay billions in damages.
- Order a retrial, requiring the case to be heard again with new evidentiary instructions.
Regardless of the panel’s ruling, legal experts anticipate further appeals, potentially including petitions to the U.S. Supreme Court. For now, the league remains under the shadow of a case that challenges the very foundation of how it markets and sells its broadcasting rights to millions of fans globally.