Bipartisan Outrage Over NFL Streaming Costs: A Misguided Focus

Support for Israel was once the hallmark of bipartisan agreement in Congress. That unity has shifted. Current attention has turned to a simpler topic, confusingly misunderstood by key lawmakers from both parties. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Congressman Jamie Raskin (D-Md) stand opposed on many issues, yet they share a common critique of the NFL. Their concern highlights how the shift of football games to streaming services has escalated costs for viewers. Interestingly, this issue has emerged as a bipartisan concern despite other pressing affordability topics such as gas prices and healthcare.

The Judiciary Committee’s report, “The Sports Broadcasting Act: A Special-Interest Antitrust Exemption Gone Awry,” suggests a potential violation of antitrust laws by the NFL in marketing its games. However, professional football remains the most affordable among major sports leagues, with streaming increasing accessibility. The games are more accessible compared to offerings from other leagues.

Currently, every NFL team’s games are accessible on free broadcast TV within their home market, maintaining availability through deals with networks like ABC, CBS, FOX, and NBC until 2033. While traditionally many viewers accessed these games via cable or satellite services, streaming offers a more economical alternative. Platforms like ESPN Unlimited, Paramount+, Fox One, and Peacock now provide an affordable way to watch games, often simulcast on both traditional and streaming networks.

Rich Greenfield from Lightshed Partners provides a cost analysis: congressional critics claim that streaming costs for viewing football exceed $1,000. Yet, accessing all previously available games via streaming can cost around $218 for a six-month season when subscribing to services like Amazon Prime Video, Netflix, Peacock, and ESPN Unlimited. This assumes use of Prime Video within Amazon Prime or through Twitch’s channel.

Even subscribing to a streaming bundle including Fox One costs about $387 for the season. Comparatively, traditional cable would exceed $600 a year plus additional streaming costs for some games. Streaming platforms like YouTube TV and DirecTV Stream offer sports bundles, costing around $428, well below traditional cable prices. Charter cable, operating under Spectrum, does include many streaming services in its bundled offerings.

Criticism targets the NFL’s Sunday Ticket, offering access to out-of-market Sunday games. Previously exclusive to DirecTV, requiring a satellite dish, it’s now accessible via YouTube, without such constraints. Priced at $378 annually, it’s subscribed to by only a fraction of households, with most satisfied by other televised games.

Access to football is notably less expensive than to basketball, baseball, or hockey, where viewers often combine cable and regional sports subscriptions. The complexity of options may confuse consumers, amplifying perceptions of increased costs rather than reflecting reality. Television interfaces are evolving to improve navigation, allowing users to easily find and schedule games for their favorite teams.

The Judiciary Committee report appears to prepare the stage for potential legislation addressing NFL game streaming. One possible outcome could be offering Sunday Ticket subscriptions without a flat-rate requirement, allowing more flexible bundle options.

Despite the misconceptions fueling some congressional concerns, the transition to streaming has made NFL games more affordable than during the cable era. Achieving meaningful bipartisan agreement on issues with substantial impacts would be more beneficial.

Tom Rogers is executive chairman of Fountain 0, executive chairman of Claigrid, Inc., founder of CNBC, and a CNBC contributor. He also founded MSNBC and serves as a senior advisor to Versant, owner of CNBC and MSNOW. Rogers is the former CEO of TiVo.

The views shared in this article belong to the author.