\n<\/p>\n
Last week, the Department of Justice reportedly opened an investigation<\/a> into the antitrust exemption granted to the NFL in the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961. The news comes amid repeated public comments from FCC chairman Brendan Carr regarding the standing of that exemption, and whether it should apply to games that do not air on broadcast television.<\/p>\n The timing of Carr\u2019s interest in where NFL games air is no coincidence<\/a>. It comes at a moment when the NFL is actively renegotiating, or actively planning to renegotiate, deals with its five primary broadcast partners, four of which air games on broadcast television.<\/p>\n NFL games are critical to the health of these broadcast networks, which are able to command hefty retransmission fees and sell lucrative advertising because of the widely watched programming. Threatening these broadcast networks, of course, are streamers, many of which have begun to dip their toe in NFL broadcasting. Amazon\u2019s Prime Video, for example, is the home of\u00a0Thursday Night Football<\/em>. Last season, both Netflix and YouTube held rights to exclusive games.<\/p>\n Since his appointment as FCC chair, Carr has been adamant about revitalizing local broadcast stations. Losing NFL games to streaming would accelerate what already seems to be the inexorable decline of linear television.<\/p>\n But there\u2019s also more to the story. Two families with the ear of the Trump administration own broadcast networks negotiating new NFL deals. CBS, owned by Oracle billionaire Larry Ellison and run by son David, is in active negotiations with the league. Fox, majority owned by Rupert Murdoch and run by son Lachlan, is said to be next up for rights negotiations. Both families have well-documented ties to the Trump administration and have made clear moves to make their news coverage more Trump friendly. It\u2019s not a far jump to suggest that the Trump administration is incentivized to help CBS and Fox, both of which depend mightily on retaining NFL rights, by putting political pressure on the NFL to keep games on broadcast as opposed to streaming.<\/p>\n Brendan Carr was asked precisely this question during an interview with CNBC<\/a> on Tuesday. Predictably, he did not directly address if the FCC was aiming to influence ongoing rights negotiations with the NFL.<\/p>\n EISEN: Ultimately, are you trying to influence the next round of NFL TV negotiations and give more preference to traditional broadcast?<\/p>\n FCC CHAIR BRENDAN CARR: I do think there\u2019s a point at which the NFL reaches a tipping point where they\u2019re sticking too many games behind a\u2026 pic.twitter.com\/kUSvmg2GTG<\/a><\/p>\n \u2014 Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) April 14, 2026<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n \u201cIs ultimately what you\u2019re trying to do here influence the next round of negotiations and give more preference to broadcast, traditional broadcast?\u201d CNBC\u2019s Sara Eisen questioned.<\/p>\n \u201cI don\u2019t know about that, but I do think there\u2019s a point at which the NFL reached a tipping point where they\u2019re sticking too many games behind a paywall, in which case it really raises a lot of questions about the scope of that [antitrust] exemption,\u201d Carr replied.<\/p>\n \u201cBut what could you do at the FCC?\u201d Eisen asked.<\/p>\n \u201cWell one, the way we\u2019re proceeding right now, so we are taking comment and looking at it. DOJ and Congress could also take a look at the antitrust exemption, but we want to be informed about this since we ultimately do regulate the local broadcast TV market. So we\u2019re going to look at it and potentially we could inform Congress or DOJ as well,\u201d Carr said.<\/p>\n That answer would seem to suggest that the FCC doesn\u2019t have much, if any, direct recourse to the NFL regarding whether or not it begins to place more games on paid streaming services. However, it certainly appears as if the FCC is aiming to influence the NFL\u2019s rights negotiations through Carr\u2019s repeated public comments about the league\u2019s exemption.<\/p>\n Whether that\u2019s a favor to the Ellisons and Murdochs or simply a genuine interest in protecting local broadcasters at an opportune time isn\u2019t all that relevant. The FCC seems intent on shaping the DOJ\u2019s and Congress\u2019s opinion on the matter. And there is support on both sides<\/a> of the aisle<\/a> to keep NFL games accessible via broadcast television.<\/p>\n\n