NFL Sunday Ticket Verdict Revived After Court Ruling

A federal appeals court restored a jury’s finding that the NFL violated antitrust law through its Sunday Ticket distribution arrangements, but ordered a new trial to determine damages rather than reinstating the original $4.7 billion award.

The October 30 decision by a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel revives the subscribers’ case after a district judge set aside the 2024 verdict. It sends the dispute back to the lower court with liability restored and the amount of compensation still to be determined.

The NFL said it was disappointed and planned to seek further appellate review. In a statement to Sports Media Watch, the league defended its distribution model as the most fan-friendly in sports and entertainment.

The ruling concerns purchases during the DirecTV era, not an immediate refund program or a change to the price of today’s YouTube Sunday Ticket subscriptions.

Jury Finding and Damages Take Different Paths

In June 2024, a jury found the league liable and awarded approximately $4.7 billion to residential and commercial subscribers. Because federal antitrust damages can be tripled, the original award created potential exposure exceeding $14 billion.

U.S. District Judge Philip S. Gutierrez later excluded testimony from two plaintiffs’ experts and granted judgment in the NFL’s favor, overturning the verdict. The quality of the expert evidence and the basis for the jury’s calculation became central questions on appeal.

The Ninth Circuit concluded that excluding the subscribers’ expert testimony on antitrust injury and damages exceeded the district court’s gatekeeping role. That conclusion restored the liability verdict.

But the panel did not endorse the jury’s original calculation. It upheld the requirement for a new damages trial after concerns that the award relied on guesswork rather than reasonable inferences from the evidence.

“We remand this case for the district court to reinstate the jury’s liability verdict and hold a new damages trial,” the panel wrote, according to Sports Media Watch.

What Subscribers Challenged

The lawsuit covers residential subscribers and business customers who bought the out-of-market package through DirecTV between 2011 and 2022. Their claim concerns the prices charged under that earlier distribution system.

Subscribers challenged arrangements involving the NFL, DirecTV and broadcast partners CBS and Fox. They argued that the system restricted competition and kept subscription prices higher than they would have been under other distribution arrangements.

The package gives fans access to games outside their local television market. DirecTV distributed it from its 1994 launch through the 2022 season before the rights moved to YouTube.

That history matters to the scope of the case: the challenged purchases occurred under an earlier distribution agreement, even though the package remains a major part of the NFL’s current media business.

League Plans Further Appeal

The NFL’s current agreement gives YouTube distribution rights for seven years, a deal reported at approximately $14 billion in total. The historical lawsuit does not automatically rewrite that agreement.

The next damages trial will require a supported calculation of the financial harm associated with the restored liability finding. With the NFL seeking further review, both the litigation timetable and the final amount remain unsettled.

References: Sports Media Watch, appellate reasoning and league response | Associated Press via Washington Post, subscriber class and decision