The NFL must face a new damages trial after a federal appeals court reinstated a jury’s finding that the league violated antitrust laws through its Sunday Ticket television package on Friday, October 30, 2026, reviving a case that once produced a $4.7 billion award.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit restored the league’s liability for restricting competition and inflating subscription prices while leaving the original damages award set aside. Because qualifying antitrust damages can be tripled under federal law, the NFL and its 32 teams could still face billions of dollars in payments.
The class-action lawsuit represents approximately 2.4 million residential subscribers and 48,000 businesses that purchased Sunday Ticket through DirecTV between the 2011 and 2022 NFL seasons. Subscribers allege the league’s exclusive distribution agreements forced customers who wanted out-of-market games to buy an expensive package from a single provider.
A Los Angeles jury sided with subscribers in June 2024, awarding approximately $4.61 billion to residential customers and $96.9 million to commercial subscribers. The damages could have exceeded $14 billion after tripling under federal antitrust law.
U.S. District Judge Philip Gutierrez overturned the verdict the following month after excluding testimony from two economic experts who evaluated the financial effects of the NFL’s broadcasting agreements. Without that testimony, he found the subscribers lacked sufficient evidence to support their antitrust claims.
The Ninth Circuit concluded that Gutierrez went too far in rejecting the expert testimony by weighing weaknesses in their conclusions that should have been left for jurors to consider. Writing for the three-judge panel, Circuit Judge Anthony Johnstone said the experts relied on sufficiently reliable methods and data to present their opinions at trial.
The appeals court still agreed that the original damages calculation could not stand. Jurors apparently multiplied subscription totals by $191.26, the difference between Sunday Ticket’s $294 residential list price and an expert’s estimate of what subscribers actually paid. The panel found that calculation measured a discount rather than an overcharge caused by the NFL’s agreements and also applied the same amount to commercial subscribers, whose prices were substantially higher.
In a separate ruling Friday, the appeals court revived subscribers’ requests for court orders addressing the NFL’s distribution practices under the Clayton Act. The panel directed the lower court to reconsider whether those claims can continue after the expiration of the DirecTV agreement, leaving open the possibility of relief beyond financial compensation.
The dispute began in 2015 when the Mucky Duck sports bar in San Francisco challenged the NFL’s arrangement with DirecTV. Subscribers alleged that the league combined exclusive rights to out-of-market games with national television agreements in ways that protected broadcasters’ local audiences and kept Sunday Ticket prices higher.
Sunday Ticket allowed customers to watch games unavailable through their local television networks. The lawsuit challenged the NFL’s decision to sell those broadcasts through a single exclusive package instead of allowing greater competition among distributors. After an initial dismissal in 2017, the Ninth Circuit revived the litigation in 2019, and Gutierrez certified the subscriber classes in 2023.
The NFL has defended its broadcasting strategy, maintaining that its mix of local television coverage, national broadcasts and subscription services gives fans extensive viewing options. Following Friday’s decision, the league expressed disappointment and said it plans to seek further appellate review.
Sunday Ticket moved from DirecTV to Google’s YouTube platform in 2023 under a seven-year agreement. The challenged contracts cover the earlier DirecTV arrangement, although the subscribers’ separate request for court-ordered relief will receive further consideration.
The case now returns to federal court in Los Angeles with the jury’s antitrust liability finding restored. A new trial will determine how much, if anything, subscribers are owed in damages, unless further appellate review changes the course of the case.
