Connect with us

Lifestyle

U.S. judge overturns $4.7 billion 'Sunday Ticket' judgment against the NFL

Published

on

U.S. judge overturns .7 billion 'Sunday Ticket' judgment against the NFL

The NFL logo is displayed on the field in Charlotte, N.C., on Nov. 4, 2018. The judge who presided in a class-action lawsuit filed by “Sunday Ticket” subscribers against the NFL said Thursday that the jury did not follow his instructions in determining damages.

Nell Redmond/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Nell Redmond/AP

LOS ANGELES — A federal judge overturned a jury’s $4.7 billion verdict in the class-action lawsuit filed by “Sunday Ticket” subscribers against the NFL and has granted judgment to the NFL.

U.S. District Judge Philip Gutierrez ruled Thursday that the testimony of two witnesses for the subscribers had flawed methodologies and should have been excluded.

“Without the testimonies of Dr. (Daniel) Rascher and Dr. (John) Zona, no reasonable jury could have found class-wide injury or damages,” Gutierrez wrote at the end of his 16-page ruling.

Advertisement

On June 27 the jury awarded $4.7 billion in damages to residential and commercial subscribers after it ruled the NFL violated antitrust laws in distributing out-of-market Sunday afternoon games on a premium subscription service.

The lawsuit covered 2.4 million residential subscribers and 48,000 businesses in the United States who paid for the package on DirecTV of out-of-market games from the 2011 through 2022 seasons.

“We are grateful for today’s ruling in the Sunday Ticket class action lawsuit,” the NFL said in a statement. “We believe that the NFL’s media distribution model provides our fans with an array of options to follow the game they love, including local broadcasts of every single game on free over-the-air television. We thank Judge Gutierrez for his time and attention to this case and look forward to an exciting 2024 NFL season.”

Calls and emails to the attorneys representing “Sunday Ticket” subscribers were not returned.

The jury of five men and three women found the NFL liable for $4,610,331,671.74 in damages to the residential class (home subscribers) and $96,928,272.90 in damages to the commercial class (business subscribers).

Advertisement

Because damages can be tripled under federal antitrust laws, the NFL could have been liable for $14,121,779,833.92.

Gutierrez did say in his decision that if he did not rule for the NFL as a matter of law, he would have vacated the jury’s damages verdict and conditionally grant a new trial “based on the jury’s irrational damages award.”

Rascher’s models were variations of a college football model. Rascher, an economist at the University of San Francisco, said during his testimony that “they figured it out in college sports, (so) they would certainly figure it out at the NFL.”

Gutierrez said Rascher’s testimony “was not the product of sound economic methodology” and that he needed to explain how out-of-market telecasts would have been available on cable and satellite without an additional subscription.

Gutierrez also found flaws in Zona’s “multiple distributor” models because it predicted consumers would have paid more if another service besides DirecTV offered “Sunday Ticket” and there was an unsupported assumption that another distributor — either cable, satellite or streaming — would have been available.

Advertisement

“Without knowing what “direct-to-consumer” meant, it is impossible to determine if it would have been economically rational for consumers to purchase ”Sunday Ticket” from an alternative distributor at a higher price,” Gutierrez said. “And, that definition was necessary for determining whether a viable alternative distributor even existed during the class period. Without that information, the Court cannot determine whether the but-for worlds without exclusivity were modeled reliably.

The jury’s amount also did not conform to Rascher’s model ($7.01 billion) by Daniel Rascher, or the model ($3.48 billion) by Zona, who was an expert witness in the case.

Instead, the jury used the 2021 list price of $293.96 and subtracted $102.74, the average price actually paid by residential Sunday Ticket subscribers. The jury then used $191.26, which it considered as the “overcharge,” and multiplied that by the number of subscribers to come up with the damages amount.

Gutierrez said the jury did not follow his instructions and “instead relied on inputs not tied to the record to create its own ‘overcharge.’”

It is not the first time the NFL has won a judgment as matter of law in this case, which has been going on since 2015.

Advertisement

In 2017, U.S. District Judge Beverly Reid O’Connell dismissed the lawsuit and ruled for the NFL because she said “Sunday Ticket” did not reduce output of NFL games and that even though DirecTV might have charged inflated prices, that did not “on its own, constitute harm to competition” because it had to negotiate with the NFL to carry the package.

Two years later, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the case.

It is likely the plaintiffs will again appeal to the 9th Circuit.

Lifestyle

How should we behave online? : It’s Been a Minute

Published

on

How should we behave online? : It’s Been a Minute
How do you practice good etiquette online?Your online life shapes your offline life — including how you talk, listen, and interact with the world. But often, good behavior offline doesn’t necessarily translate to good behavior online.  So when we get online, how do we uphold some social norms and common decencies we practice in the real world?  Brittany chats with Senior Writer at Wired, Jason Parham, to discuss what it means to establish boundaries and social etiquette within our online worlds. Want more about good etiquette? Check out these IBAM episodes:Is your neighborhood riddled with dog poop?Who needs to know where you are?Support Public Media. Join NPR Plus.Follow Brittany on Instagram: @bmluseFor handpicked podcast recommendations every week, subscribe to NPR’s Pod Club newsletter at npr.org/podclub.
Continue Reading

Lifestyle

Chanel’s Bruno Pavlovsky on Reengineering an Iconic Brand

Published

on

Chanel’s Bruno Pavlovsky on Reengineering an Iconic Brand
Chanel’s president of fashion, Bruno Pavlovsky, explains in our latest report ‘Face to Face With Luxury Clients’ how the French megabrand has reignited customer excitement and sales growth since onboarding a new artistic director last year.
Continue Reading

Lifestyle

They were world-class tennis rivals. Now friends, they’ve teamed up against cancer

Published

on

They were world-class tennis rivals. Now friends, they’ve teamed up against cancer

Once rivals on the tennis court, Martina Navratilova, left, and Chris Evert have become close friends in retirement. They are pictured above at the French Open in 1986.

Trevor Jones/Getty Images Europe


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Trevor Jones/Getty Images Europe

Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova were the most successful women’s tennis champions of their generation. Both were 18-time Grand Slam tournament winners — and each other’s greatest rivals.

Evert, a Florida native, became a tennis star in her teens. Navratilova was born in communist Czechoslovakia, and emerged as a player after Evert was established. They first faced off during a match in Akron, Ohio, in 1973, when Evert was 18, and Navratilova was 16. Evert won, but Navratilova left an impression.

“I remember thinking to myself, holy cow, when this young girl gets into better shape, she is going to be a force to be reckoned with,” Evert says. “She had so much talent. Her hands were quick, she had a big first serve, she had a big forehand, and she just was so powerful.”

Advertisement

Two years later, on the day she lost a semifinals match to Evert at the U.S. Open, Navratilova defected to the U.S. In the years that followed, her tennis game improved. Though she and Evert had initially been friendly, the friendship cooled as their rivalry heated up.

“Playing Chris was difficult because how can you not like Chris? What’s not to admire?” Navratilova says. “She was like the epitome of cool.”

The new Netflix documentary Chris & Martina: The Final Set tells the story of how Evert and Navratilova re-established their friendship and how they both faced cancer in retirement. Evert was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2021; Navratilova was diagnosed with throat and breast cancer in 2022.

“I can’t get away from her,” Evert jokes. “We had a 15-year career, and then we got cancer at the same time. It really is freaky, but I always say: If I want someone to be in the trenches with me, it’s Martina because she has been so supportive and so understanding.”

Navratilova agrees: “We have such a level of trust that we know whatever we say to each other, it stays there. We give each other the best advice we know how to. And there is no ulterior motive, no playing games.”

Advertisement

At the time that this interview was taped, Evert and Navratilova were both in remission from cancer. But late last week, Evert disclosed she’d recently been diagnosed with a recurrence of ovarian cancer.

Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova

“We know whatever we say to each other, it stays there,” Martina Navratilova says of her friendship with Chris Evert.

Netflix


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Netflix

Interview highlights

On supporting each other through cancer

Evert: There are a lot of phone calls between us. … I don’t cook, but Martina would bake bread for me, and her wife Julia would cook, make some chicken soup. … I got a lot of food from Martina. She got a necklace from me.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending