Lifestyle
U.S. judge overturns $4.7 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
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.
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).
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.
“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.
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
Lifestyle
Chanel’s Bruno Pavlovsky on Reengineering an Iconic Brand
Lifestyle
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
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.”

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.”
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.
“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
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.
Navratilova: I get jewelry from Chris, she gets food from me.
Evert: Martina’s and my relationship — because we’ve had one for 50 years — is not the type where we have to talk to each other every day to maintain the closeness. I always knew she was there. She always knew I was there if we needed to talk, and that was that.
On the weakness they experienced with cancer
Navratilova: Chris’ diagnosis and treatment was much more life-threatening than mine, percentage wise, but my treatment was more difficult physically. … I was in New York for seven weeks and I literally sat on a yoga mat, maybe half an hour of the seven weeks, and did some stretching. I couldn’t even do the down dog pose because I would have fallen down. I had absolutely zero strength left.
Evert: The chemo kicked my butt, let’s put it that way. … It left me very weak, very, very weak. After chemo I would have three or four days of intense nausea and I just would feel tingling in my body and it just wasn’t nice. I didn’t have the energy. To walk six blocks was a big deal for me. And it was foreign. You know, it felt like it wasn’t my body, for sure.
On watching the old footage of their matches together for the documentary
Navratilova: For me, it was fun watching with Chris, because we had different reactions to what happened on the court. But what impressed me is how well we played with those wooden rackets. Because you know what? Those rackets are not easy to play with. But you try to put yourself in there physically, what it was like, mentally, what it is like. And it’s like, “Oh, I should have gone down the line,” or, “I can’t believe I missed that shot.” Or “Chris, you had such a great pass.” It was amazing. So it was impressive. … I wish I could still have that six-pack, but anyhow.

Evert: I remember feeling genuinely happy for her. I remember it was her first Wimbledon. That’s always been her dream since she defected. Her family couldn’t be there to watch her. She was all alone. And I just was happy for it. And I knew that this was gonna be one of many for her to win.
On defecting to the U.S. in 1975 when she was 18 years old
Navratilova: I was thrilled to be in the States. I always loved American cars. And when you ordered a ham sandwich, you got, like, two inches of ham and two slices of bread. Whereas growing up, you had thick bread and one slice of ham. So I thought I was in heaven. And it was $2.30 for that sandwich. I still remember it. I couldn’t believe how much ham I was getting.
Lauren Krenzel and Nico Gonzalez Wisler produced and edited this interview for broadcast. Bridget Bentz, Molly Seavy-Nesper and Beth Novey adapted it for the web.

-
News2 minutes agoRep. Tom Kean returns to Congress, says depression is why he went missing for months
-
Los Angeles, Ca1 hour agoLeBron James informs Lakers he will play elsewhere next year
-
Detroit, MI2 hours ago5 realistic cornerback trade targets for the Detroit Lions after Terrion Arnold’s release
-
San Francisco, CA2 hours agoHeadlines, June 30 – Streetsblog San Francisco
-
Dallas, TX2 hours agoLIVE | Ivory Coast, Norway meet for World Cup knockout match at Dallas Stadium
-
Miami, FL2 hours agoEvery Dolphins head coach’s start in Miami from worst to best
-
Boston, MA2 hours agoHistorian clears up one of the biggest myths about the Boston Tea Party
-
Denver, CO2 hours ago
Nemanja Jokic, the older brother of\u00a0Denver …