TV Timeout: Understanding Sports Media Rights (U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Communications and Technology)

Hearing	TV Timeout: Understanding Sports Media Rights
Committee	U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Communications and Technology
Date	January 31, 2024

 

Hearing Takeaways:

• Current Sports Media Landscape: The hearing focused on the current sports media landscape and how sports media rights are impacting consumers and industry. Subcommittee Members and the hearing’s witnesses highlighted how sports are currently the largest driver of television viewership, which has created strong demand for sports media rights from broadcast television, cable television, satellite television, and video streaming service companies. They noted how this demand for sports media rights is transforming how sports programming is being distributed to consumers.
  • Availability of Sports Programming on Broadcast Television: A key area of discussion during the hearing involved the availability of sports programming on broadcast television. Mr. Lawlor highlighted how his company, Scripps Sports, has worked to obtain the broadcast rights for many sports leagues and teams. He stated that broadcast television is an attractive distribution means for sports leagues and teams because broadcast television has the greatest reach of all video distribution methods. He commented that this greater distribution better positions sports leagues and teams to build and grow their fan bases. Mr. Thun raised concerns over the migration of local sports to broadcast television and stated that broadcast television stations are seeking to leverage sports media rights to increase the retransmission consent fees that they charge to multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs). He commented that these higher retransmission consent fees will be passed along to cable and satellite television subscribers in the form of higher prices, which will result in subscriber churn and threaten a reliable source of revenue for broadcasters, sports leagues, and sports teams. He also warned that this migration would impact consumers that cannot receive broadcast television via antennas and consumers that cannot receive multicast channels. He further noted how there are no single broadcasters that have stations to cover a sports team’s entire distribution footprint.
  • Regional Sports Networks (RSN) and their Recent Challenges: Subcommittee Members and the hearing’s witnesses discussed the role that RSNs play in distributing local sports programming to consumers. RSNs are local channels that purchase media rights from sports teams to distribute their games in their nearby market. Mr. Ourand and Mr. Thun explained that RSNs have historically been a finically popular model for sports programming because MVPDs are likely to pay sports teams more for this sports programming than consumers would be willing to directly pay sports teams for the programming. They noted how MVPDs often can pay more for sports programming because they charge all of their consumers for their carriage of such programming (regardless of whether the consumers watch sports). They also discussed how many RSNs have recently gone bankrupt or shut down. They attributed these financial challenges to consumers moving away from traditional pay television services (such as cable and satellite television) and towards video streaming services.
  • Access to Diverse Sports Programming: Subcommittee Members, Mr. Lawlor, and Mr. Bergmayer expressed interest in how the current sports media landscape is promoting access to more diverse sports programming (particularly women’s sports programming). Mr. Lawlor highlighted how his Scripps Sports has purchased the media rights to broadcast Women’s National Basketball Association (WNBA) and National Women’s Soccer League (NWSL) games on its ION Television platform. He noted how women’s sports programming has historically been difficult to access on pay television services and that ION Television (which is a broadcast television platform) will increase the reach of this programming (which should help grow the popularity of women’s sports). 
  • Impact on College Sports and College Athletic Conferences: Subcommittee Members, Mr. Thun, and Mr. Ourand raised concerns over how the changing sports media landscape will impact college sports and college athletic conferences. They discussed how certain college athletic conferences have increased their memberships so that they could command more money for their sports media rights. They noted how the Pac-12 Conference will shut down after this year because of its inability to obtain a viable television deal. Rep. Neal Dunn (R-FL) raised concerns that these changes could impact non-revenue generating college sports that are often subsidized by other college sports (such as college football and basketball).
  • Generational Differences in Sports Programming Consumption: Rep. Kat Cammack (R-FL) expressed interest in identifying how younger generations (including Millennials and Generation Z) are consuming sports content. Mr. Ourand noted how younger people are less likely to watch a full sporting event and explained that younger people are more willing to watch the highlights of a sporting event on social media after the game has concluded. He stated that sports leagues are working to get younger generations to watch sporting events for longer periods of time.
  • Impact of New and Emerging and Growing Sports on the Sports Media Marketplace: Subcommittee Members further expressed interest in how emerging and growing sports, such as the WNBA, women’s college volleyball, Major League Soccer (MLS), Formula 1 racing, and pickleball are impacting sports media contracts. Mr. Ourand remarked that new and emerging sports want linear television network contracts because linear television has the most viewers (which will in turn support the growth of these sports).
• Movement of Sports Programming from Linear Television to Video Streaming Services: Subcommittee Members and the hearing’s witnesses expressed interest in how sports programming is increasingly migrating from linear television (such as traditional broadcast, cable, and satellite television channels) to video streaming platforms. The hearing’s witnesses posited several reasons for this migration, including desires from sports leagues and teams to chase where consumers are receiving content, diversify their revenue sources, and obtain more predictable revenue. Mr. Lawlor added that many sports media rights holders own their own video streaming services, which creates an incentive for them to exclusively air sporting events on these services. Subcommittee Members and the hearing’s witnesses noted that while most sports programming currently remains on linear television, they stated that the continued migration of this programming to video streaming services will have broad implications for consumers and industry.
  • Impact on Access to Live Sporting Events: Subcommittee Members, Mr. Lawlor, and Mr. Thun raised concerns over how the migration of certain sports program to video streaming platforms could reduce consumer access to sports programming that they had traditional been accustomed to receiving through their traditional broadcast and pay television services. They specifically raised concerns over the National Football League’s (NFL) recent exclusive airing of a playoff game on the Peacock video streaming service. They stated that this exclusive airing had caught many consumers by surprise who had been accustomed to receiving the game on broadcast television. They also acknowledged that while this NFL playoff game had been available via broadcast stations in the local markets of the two teams playing, they highlighted that many nearby markets (for which many of the fans of the teams resided) could not access the games via broadcast television. Mr. Thun also discussed how many people lack the needed technological knowhow to subscribe to video streaming services and added that many people lack smart televisions that would enable them to watch video streaming services on a television. Mr. Ourand noted however that video streaming services can enable the airing of certain sporting events (such as Olympic qualifying events) that could not previously be aired due to linear television capacity constraints.
  • Impact on Consumer Costs: The hearing highlighted how the proliferation of video streaming services has positive and negative impacts on costs for consumers. Subcommittee Members, Mr. Lawlor, Mr. Bergmayer, and Mr. Thun expressed concerns over how the growth in video streaming service options could increase costs for consumers through forcing consumers to subscribe to multiple video streaming services to obtain the sports programming that they are accustomed to. However, some Subcommittee Members and Mr. Bergmayer also stated that the growth of video streaming service options could reduce costs for consumers through enabling consumers to purchase only the services that align with their preferences. They noted how traditional pay television services had required consumers to purchase large amounts of content, regardless of whether they watched the content. They further highlighted how video streaming services do not have long-term contracts, which enable consumers to add and drop the services as they please.
  • Impact on Consumer Experiences: Subcommittee Members and the hearing’s witnesses expressed varying opinions regarding how video streaming services will impact consumer experiences for sports programming. Several Subcommittee Members, Mr. Lawlor, Mr. Bergmayer, and Mr. Thun noted how the increase in the number of services offering sports programming can make it difficult for consumers to find their preferred sports programming, which can result in frustration. Full Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone (D-NJ), Rep. Robin Kelly (D-IL), and Mr. Bergmayer stated however that video streaming services can bring competition to the video market, which can expand consumer options for sports programming. Mr. Bergmayer also stated that video streaming can offer unique features to consumers (such as the ability to select an event’s camera angles) that would not be possible through traditional pay television services. Mr. Lawlor further stated that video streaming services can complement the broadcast viewing experience through expanding sports programming viewing options for consumers.
  • Impact on Diverse Content: Several Subcommittee Democrats and Mr. Bergmayer expressed interest regarding how video streaming services are providing new avenues for diverse content to reach a wider audience. They specifically noted how video streaming services have provided new opportunities to watch women’s sports, Spanish language versions of popular American sports, internationally popular sports (such as soccer), and historically Black college and university (HBCU) sporting events.
  • Impact on Local Broadcasting and Public Service Obligations: Subcommittee Democrats, Mr. Lawlor, and Mr. Bergmayer expressed concerns that the migration of sports media programming to video streaming services will harm local broadcasting. They noted how sports programming serves as a significant revenue generator for local broadcast stations, which they use to support their public service functions (including local news and emergency alerts). Mr. Bergmayer noted how video streaming services do not have the same public service obligations as broadcast television stations. Rep. Darren Soto (D-FL) expressed interest in having the U.S. pursue limited dual programming requirements for streaming. He explained that this approach would involve permitting local broadcast television stations to air local sports programming. Mr. Ourand stated however that broadcast television remains a priority for sports leagues given the medium’s reach and noted how many popular sporting events will continue to remain on broadcast television for at least the next couple of years.
  • Impact on Commercial Businesses: Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX) and Mr. Thun expressed interest in how the growth of video streaming services (including streaming exclusive sporting events) will impact commercial businesses, including hotels, bars, and restaurants. Mr. Thun testified that 97 percent of DirecTV’s hotel, bar, and restaurant customers could not broadcast the recent Kansas City Chiefs-Miami Dolphins playoff game because they lacked the technical capability to deliver the game via the Peacock streaming application. He also noted how most sports bars have wired their televisions to receive satellite television services and that it would be expensive to rewire these televisions to receive video streaming services. He further highlighted how video streaming services often have latency issues, which can result in multiple televisions at a sports bar displaying the same sporting event in an asynchronous fashion.
  • Involvement of Large Technology Companies within the Video Streaming Space: Subcommittee Members and the hearing’s witnesses noted how large technology companies own most of the major video streaming services. They noted how these large technology companies are much bigger than the traditional participants in the sports media marketplace and expressed concerns that the traditional participants may not be able to compete for sports media rights moving forward. Mr. Ourand stated however that large technology companies have not spent as much on sports media rights as had been originally expected. He posited that this underspending is because video streaming services tend to have smaller audiences than traditional television companies. Full Committee Ranking Member Pallone and Mr. Bergmayer also expressed interest in ensuring that video streaming services respect consumer privacy and in developing national privacy legislation to protect consumers.
• Other Policy Issues: Subcommittee Members and the hearing’s witnesses also used the hearing to consider additional policy issues that impact the broader media landscape and continued consumer access to sports programming.
  • Television Blackouts: Several Subcommittee Members expressed frustration over the prevalence of television blackouts. Television blackouts are when content providers and video distributors fail to reach agreements on retransmission consent fees, which results in content not being made available to consumers for the duration of the disputes. These Members complained that these television blackouts unfairly punish consumers through denying them access to local sports programming. Mr. Lawlor argued that Congress should not undermine the retransmission consent fee system and commented that retransmission consent fees enable local broadcasters to invest in local sports and news content. He also stated that most local broadcasters reach retransmission consent fee deals with video distributors without challenges. Mr. Thun stated however that retransmission consent fees are increasing at an unsustainable pace, which he largely attributed to the rising cost of sports programming. He called on the U.S. to update and clarify the rules governing retransmission consent fees. He also proposed permitting broadcasters to set retransmission consent fees and allowing for pay television customers to choose paying the fees or forgoing the programming associated with the fees. Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA) mentioned how she had proposed bipartisan legislation to reform the existing retransmission consent fee negotiation regime through allowing these negotiations to occur under traditional copyright law. She also applauded the U.S. Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) work to provide U.S. consumers with a rebate for television blackouts. Mr. Thun warned however that mandating rebates to customers in the event of a television blackout would provide more negotiating leverage to broadcasters in their retransmission consent fee negotiations with video distributors.
  • Broadband Internet Service Access and the FCC’s Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP): Subcommittee Democrats and Mr. Bergmayer emphasized that high quality and reliable broadband internet service connection is needed to watch online video. They called on Congress to extend funding for the FCC’s ACP, which provides subsidies for low-income Americans to purchase broadband internet service.
  • Reconsideration of the FCC’s Virtual MVPD (vMVPD) Record: Mr. Lawlor expressed support for having the FCC refresh its vMVPD record to account for the growth of cable replacement services. Mr. Thun stated however that the U.S. should not apply retransmission consent fee regulations to vMVPDs. He stated that the U.S.’s current retransmission consent fee regulations have problems and commented that these regulations should not be applied to a brand-new business. He expressed support for efforts to make the retransmission consent fee system more “balanced” between video distributors and broadcasters to reduce disputes.
  • Continued Availability of Sports: Mr. Bergmayer asserted that taxpayer-funded teams should commit to making games available in their local markets on a free and advertising-supported basis (either via broadcast television or video streaming). He also stated that policymakers should review special legal protections (such as antitrust protections) that some sports receive and ensure that these protections are conditioned on teams prioritizing the interests of fans.
  • Inability of College Student Athletes to Benefit from the Popularity of Sports Programming: Rep. Tony Cárdenas (D-CA) expressed concerns that the growth in the revenues generated from college sports media rights have not redounded to college student athletes. He expressed frustration over how these rising revenues for college sports media rights are resulting in higher salaries for college coaches, athletic directors, and administrators while college student athletes do not benefit from these revenues. He noted how the efforts of student athletes are the primary drivers of demand for college sports programming and how student athletes engaged in college sports face injury risks.
  • Sports Gambling: Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY) raised concerns over the close relationship between the sports media industry and the gambling industry. He noted how many Americans suffer from gambling addictions and warned that the promotion of sports gambling can harm these Americans. He mentioned how he had introduced the Betting on Our Future Act to ban sports betting advertisements. Mr. Lawlor testified that Scripps Sports does not plan to integrate sports gambling content into their over-the-air (OTA) broadcast stations. He suggested however that NEXTGEN TV could provide an opportunity for sports betting-specific content that would not be pushed to the general population. Mr. Thun stated that DirecTV takes a passive role regarding the gambling-related shows on its platform and emphasized that DirecTV does not produce these shows. He acknowledged that while DirecTV does run advertisements for sports betting companies, he noted how much of these advertisements come from television networks (rather than DirecTV).

Hearing Witnesses:

1. Mr. Brian Lawlor, President, Scripps Sports
2. Mr. John Ourand, Sports Correspondent, Puck News
3. Mr. Rob Thun, Chief Content Officer, DirecTV
4. Mr. John Bergmayer, Legal Director, Public Knowledge

Member Opening Statements:

Subcommittee Chairman Bob Latta (R-OH):

• He described the movement of live sports entertainment from linear television to video streaming services as a “pivotal shift” and commented that the rise of video streaming platforms has significantly altered sports viewing patterns.
  • He noted how video streaming services enable people to view any game that they want from any location.
• He discussed how Americans are transitioning away from the traditional broadcast and cable television model as video streaming becomes a more accessible and affordable choice.
• He recounted how the NFL had recently opted to exclusively show one of its playoff games on a video streaming platform.
  • He highlighted that while this game was the most streamed event in U.S. history, he indicated that this game’s limited reach had made the game the least watched NFL playoff game in 2024.
• He remarked that while Americans have “unprecedented” access to content, he emphasized that the amount of sports content is fixed by nature.
• He stated that consumer demand for sports content, the limited supply of sports content, and the increased competition for sports content between broadcast television networks, cable channels, and video streaming services has driven the price of sports rights higher.

Subcommittee Ranking Member Doris Matsui (D-CA):

• She noted that while the U.S. media market has changed overtime, she stated that U.S. demand for sports has remained constant.
• She discussed how sports remain the principal driver of television viewership and mentioned how 97 of the top 100 most watched broadcasts in 2022 were sporting events.
  • She highlighted how the Super Bowl is the most watched television broadcast in the U.S. every year and indicated that the 2023 Super Bowl was the most watched domestic telecast of all time.
• She stated that the broadcasting of sports remains very profitable and mentioned how 30-second advertising slots for the 2023 Super Bowl had each netted $7 million.
  • She also highlighted how the NFL had generated “well over” $4 billion in advertising revenue during its 2022 season.
• She remarked that the NFL’s success is occurring at a time when the media marketplace is “rapidly shifting” and noted how consumers have more choices than ever for watching sports.
• She discussed how video streaming has increased competition, driven down costs, and enabled consumers to eliminate their cable packages.
  • She commented that online video provides consumers with opportunities to only purchase the content that they want to watch.
• She also stated that video streaming services are providing new avenues for diverse content to reach a wider audience.
  • She highlighted how video streaming services are creating new markets for emerging and growing sports leagues, such as the WNBA, women’s college volleyball, MLS, and Formula 1 racing.
• She remarked however that the proliferation of video streaming has also created new challenges for consumers.
• She discussed how the “massive fragmentation” of the sports media market requires consumers to sign up for multiple streaming services to get the content that they desire.
  • She noted how consumers are sometimes forced to sign up for streaming services to watch important games if and when a streaming service has exclusive rights for such games and described this situation as suboptimal for consumers.
• She also stated that television blackouts can result in consumers not being able to access games that they want to watch.
  • She called these television blackouts “unfair” and asserted that television blackouts should not occur.
• She further discussed how video streaming services are subject to content distribution restrictions and noted how major sports leagues dictate these restrictions.
• She expressed interest in using the hearing to consider ways to increase consumer access to sports content and improve the affordability of this content for consumers.

Full Committee Chairman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA):

• She discussed how Americans have an unprecedented number of choices regarding how, when, and where they consume content, as well as how much content they consume.
  • She commented that this expansion of choices has resulted in a “profound” shift in people’s viewing habits (especially as video streaming services have become more available and reliable).
• She noted how consumers had historically been forced to consume content through OTA broadcast television and cable television services that provided programming at fixed times and only through televisions.
  • She indicated that video streaming platforms now enable people to watch whatever content they want at any time through multiple devices (including televisions, phones, computers, tablets, or other devices with internet access).
• She remarked that video streaming platforms have changed entertainment habits, provided convenience, and diversified the content that is available.
• She then discussed how professional sports league, including the NFL, the National Basketball Association (NBA), Major League Baseball (MLB), and the National Hockey League (NHL), are “pillars” of American culture and stated that these leagues have used television to expand their reach for decades.
  • She commented that sports broadcasting had enabled Americans to easily watch the home games of their local teams for free.
• She also mentioned how the advent of cable and satellite television had significantly expanded sports programming options for consumers and noted how television networks have historically held the majority of sports rights.
  • She commented that this control has enabled television networks to shape how consumers experience live sporting events.
• She stated however that the live sports broadcasting marketplace has recently undergone a “transformational change” that has involved a shift from sports only being available through traditional broadcast and cable channels to sports now being available on major streaming services.
• She noted how major sports leagues are now entering into lucrative deals with online platforms.
  • She highlighted how Peacock had recently hosted the first ever streaming-only NFL playoff game, how Amazon Prime Video had entered into deals with RSNs to air MLB, NBA, and NHL games, and how Netflix had become the new home to World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE).
• She stated that the traditional cable television model is no longer the only gateway to live sports content.
• She also remarked that people’s personal preferences are now a key factor in this transition to sports content being hosted on online platforms.
  • She noted how sports fans now have the freedom to choose services that align with their preferences, which can include live streaming, on-demand highlights, and exclusive behind-the-scenes footage.
  • She commented that these evolving consumer preferences are leading sports leagues to move their content online.
• She stated however that the increase in the number of sports viewing options has made it more complicated for some people to find their preferred sporting events.
  • She mentioned how a recent study had found that 30 percent of sports fans did not know which channel was airing their preferred sporting event.
• She also mentioned how the current sports viewing marketplace may force customers to purchase different subscriptions to watch their preferred sports teams.
  • She commented that this situation can price out consumers from watching certain sporting events that had previously been free to watch.
• She further noted how most consumers still access live sporting events through network television (rather than through video streaming).
• She remarked that the Subcommittee should work to ensure the continued prioritization of sports fan experiences.
  • She also stated that the Subcommittee should ensure that outdated regulations do not hinder innovation and competition within the sports media rights marketplace.

Full Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone (D-NJ):

• He discussed how sports programming is unique as it is the last remaining programming that people want to view live.
  • He stated that sports programming is driving changes in the media landscape and impacting media options and prices for consumers.
• He remarked that the value of sports media rights has remained a “boon” for media outlets that has supported legacy programming for traditional television networks and competitive news services.
  • He noted how broadcasters want sports programming to sell advertising and to increase the value of their retransmission consent fees (which generate revenues for station operations and the production of local news).
  • He noted how MVPDs, including cable and satellite television providers, want sports programming to hold together their channel bundles and to grow their customer bases.
  • He noted how many online video streaming services view sports programming as “must have” content to attract subscribers behind paywalls.
• He stated that the current sports media marketplace has never been better for consumers in certain ways.
  • He elaborated that the existence of numerous video platforms have resulted in increased competition and options for sports programming.
  • He also commented that this increase in sports programming options has contributed to a growth in viewership of women’s sports (which he described as a positive development).
• He remarked however that the current sports media marketplace is driving consumer frustration and noted how consumers often must subscribe to multiple video services to follow their favorite sports teams over the course of a season.
  • He also noted how business disputes can result in television blackouts, which impact consumers in local markets where geographic exclusivity can prevent consumers from watching local games.
• He discussed how escalating sports licensing fees have been a major driver of increasing pay television costs, even for consumers that do not watch sports.
• He stated that these increasing costs have contributed to “cord-cutting” and the rise of online video streaming options, including games that are aired exclusively online, which has caused significant confusion amongst consumers.
  • He mentioned how 60 percent of consumers report experiencing trouble finding the games that they want to watch.
• He further emphasized that the full range of sports viewing options is only available to people that have a high quality and reliable broadband internet service connection.
  • He noted how a broadband internet service connection involves a separate subscription with its own monthly fee.
  • He commented that the U.S.’s “digital divide” persists and that people often cannot access broadband internet service due to affordability or availability challenges.
• He remarked that the FCC’s ACP and the U.S. National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s (NTIA) Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program are necessary for enabling all Americans to participate in modern society and communal events.
  • He called on Congress to extend funding for the ACP to ensure that millions of American families can access affordable broadband internet service.
• He then stated that the Subcommittee must consider the implications of having sports programming move from local broadcast television stations to national platforms, including video streaming services.
• He noted how legacy broadcast television stations are the most trusted providers of local news and the most widely available source of critical emergency information.
  • He commented that the Subcommittee should consider how the movement of local sports programming (which generates significant revenues for local broadcast television stations) to video streaming services will impact the future of local news.
• He remarked that he remains focused on protecting consumers and on upholding competition, localism, and diversity in federal communications policy.
  • He asserted that the Subcommittee must work to uphold these values in response to changing technologies and business models.

Witness Opening Statements:

Mr. Brian Lawlor (Scripps Sports):

• He discussed how his division, Scripps Sports, is the standalone sports division of the E. W. Scripps Company.
  • He explained that Scripps Sports uses the company’s local broadcast television stations and national broadcast networks to provide sports teams and leagues with the ability to better reach their fans.
• He testified that Scripps Sports has achieved a series of “notable success” during its first year and that Scripps Sports has focused on advancing women’s sports.
  • He highlighted how Scripps Sports has partnered with the WNBA and the NWSL to create unique franchise nights for both leagues.
  • He also mentioned how Scripps Sports has acquired the broadcast rights to the Vegas Golden Knights and the Arizona Coyotes of the NHL, as well as the National Collegiate Athletics Association’s (NCAA) Big Sky Conference.
• He remarked that the U.S. is currently experiencing a “rapidly shifting” media marketplace and highlighted how Americans are canceling their traditional cable television packages and moving toward alternative video services.
• He discussed the trend of moving sports from broadcast television platforms to paid services has been met with fan objections.
  • He commented that this trend has made it more difficult for fans to find broadcasts of sporting events and has created affordability and logistical challenges for many fans.
• He testified that more than 20 percent of households served by his company now receive Scripps Sports stations through vMVPDs (which he described as cable television replacement services).
  • He expressed support for having the FCC refresh its vMVPD record in light of this trend and called it important for fans to have the ability to view local channels with local sports.
• He also remarked that the changing media landscape can create increased broadcast viewership opportunities and highlighted how the most important genres for linear television (sports and live news) are on broadcast television.
  • He commented that Americans appreciate the ability to obtain this programming on local channels, especially free OTA channels.
• He discussed how the E. W. Scripps Company is using its ION Television channel to establish a consistent national home for sports deserving increased visibility and highlighted how ION Television is an OTA broadcast television network with national reach.
  • He commented that E. W. Scripps Company has established ION Television as a leading brand for women’s sports and testified that ION Television’s WNBA viewership has surpassed viewership for other networks, including NBA TV, ESPN, and ESPN 2.
• He remarked that Scripps Sports’s local opportunities arose from the significant challenges facing RSNs and noted how RSNs have lost significant distribution in recent years.
  • He highlighted how some teams now only broadcast their games to less than half of their local markets.
• He testified that Scripps Sports is working with sports leagues and teams to provide an alternative that would provide long-term consistency and full market reach.
• He remarked that viewers are turning to broadcast television stations in response to the fragmented and uncertain future of the sports media marketplace.
  • He highlighted how local broadcast television stations are providing consumers with free access to their local sporting events.
• He called on Congress to reject calls to undermine the current retransmission consent fee system.
  • He asserted that this system is “essential” for enabling local broadcasters to invest in local sports and news content.

Mr. John Bergmayer (Public Knowledge):

• He remarked that while the dismantling of the cable bundle has brought “significant” benefits to viewers and sports fans, he asserted that this dismantling of the cable bundle can lead cost, convenience, and quality to suffer.
  • He asserted that there exist “concrete steps” that every stakeholder in the video marketplace can take to eliminate or mitigate these drawbacks.
• He called the benefits of online video clear and stated that video streaming services have provided viewers with cheaper and more convenient access to content (compared to traditional cable and satellite services).
  • He elaborated that consumers can choose individual video streaming services (and not have to sign up for expensive content bundles), sign up for and cancel video streaming services with ease, access content via video streaming on the devices of their choice, and follow smaller and niche sports via video streaming.
• He remarked however that the proliferation of video streaming services has led to rising costs as content becomes fragmented across multiple applications.
  • He stated that the costs of subscribing to multiple video streaming services can quickly add up and managing accounts, subscriptions, and applications across video streaming services can create inconvenience.
  • He further stated video streaming often causes important public interest goals, such as accessibility, local content, and emergency information, to be neglected.
• He discussed how the aforementioned challenges associated with video streaming are particularly acute with sports and noted how fans may need to subscribe to multiple video streaming services to follow a league or team.
  • He also noted how confusing blackout restrictions can limit access to certain sporting events, poor broadband service can result in low video quality for video streaming services, and video streaming can result in broadcast lags.
• He remarked that video streaming problems are significant with major professional sports given their cultural and economic importance.
  • He noted how many games that were previously free to access are now only available on paid video streaming services and how these streaming services increasingly use sporting events to attract and retain subscribers.
• He stated that sports and media companies can take actions to minimize the aforementioned problems so that they will avoid the previous mistakes of the cable industry.
  • He contended that sports and media companies should prioritize customer experience and value over lock in.
  • He recommended that video streaming applications should aim for simplicity and consistency.
  • He stated that the sports and media industries should address subscription fatigue challenges for consumers.
  • He further asserted that sports leagues should avoid abrupt and complex changes in carriage deals and that teams and sports leagues should avoid fragmenting their games across different services and media.
• He then discussed how much of the U.S.’s media regulation is premised on addressing the challenges associated with particular technologies and business models (such as cable and broadcast television).
  • He commented that oversight of these practices will remain vital as millions of viewers still rely upon these services (and will continue to for the foreseeable future).
• He stated that differences between cable television and video streaming mean that certain regulatory approaches designed for the cable television industry are not applicable to the video streaming industry.
  • He asserted however that the goals of competition, diversity, localism, and affordability, as well as the need for accessible programming, remain the same, even if the means of achieving these goals and needs has changed.
• He remarked that policymakers can take several actions to improve the sports consumer experience within the short term.
  • He first asserted that taxpayer-funded teams should commit to making games available in their local markets on a free and advertising-supported basis (either via broadcast or video streaming).
  • He also stated that policymakers should review special legal protections (such as antitrust protections) that some sports receive and ensure that these protections are conditioned on teams prioritizing the interests of fans.
  • He further called on Congress, the FCC, and the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to monitor media industries where consolidation can raise prices and reduce the availability of programming.
• He stated that while video streaming can provide convenience, he cautioned that fragmentation and rising costs have led to complexity that hurts viewer satisfaction.

Mr. Rob Thun (DirecTV):

• He remarked that the sports media marketplace is experiencing rapid changes and commented that some of these changes may be harmful to consumers.
  • He noted how key sports properties are migrating from paid television platforms to direct-to-consumer (DTC) platforms.
  • He also noted how the migration of local sports from RSNs to broadcasting will decrease programming availability and increase costs for all customers.
  • He further stated that these migrations will make pay television less valuable, which will endanger sports leagues, broadcasters, and consumers.
• He called the migration of sports content to DTC platforms troubling.
  • He indicated that examples of this migration include the movement of Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) events to ESPN+, the movement of the NFL’s Thursday night package to Amazon Prime Video, the exclusive airing of an NFL regular season and playoff game on Peacock, the exclusive airing of an international NFL game on ESPN+, the airing of certain Friday night MLB games on Apple TV+, the airing of New York Yankees games on Amazon Prime Video, and the exclusive airing of all MLS games on Apple TV+.
• He stated that these migrations have resulted in consumer anger and confusion and commented that consumers do not enjoy searching for games that they believe they had previously purchased.
  • He added that many consumers do not know which services carry certain sports programming and often have challenges with setting up new subscriptions.
• He also highlighted how these migrations are impacting the commercial subscribers of his company, DirecTV.
  • He testified that 97 percent of DirecTV’s hotel, bar, and restaurant customers could not broadcast the recent Kansas City Chiefs-Miami Dolphins playoff game because they lacked the technical capability to deliver the game via the Peacock streaming application.
• He then raised concerns over the migration of regional sports to broadcast television platforms.
• He discussed how RSNs broadcast sports to territories designated by the underlying sports leagues and commented that RSNs are currently struggling due to their expensive nature and limited customer viewership.
  • He highlighted how new distributors (such as YouTube TV and Hulu) have opted to only carry some RSNs and how DISH Network has decided to not carry any RSNs.
• He also mentioned how some RSNs have filed for bankruptcy and are shutting down in response to increasing fixed rights fees and declining pay television subscriptions and revenues.
  • He noted how these RSN shut downs have made certain local sports rights available and commented that broadcasters are attempting to take advantage of this situation.
• He warned that the migration of sports content from RSNs to broadcasting will harm viewers and commented that this movement will not provide viewers with free local sports programming.
  • He noted how broadcasters are seeking licensing fees from distributors and that the incidence of these fees will ultimately be borne by subscribers.
• He also stated that many consumers that had previously received their local sports programming via RSNs will not be able to access this programming via broadcasters.
  • He first noted how many consumers cannot obtain clean OTA reception and commented that this inability to obtain such reception is the reason that the pay television industry had come into existence.
  • He secondly noted how broadcasters often plan to carry games on multicast channels (which DirecTV cannot carry).
  • He thirdly noted how there are no single broadcasters that have stations that can cover a team’s entire distribution footprint.
• He asserted that the migration of sports content from RSNs to broadcasting will force all consumers (whether they like sports or not) to pay for sports.
  • He indicated that DirecTV has worked to include RSNs on its higher choice package so that people that do not want sports content do not have to pay for it.
  • He noted however that broadcasters require carriage of sports on their most basic packages, which will force all DirecTV subscribers to pay for sports.
• He remarked that migrations of the sports content to DTC platforms and sports content from RSNs to broadcasting will harm the video and sports ecosystem.
  • He commented that most people switch from pay television options either because they cannot get the programming that they want or because they are asked to pay “unreasonable” rates for programming that they do not want.
• He asserted that higher content prices will result in higher subscriber churn, which will force broadcasters, sports leagues, and sports teams to find a replacement for paid television revenues.
  • He described these revenues as the “lifeblood” for broadcasting and sports.
• He stated that it remains uncertain how broadcasters, sports leagues, and sports teams will replace these pay television revenues.
• He expressed concerns that this situation will prevent Americans from continuing to receive the amount of sports programming that they are currently accustomed to.

Mr. John Ourand (Puck News):

• He described the current sports media rights market as chaotic and stated that there has been a movement of these rights from traditional linear television toward video streaming platforms.
  • He commented that this trend is reducing the amount of money within the sports marketplace because video streaming services are not paying as much for this content as pay television services had paid for this content.
• He recounted how the Pac-12 Conference (which had been one of the five largest NCAA athletic conferences) had collapsed because it had been unable to obtain a viable television deal.
  • He noted how this collapse had caused many of the Pac-12 Conference’s schools to join other college athletic conferences, including athletic conferences that are geographically distant.
• He also mentioned how Diamond Sports Group (which operates a group of RSNs known as Bally Sports) had filed for bankruptcy.
  • He further mentioned how Warner Bros.’s Discovery Sports had decided to shut down its four RSNs.
• He compared the current sports media landscape to the U.S. cable industry during the late 1980s and early 1990s.
  • He recounted how the NFL had decided in the late 1980s to sell a package of its games to TNT and ESPN and indicated that this decision had moved games from broadcast television (which is free for consumers) to a pay television service.
  • He also recounted how ESPN had built demand for ESPN2 during its launch in the early 1990s through moving a popular college basketball game to the channel (which led consumers to demand that their cable providers carry the channel).
• He remarked that the pay television industry has been a “great boon” to the sports industry.
• He then stated that broadcast television remains a priority for sports leagues and highlighted how the recent NFL playoff game that was streamed exclusively by Peacock was broadcasted OTA in the local markets of the teams.
  • He noted how all NFL games will remain on OTA broadcast television into the 2030s.
  • He also noted how the NBA Finals, the World Series, and all major college conference championships will remain available on broadcast television.

Congressional Question Period:

Subcommittee Chairman Bob Latta (R-OH):

• Chairman Latta asked Mr. Ourand to identify the most significant change he had observed in sports media over the previous five years.
  • Mr. Ourand remarked that the growth of video streaming services (including Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, and Apple TV+) has been the most significant change in the media landscape over the previous five years. He stated that non-sports fans have largely eliminated their pay television services and are mainly relying upon video streaming services for their entertainment. He remarked that sports fans are the “last bastion” that are keeping pay television financially viable.
• Chairman Latta asked Mr. Ourand to explain how the aforementioned changes in the media market are impacting how sports content is being distributed.
  • Mr. Ourand noted how there is occurring a “slow migration” of sports to video streaming services. He highlighted how Amazon Prime Video has the exclusive rights to Thursday night NFL games, how Apple TV+ owns the exclusive broadcast rights to the MLS, and how Netflix had recently reached a deal to become the exclusive broadcaster of the WWE. He also stated that traditional television networks had not competed with the video streaming services for these deals because the networks could not financially justify the deals.
• Chairman Latta then asked Mr. Thun to project how consumers will respond to changes in the sports media space if sports rights continue to be distributed across a variety of mediums.
  • Mr. Thun remarked that the recent “chaos” that surrounded the Peacock exclusive NFL playoff game would repeat itself if current sports media trends were to continue unabated. He noted how many consumers had not known how to access this playoff game and did not possess the correct subscriptions at the time of the playoff game. He further stated that many people will lack the technical capabilities or knowhow to obtain access to sporting events on new platforms. He remarked that sports are migrating to video streaming platforms in response to the contraction of pay television services. He stated that sports rights holders are looking to diversify their allocation of sports rights. He cautioned however that this diversification is alienating pay television customers that now must subscribe to more video services to obtain the sports that they are accustomed to. He commented this situation is causing consumers frustration. He also noted that while consumers can more easily add and drop video streaming services and choose different pricing tiers, he stated that the cumulative cost of multiple video streaming service subscriptions can equal the cost of traditional pay television services. He expressed agreement with Mr. Ourand’s assessment that the sports media space is chaotic.
• Chairman Latta then asked Mr. Lawlor to discuss the benefits associated with putting local sports events on broadcast television.
  • Mr. Lawlor remarked that the greatest benefit of putting local sports events on broadcast television is the reach of broadcast television. He noted how most sports leagues (aside from the NFL) broadcast their games on cable television channels and commented that “cord-cutting” is reducing the reach of these channels. He also discussed how RSNs now reach much fewer households in their markets than they had reached ten years ago. He noted how many sports teams can only reach between 35 percent and 40 percent of the households in their markets through RSNs. He stated that broadcast television stations can reach all houses in a designated market area (DMA) through cable, satellite, and OTA. He emphasized that broadcast stations accessed OTA are free.

Subcommittee Ranking Member Doris Matsui (D-CA):

• Ranking Member Matsui noted how video streaming services have created new ways for consumers to more cheaply and conveniently access the content that they want. She also commented that video streaming services provide consumers with more control over the content that they pay for and with more flexibility regarding how they access content. She stated however that video streaming services can fracture access to sports teams or sports across multiple platforms, which can drive up the content costs for consumers. She asked Mr. Bergmayer to indicate whether the need for multiple subscription video streaming services mitigate some of the benefits for consumers of eliminating pay television services.
  • Mr. Bergmayer answered affirmatively. He noted how multiple media companies have always controlled the sports media market, which has fostered some level of confusion for consumers regarding where to find their preferred sports programming. He stated however that changing television channels is much easier than navigating across multiple video streaming services. He added that video streaming services can involve more complex technologies (such as smart televisions and streaming devices) that can create navigation challenges for consumers.
• Ranking Member Matsui then noted how most major sports events are available OTA in local markets, she stated that sports programming has become increasingly fragmented across multiple platforms. She commented that this situation is forcing consumers to pay multiple times for content that they had previously received in one place. She also noted how video streaming platforms are sometimes obtaining the exclusive airing rights to sports programming and for certain games. She asked Mr. Thun to discuss the impact of these exclusive deals on consumer access and to address how these deals might impact sports fans in the future.
  • Mr. Thun remarked that the recent NFL playoff game that was exclusively streamed on Peacock had proven challenging for many consumers. He also noted how this playoff game had been the least watched playoff game for that weekend and commented that this game would have likely been the most watched game had it aired on broadcast television. He acknowledged that this playoff game had been aired on broadcast television stations in the local markets of the teams playing. He stated that Peacock had used its exclusive rights to air this NFL playoff game to drive subscriptions for their video streaming service. He also stated that most consumers can already access Peacock’s content through their pay television providers He described this situation as frustrating for consumers because consumers must pay for the Peacock video streaming service to access a single NFL game and are not obtaining many additional benefits from the service.
• Ranking Member Matsui then remarked that “bad faith” arguments regarding profitability and lack of interest have long been made against women’s sports. She mentioned how she had introduced the Give Our Athletes Level Salaries (GOALS) Act and commented that this legislation had eventually resulted in pay equity between the U.S. Women’s National Soccer Team (USWNT) and the U.S. Men’s National Soccer Team (USMNT). She remarked however that the U.S. must still make more progress on promoting equitable access to games and fairer competition for athletes. She asked Mr. Lawlor to discuss the role of the WNBA and the NWSL within Scripps Sports’s footprint. She also asked Mr. Lawlor to indicate whether Scripps Sports views these women’s sports leagues as having the potential for growth.
  • Mr. Lawlor expressed Scripps Sports’s excitement over using its ION Television platform to showcase women’s sports. He mentioned how E. W. Scripps Company had purchased ION Television during the COVID-19 pandemic and noted how ION Television had previously not aired sports content. He recounted how his company had assessed the feasibility of sports programming on ION Television after the purchase and had concluded that women’s sports fans are underserved in the current sports marketplace. He discussed how women’s sports programming often airs inconsistently and how few women’s sports events are aired nationally. He mentioned how ION Television had acquired the Friday night rights for WNBA games and testified that ION Television had increased the reach of these WNBA games by 30 percent. He added that ION Television’s WNBA game ratings often beat ESPN’s ratings. He stated that ION Television plans to expand its coverage of the WNBA and will soon add a live WNBA studio show. He further mentioned how ION Television is part of the new NWSL media rights deal (along with CBS, Amazon Prime Video, and ESPN). He testified that ION Television will broadcast 50 nights of NWSL games over a 25-week period and emphasized that ION Television is available OTA for free.

Full Committee Chairman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA):

• Chairman McMorris Rodgers mentioned how a recent NFL playoff game had exclusively aired on the Peacock video streaming service. She asked Mr. Thun to indicate whether consumers should expect more sporting events to be exclusively aired on streaming platforms.
  • Mr. Thun answered affirmatively. He predicted that DTC applications will use tentpole events to attract subscribers. He stated that consumers will be forced to pay for additional streaming services for sporting events that they had previously received as part of their pay television subscriptions. He commented that this trend will foster consumer frustration.
• Chairman McMorris Rodgers asked Mr. Thun to explain how the exclusive airing of NFL games on video streaming services constitutes a significant departure from historical practices.
  • Mr. Thun noted how NFL games had historically been distributed across multiple channels (including broadcast and cable channels) that were all accessible through a pay television subscription. He highlighted how most NFL games have been aired via broadcast television channels. He stated that the NFL has taken advantage of their expanded season to sell video streaming services exclusive rights to certain games. He warned that this dynamic would result in further content fragmentation, further consumer frustration, and higher costs for consumers.
• Chairman McMorris Rodgers then discussed how large technology companies are now becoming heavily involved in live sports programming. She mentioned how Apple TV+ now has the sports media rights to the MLS, how Amazon Prime Video has the exclusive rights to Thursday night NFL games, and how Alphabet had acquired NFL RedZone. She asked Mr. Ourand to discuss how the entrance of large technology companies into the sports programming space is changing the sports media landscape.
  • Mr. Ourand noted how large technology companies are acquiring the media rights to many sporting events. He highlighted however that most NFL games are still available via broadcast television stations. He indicated that while more sporting events are being exclusively aired on video streaming services, he emphasized that most sporting events remain available outside of these services. 
• Chairman McMorris Rodgers then noted how Scripps Sports has sports media rights for the NWSL and the WNBA. She expressed her pleasure with how women’s sports are getting more attention. She asked Mr. Lawlor to address whether the evolving sports media marketplace will result in more options for women’s sports or threaten the viability of women’s sports.
  • Mr. Lawlor remarked that the evolving sports media marketplace will provide more opportunities for women’s sports. He noted how the television ratings for women’s sports are growing and stated that the main challenge for women’s sports is a lack of television reach. He expressed Scripps Sports’s excitement to use its platform to showcase women’s sports. He applauded the recent NCAA media deal that would bring many women’s NCAA championship events to broadcast television. He testified that Scripps Sports is making a “massive” investment in women’s sports and asserted that Scripps Sports’s commitment to women’s sports remains unmatched. He stated that distribution and visibility are key to expanding the reach of women’s sports. He mentioned how Scripps Sports will distribute women’s sports for free through its OTA broadcast channel ION Television. He added that ION Television is available on cable and satellite television packages. He then stated that brand engagement will be key to expanding the popularity of women’s sports. He testified that Scripps Sports is currently meeting with many brands to persuade them to sponsor women’s sports. He also stated that increasing the number of women’s sports fans will be key to increasing the popularity of women’s sports. He mentioned how ION Television has broadcasted the NWSL draft and will soon broadcast the WNBA draft. He further highlighted how ION Television plans to use its Friday night airtime to showcase the WNBA. He asserted that this consistent airtime will enable viewers to reliably follow women’s sports, which will turn these viewers into fans.

Full Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone (D-NJ):

• Ranking Member Pallone mentioned how Mr. Ourand had first reported that the Baltimore Orioles baseball team would be sold. He noted how part of this sale includes the local media rights and the RSN co-owned by the Baltimore Orioles and the Washington Nationals baseball teams. He asked Mr. Ourand to discuss the complex sports media rights dynamics that currently exist and to comment on the general value of media rights. He further asked Mr. Ourand to address how this sale might impact how sports fans watch the Baltimore Orioles and the Washington Nationals.
  • Mr. Ourand recounted how the Mid-Atlantic Sports Network (MASN), which is the RSN jointly-owned by the Baltimore Orioles and the Washington Nationals, had been established when the Montreal Expos had moved to Washington, DC (and became the Washington National). He noted how the Baltimore Orioles have the majority ownership stake in MASN and explained that the MLB had used this provision of majority ownership to persuade the Baltimore Orioles to approve the Montreal Expos move to Washington, DC. He commented that the Baltimore Orioles had previously “owned” the Washington, DC baseball market prior to the arrival of the Washington Nationals. He stated that this deal had effectively deferred (rather than resolved) underlying problems. He noted how the Baltimore Orioles currently own approximately 75 percent of MASN while the Washington Nationals own approximately 25 percent of the RSN. He stated that while it remains unclear how the recent sale of the Baltimore Orioles will impact MASN, he commented that this issue had most likely been addressed as part of this sale.
• Ranking Member Pallone raised concerns that consumers can be overlooked in sports media transactions. He asked the witnesses to address whether there exist any changes in the sports media marketplace that would improve the consumer experience.
  • Mr. Lawlor remarked that the fragmentation of the media marketplace and “cord-cutting” trends among consumers have reduced the reach of RSNs. He stated however that this situation has provided local broadcasters with an opportunity to satisfy the sports programming demands of their markets. He mentioned how Scripps Sports had acquired the local media rights to the Vegas Golden Knights hockey team and is broadcasting these games OTA for free. He noted how the television ratings for Vegas Golden Knights games have doubled this season. He also stated that this free OTA broadcasting of the Vegas Golden Knights is building the fanbase for the team outside of Las Vegas.
• Ranking Member Pallone raised concerns that the entrance of large technology companies into the sports media marketplace and the movement of content to online video streaming creates problems for consumers. He asked Mr. Bergmayer to discuss the consumer privacy risks that are inherent in moving video content online. He also asked Mr. Bergmayer to indicate whether a national privacy law would help to mitigate possible harms stemming from such video content migration.
  • Mr. Bergmayer discussed how video has long been an area of special privacy interest. He highlighted how the Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988 (VPPA) and the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (1992 Cable Act) contain consumer privacy protections. He noted how online video streaming companies know the content that people are watching, where people are watching the content, and how long people are watching the content for. He noted that while cable television companies can track subscriber information via set top boxes, he stated that online video streaming companies have even greater access to granular consumer data. He remarked that it remains difficult for policymakers to address video-specific privacy issues without a national privacy framework in place.
• Ranking Member Pallone acknowledged that this question period time had expired.

Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI):

• Rep. Walberg mentioned how the previous evening’s University of Michigan-Michigan State University men’s college basketball game had aired exclusively on the Peacock video streaming service. He noted how his constituents did not have access to this game through OTA broadcast television stations. He further noted how the University of Michigan and Michigan State University students could not watch this game without subscribing to Peacock. He highlighted how Peacock had reached a deal with the Big Ten Conference to exclusively air eight conference college football games and 52 conference men’s and women’s college basketball games. He added that this deal includes the exclusive airing of two Big Ten Conference men’s and women’s basketball tournament games. He acknowledged that while there is a need to allow for a free market in sports media, he commented that this situation resembles “pay-per-view” for college sports games. He stated that consumers that pay for cable television, vMVPD subscriptions, and OTA antennas with the expectation that they will be able to access local sports programming. He mentioned how he had needed to listen to a September 2023 University of Michigan college football game on radio because it had not aired OTA in his area. He asserted that this situation is especially problematic for rural areas (such as his Congressional District) where many people lack access to reliable high-speed broadband internet service. He commented that not everyone can watch sports programming via streaming (even if they can afford to). He asked Mr. Lawlor to discuss the benefits of continuing to offer sports programming locally on affiliate networks versus offering sports programming exclusively via video streaming (regardless of location).
  • Mr. Lawlor mentioned how E. W. Scripps Company owns broadcast television stations in Detroit, Grand Rapids, and Lansing and commented that the company remains cognizant of Rep. Walberg’s concerns. He remarked that sports media rights holders had previously focused on ensuring that they held exclusive rights to distributed sports programming. He mentioned how RSNs had traditionally maintained exclusive control over the airing of sports programming in their markets. He also noted how consumers could purchase streaming services (such as MLB.TV) to stream all games except for their local games. He stated that consumers should be able to access games both OTA and via streaming. He discussed how Scripps Sports has the broadcast rights to the Vegas Golden Knights and noted how Scripps Sports produces and distributes 69 of the team’s 82 games. He indicated that the remaining Vegas Golden Knights games are on national television. He mentioned how Scripps Sports has partnered with the Vegas Golden Knights to create a subscription video streaming service for fans and indicated that this streaming service is geofenced within the market. He concluded that broadcast and video streaming sports programming can work in tandem to enhance the fan experience.
• Rep. Walberg asked Mr. Ourand to explain why certain sporting events are made exclusively available via video streaming.
  • Mr. Ourand remarked that certain sporting events are made exclusively available via video streaming for monetary reasons. He mentioned how NBC (which owns Peacock) had paid the NFL $110 million for the rights to exclusively air an NFL playoff game on Peacock. He stated that NBC and its parent company Comcast have a vested interest in building up Peacock. He also stated that the NFL has a vested interest in wanting Peacock to grow so that it can become a bidder the next time the NFL’s media rights come up for auction.
• Rep. Walberg indicated that his question period time had expired.

Rep. Marc Veasey (D-TX):

• Rep. Veasey asked Mr. Bergmayer to address how the loss of the FCC’s ACP benefit will impact the media marketplace. He expressed particular interest in how such a loss would impact rural areas and low-income areas.
  • Mr. Bergmayer discussed how the FCC’s ACP is helping to connect 22 million Americans to broadband internet service and highlighted how fast and high-quality broadband internet service is required for people to watch online video. He expressed concerns that having many people lose their access to such broadband internet service would reduce the potential audience for sports and other video content online, which would in turn harm a broader range of video businesses.
• Rep. Veasey then asked Mr. Lawlor to discuss the important role that local broadcasters play in providing free OTA sports programming. He also asked Mr. Lawlor to address how Scripps Sports’s partnerships with sports leagues and teams creates a “consumer-friendly lane” for sports fans.
  • Mr. Lawlor remarked that fans should be able to watch their favorite local teams. He noted how E. W. Scripps Company has 62 local broadcast television stations across 40 markets. He stated that the RSN business is currently facing significant challenges and noted how broadcasters (including E. W. Scripps Company, Gray Television, Nexstar Media Group, Tegna, and Sinclair Broadcast Group) are pursuing OTA sports media rights. He remarked that the ability to provide sports programming OTA for free and accessible via cable television, satellite television, and an antenna is critical for sports leagues and teams.
• Rep. Veasey then asked Mr. Lawlor to discuss how free OTA sports programming will impact diversity in sports broadcasting and off field sports-related professions. 
  • Mr. Lawlor mentioned how Scripps Sports will launch a nationally available live studio show for its WNBA games. He also testified that Scripps Sports will launch a similar live studio show for its NWSL games. He stated that Scripps Sports will continue to look for shoulder and other programming to complement its diverse sports programming offerings. He commented that showcasing women’s sports that have typically been difficult for consumers to find will be the first step to improving programming diversity.
• Rep. Veasey indicated that his question period time had expired.

Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL):

• Rep. Bilirakis discussed how sports leagues have different viewership models and attributed these different models to whether teams own their media rights. He elaborated that the NFL owns all of its media rights while the MLB owns the media rights for just some of its teams. He asked Mr. Ourand to address how media rights ownership impacts the sports media marketplace and how this ownership impacts the media coverage of different sports leagues.
  • Mr. Ourand discussed how the NFL owns its media rights and makes all of its games available nationally. He noted how some NFL games are broadcast within regional windows and indicated that viewers must subscribe to YouTube TV to watch out-of-region games. He then noted that while the NBA, the NHL, and the MLB also have national media deals, he indicated that these sports leagues permit individual teams to sell their local media rights. He commented that this ability for individual teams to sell their local media rights had led to the growth of the RSN business. He remarked that the RSN business is now suffering due to “cord-cutting” trends and rising sports rights fees. He explained that “cord-cutting” is leading RSNs to receive less money. He stated that sports teams are now looking to sell their local sports rights to other platforms in response to this decline in the RSN business. He indicated that these other platforms can include broadcast television networks (such as ION Television) and video streaming platforms.
• Rep. Bilirakis then mentioned how the Peacock video streaming application had recently aired an NFL playoff game exclusively on its platform. He asked the witnesses to indicate whether the exclusive streaming of NFL playoff games will be a regular occurrence moving forward. He mentioned how many of his constituents had expressed frustration regarding their inability to access the recent NFL playoff game (absent subscribing to Peacock).
  • Mr. Ourand predicted that future NFL games will be exclusively aired via subscription video streaming platforms. He stated that both the NFL and television networks plan to air NFL games exclusively through video streaming services for the next couple of years.
• Rep. Bilirakis asked Mr. Ourand to indicate whether the NFL will air certain regular season games exclusively through video streaming platforms. He commented that the NFL’s decision to air a playoff game exclusively through Peacock had surprised many NFL fans because they had not previously needed Peacock to watch NFL games.
  • Mr. Ourand noted that NBC will continue to air their Sunday night NFL games on NBC and indicated that these games are also accessible via Peacock.
• Rep. Bilirakis interjected to comment that the fact that viewers can access Sunday night NFL games through both traditional television and Peacock is a good thing. He then discussed how the growth in video streaming services is forcing consumers to purchase additional subscriptions to access their preferred content. He expressed concerns that the cumulative cost associated with maintaining multiple subscriptions might overwhelm consumers. He asked Mr. Ourand to indicate whether advertising-supported content can remain viable. He also asked Mr. Ourand to indicate whether consumers can adjust the amount of advertising on their content in order to save money.
  • Mr. Ourand remarked that sports leagues view video streaming services as providing a new revenue source. He stated that “cord-cutting” trends are undermining the robustness of the advertising and the pay television markets.
• Rep. Bilirakis indicated that his question period time had expired and stated that he would submit an additional question for the hearing’s record.

Rep. Tony Cárdenas (D-CA):

• Rep. Cárdenas discussed how professional and collegiate athletics generate billions of dollars in revenue and stated that the talent and skill of the athletes are the “driving force” behind this revenue. He asked Mr. Ourand to indicate whether the increasing annual revenues that professional sports leagues receive from media rights deals translate to higher salaries for the athletes.
  • Mr. Ourand answered affirmatively.
• Rep. Cárdenas discussed how U.S. college sports had brought in $16.6 billion during the 2021-2022 school year. He noted however that college student athletes (unlike professional athletes) do not receive salaries. He asked Mr. Ourand to indicate whether college coaches, athletic directors, and executives receive salary increases and bonuses when college athletic conferences and the NCAA reach “massive” media rights deals. He also asked Mr. Ourand to discuss how the money brought in by these media rights deals is distributed.
  • Mr. Ourand stated that higher college sports media rights deals are resulting in higher compensation for college coaches. He noted how the coaches in the Southeastern Conference (SEC) and the Big Ten Conference are receiving some of the best compensation packages in college sports. He lastly noted how college administrators have claimed that the revenue generated from these media rights deals are used to fund non-revenue generating college sports.
• Rep. Cárdenas commented that college administrators overemphasize the amount of money that is put towards non-revenue generating college sports relative to the amount of money that they receive from media rights deals. He then asked Mr. Ourand to indicate whether the revenue from college sports media rights is likely to increase.
  • Mr. Ourand answered affirmatively.
• Rep. Cárdenas expressed agreement with Mr. Ourand’s response.
  • Mr. Ourand mentioned how the SEC and the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC) have media rights deals with ESPN that run through the 2030s. He also mentioned how the Big Ten Conference’s media rights deal runs through the late 2020s. He stated that while these media rights deals will likely increase in value, he commented that these media rights deals will not significantly increase in value within the very near term.
• Rep. Cárdenas then discussed how college sports coaches and executives are well compensated. He noted how the NCAA’s top three executives had received annual compensation of $3.5 million, $3.2 million, and $1.6 million (respectively) in 2021. He added that these executives do not face the same injury risks as college student athletes. He then discussed how video streaming has proven effective at satisfying the demands of diverse audiences. He highlighted the presence of diverse video streamers, diverse creative teams, and diverse on-screen offerings within this space. He noted how video streaming enables many Latino households (including many of his constituents) to access Spanish language versions of popular American sports and to access internationally popular sports (such as soccer). He asked Mr. Thun to indicate whether the application of regulations developed prior to the advent of the internet to the video streaming space would impact both video streaming services and consumers.
  • Mr. Thun remarked that the U.S. should not apply retransmission consent fee regulations to vMVPDs. He stated that the U.S.’s current retransmission consent fee regulations have problems and commented that these regulations should not be applied to a brand-new business. He expressed support for efforts to make the retransmission consent fee system more “balanced” between video distributors and broadcasters to reduce disputes.
• Rep. Cárdenas asked Mr. Thun to indicate whether DirecTV’s retransmission consent fee disputes are based on differing legal interpretation, revenues, and parties seeking to coexist in the video marketplace.
  • Mr. Thun remarked that these retransmission consent fee disputes between broadcasters and video distributors are only about money.
• Rep. Cárdenas stated that the lack of clarity surrounding retransmission consent fee rules might be contributing to the disputes between broadcasters and video distributors. He asked Mr. Thun to comment on how a lack of regulatory clarity might contribute to these disputes.
  • Mr. Thun expressed support for having the U.S. update and clarify the rules governing retransmission consent fees. He stated however that Congress must focus on providing “equal footing” for broadcasters and video distributors as part of any new legislation on the issue.

Rep. Jay Obernolte (R-CA):

• Rep. Obernolte discussed how Peacock’s exclusive airing of the recent NFL playoff game had frustrated many Americans. He mentioned how he had personally subscribed to Peacock to view the game and then immediately unsubscribed to Peacock following the game. He compared his experience streaming this game to watching a pay-per-view event. He expressed frustration however that advertisers during this NFL game had claimed that they were responsible for the game when consumers were expected to pay extra to view the game. He stated that the sports media industry is currently working to determine how it will pay for sports media content. He expressed optimism that free markets will ultimately result in the development of a viable business for this content. He asked Mr. Bergmayer to indicate whether he shares these frustrations and to predict how sports media content will ultimately be paid for.
  • Mr. Bergmayer remarked that the fact that video streaming subscription services often include advertisements is a source of many consumer complaints. He also stated that sports leagues will often pursue video streaming deals to make short-term profits at the expense of their fan bases. He warned that these short-term actions can harm the long-term interests of sports.
• Rep. Obernolte then noted how Mr. Ourand’s testimony had discussed how non-sports fans are effectively forced to subsidize the cost of sports media rights for sports fans through their media subscriptions. He asked Mr. Ourand to address whether sports teams will eventually market their content directly to consumers for purchase.
  • Mr. Ourand noted how RSNs have historically paid sports teams a lot of money for the media rights to games. He stated that it is often easier for sports teams to collect money from RSNs than it is for sports teams to establish their own media businesses.
• Rep. Obernolte remarked that sports teams are ultimately not in the business of engaging in deals with RSNs and are instead in the business of building relationships with their fans. He stated that the opportunity for sports teams to build direct relationships with their fans will eventually become too lucrative to pass up. He commented that he personally has no problem with paying to stream his favorite sport team’s games online.
  • Mr. Ourand remarked that there exists an “unmistakable” trend towards online video streaming in sports.
  • Mr. Thun stated that sports fans can often watch the games of their favorite sports teams through DTC subscription services and RSNs. He stated however that sports teams would not make the same amount of money selling their games directly to consumers relative to the amount of money they make through existing video distributors (such as DirecTV). He noted how video distributors can often pay more for sports media rights because they have their non-sports fan customers subsidize their bids for sports media rights. He elaborated that DirecTV pays a license fee for sports media rights that is based on its total number of subscribers (regardless of whether the subscribers watch sports). He stated that the amount of revenue that sports teams would generate through selling their games on one-off bases and/or through direct subscription services would “pale in comparison” to the amount of revenue that the sports teams make under current distribution models.
• Rep. Obernolte expressed interest in continuing to monitor developments in the sports media marketplace. He then indicated that his question period time had expired.

Rep. Robin Kelly (D-IL):

• Rep. Kelly remarked that sports programming video marketplace competition supports consumer choice and drives innovation. She asked Mr. Bergmayer to discuss how video streaming services are bringing competition and innovation to consumers.
  • Mr. Bergmayer noted how video streaming enables consumers to watch content on more devices and from more locations. He also stated that the online distribution of sports enables new and innovative ways to present sports that are not possible using traditional pay television services. He specifically highlighted how video streaming may enable viewers to choose different camera angles from which to watch sports (which may not be possible through traditional pay television services). He remarked that he remains optimistic regarding the potential benefits of sports video streaming and commented that the competition it provides will ultimately benefit consumers.
• Rep. Kelly noted how video streaming is now the most widely watched form of video in the U.S. She discussed how video streaming has ushered in many new diverse offerings, including AfroLandTV, America Nu Network, BET+, For Us By Us Network, Telemundo, and TelevisaUnivision. She mentioned how the Allen Media Group had secured the broadcast media rights for the Central Intercollegiate Athletic Association (CIAA) to distribute HBCU games across many platforms (including new video streaming services). She asked Mr. Bergmayer to discuss how the emergence of video streaming has led to more diverse content offerings.
  • Mr. Bergmayer remarked that online video has reduced barriers to entry for diverse content creators and allows them to bypass cable and satellite television gatekeepers. He stated however that the fact that diverse content creators can start their own websites or upload their content to YouTube should not be considered sufficient. He asserted that the U.S. must ensure that diverse content is available on the major video platforms. He described the performance of video platforms in terms of promoting diverse content as mixed and noted how there is not enough independent data on this subject. He concluded that while video streaming has created more opportunities for diverse content, he stated that the U.S. must do more to address this issue.
• Rep. Kelly then discussed how video streaming now provides consumers with greater access to women’s sports. She noted how women’s professional sports leagues have faced challenges historically finding distribution through traditional broadcast and cable television stations. She asked Mr. Lawlor to discuss how Scripps Sports’s partnership with CBS, ESPN, and Amazon Prime Video has “changed the game” for the NWSL.
  • Mr. Lawlor remarked that Scrips Sports is “really proud” to be part of the NWSL’s new distribution deal and noted how this deal is the richest deal in U.S. women’s sports history. He stated that this NWSL distribution deal models the future of sports rights in that it involves various distribution methods. He indicated that Scripps Sports will provide 50 NWSL games OTA for free through ION Television. He also mentioned how Amazon Prime Video will provide NWSL games via video streaming, ESPN will provide NWSL games via cable television, and ABC provide NWSL games via broadcast television. He added that CBS will carry the NWSL playoff and championship games. He remarked that this distribution deal will expand the reach of the NWSL and stated that video streaming will complement this access.

Rep. John Joyce (R-PA):

• Rep. Joyce discussed the popularity of sports among his constituents and stated that the evolution of the media marketplace has led to an unprecedented range of sports viewership options. He noted how local broadcasting enables his most rural constituents that lack internet access to watch their favorite sports teams in-market. He also mentioned how video streaming enables his constituents to watch local sports teams that had previously not been televised. He asked Mr. Ourand to indicate which of the major professional and college sports is most accessible to their fans.
  • Mr. Ourand stated that the NFL is the most accessible sports league and noted how all NFL games are available on OTA broadcast television.
• Rep. Joyce asked Mr. Ourand to indicate which sport has the greatest accessibility for free OTA live games.
  • Mr. Ourand stated that the NFL does a “fantastic job” in terms of providing free OTA live games.
• Rep. Joyce then noted how sports leagues are airing more sporting events on video streaming platforms. He asked Mr. Lawlor and Mr. Thun to discuss how this trend impacts their businesses and to indicate whether this trend would continue.
  • Mr. Lawlor stated that the trend of more sports events airing on video streaming platforms will likely continue to grow and called the trend “concerning.” He stated that the strongest part of the network affiliate model is live sports programming and noted how a lot of entertainment content has shifted to DTC platforms. He called the NFL’s decision to exclusively air a playoff game on a video streaming service “alarming.” He mentioned how E. W. Scripps Company owns the NBC affiliate station in West Palm Beach, Florida. He noted that while the NFL had mandated that the recent NFL playoff game be aired on the broadcast station in Miami so that local Miami Dolphins fans could watch the game, he indicated that the NFL did not mandate that this game be aired on the broadcast station in nearby West Palm Beach. He emphasized that the Miami Dolphins are the local team for West Palm Beach and noted how the Miami Dolphins’s stadium is located 20 miles from West Palm Beach. He also stated that the revenue that broadcast television stations generate from sports helps to fund their local news operations. He noted that most local news operations are not profitable on their own and commented that broadcast television stations require sports and other assets to support their local news operations.
  • Mr. Thun described the movement of sports programming to video streaming platforms as a “friction point” for many of DirecTV’s customers. He noted how these customers had been accustomed to receiving all NFL playoff games as part of their existing television package and highlighted how many customers did not know how to access the most recent NFL playoff game. He also discussed how many people lack the needed technological knowhow to subscribe to video streaming services and added that many people lack smart televisions that would enable them to watch video streaming services on a television. He remarked that this trend of sports programming on video streaming platforms will likely grow in future years. He called it incumbent on video distributors to bring sports programming into their own experiences. He suggested that video distributors could offer video streaming services as a benefit of their own subscription packages. He commented however that this approach would result in higher costs for customers (which he described as a “pain point”).
• Rep. Joyce then discussed how there have been recent media reports detailing the struggles of RSNs. He asked Mr. Ourand to comment on the likelihood that more sports teams will move toward a broadcast model for airing their games. He also asked Mr. Ourand to indicate whether sports teams and sports leagues are likely to purchase back their media rights from RSNs. He lastly asked Mr. Ourand to indicate which of the aforementioned approaches is better for consumers.
  • Mr. Ourand remarked that he did not know which of the aforementioned approaches to sports programming would be better for consumers. He stated however that more sports teams are likely to sell their media rights to both local broadcast television stations and video streaming companies. He predicted that more sports rights will be available to consumers through both pay television services and subscription video streaming services.

Rep. Darren Soto (D-FL):

• Rep. Soto discussed how the NFL has become a dominant force in American culture and highlighted how 93 of the top 100 broadcasts in 2023 were NFL games. He commented that the NFL’s dominance makes NFL games very valuable to both broadcast television stations and video streaming services. He mentioned how the NFL had recently exclusively aired a playoff game through video streaming and highlighted how Rep. Pat Ryan (D-NY) had requested that the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) study this issue. He further noted how other sport leagues, including the MLS, WWE, NBA, MLB, and NHL, have some or all of their games and events aired via video streaming. He remarked that the U.S. must ensure that Americans can access broadband internet service so that they can access streamed sports programming. He stated that the FCC’s ACP plays a critical role in supporting broadband internet service access and highlighted how this Program currently helps over 22 million people. He then discussed the importance of local broadcasters and highlighted how professional sports serve as an important revenue generator for local broadcast television stations. He expressed interest in having the U.S. pursue limited dual programming requirements for streaming. He explained that this approach would involve permitting local broadcast television stations to air local sports programming. He asked Mr. Ourand and Mr. Bergmayer to comment on this proposed approach.
  • Mr. Ourand remarked that every sports league is concerned about the variety of channels for accessing sports programming. He noted that consumers are increasingly accessing content through video streaming and highlighted how there exist multiple different video streaming services. He predicted that there will eventually be a bundling of video streaming services that will heavily resemble a traditional pay television service. He stated that sports leagues are attempting to account for this trend as they negotiate their media rights deals.
  • Mr. Bergmayer remarked that local access to sports programming would benefit sports fans. He recommended that taxpayer support for sports teams be conditioned on the sports teams making their games available to viewers. He noted how broadcasters have public interest obligations while video streamers do not have such obligations. He indicated that these public interest obligations include the provision of emergency alert information and local content. He stated that the U.S. must work to ensure that these public interest obligations are fulfilled as entertainment moves toward video streaming platforms.
• Rep. Soto asked Mr. Lawlor to discuss how local access to local professional sports is important for the financial viability and viewership of local broadcasts. He also asked Mr. Lawlor to address how the term “local” should be defined for the purposes of broadcasting.
  • Mr. Lawlor noted how E. W. Scripps Company acquires the rights to broadcast in specific markets and indicated that these markets are defined by the FCC. He discussed how professional sports teams have the right to distribute their products and games in certain regions so that overlap does not occur. He stated that local access to sports programming is very important and that there should exist local free OTA broadcasting options for sporting events. He commented that these broadcasting options are especially important for states like Florida with large senior citizen populations. He stated that video streaming of sports programming can complement broadcasting through engaging different types of consumers and enabling different types of devices to access content.
• Rep. Soto remarked that Florida residents want to watch Florida sports teams, regardless of the region where the sports teams are located.

Rep. Neal Dunn (R-FL):

• Rep. Dunn raised concerns that the increasing popularity of video streaming could result in consumer fatigue, confusion, and exploitation. He specifically raised concerns over how the changing media landscape will impact college sports and college sports media rights. He noted how sports rights are a large driver of revenue for college athletic departments. He discussed how college football and basketball are the largest revenue generators and highlighted how these sports often help subsidize other college sports teams. He stated that non-revenue generating college sports could be harmed if the income generated from college football and basketball teams decreases. He noted how many schools are locked into sliding media rights deals with their college athletic conferences that can underserve member schools. He highlighted how just 18 college football teams account for 50 percent of all viewership and indicated that many of those teams are locked into media contracts with their athletic conferences. He stated that these media rights dynamics have contributed to college athletic conference realignment trends. He mentioned how the Pac-12 Conference had recently failed. He asked Mr. Ourand to discuss how media rights negotiations are unique in the college sports space and how these negotiations ultimately impact the compositions of college athletic conferences.
  • Mr. Ourand remarked that college sports is different from professional sports because its media rights are more regional. He noted how college athletic conferences must negotiate their own media rights deals with networks, which has resulted in a fragmented college sports media market.
• Rep. Dunn stated that college athletic conferences (rather than schools) often drive these media rights negotiations and commented that this dynamic can harm schools.
  • Mr. Ourand expressed agreement with Rep. Dunn’s statement that college athletic conferences often drive media rights negotiations.
• Rep. Dunn then noted how Scripps Sports has media rights deals involving both professional sports and college sports. He asked Mr. Lawlor to discuss how Scripps Sports’s media rights negotiations involving professional sports differ from their media rights negotiations involving college sports.
  • Mr. Lawlor remarked that Scripps Sports’s media rights negotiations for professional sports and college sports are very different. He noted how most of the major college athletic conferences have long-term media rights deals with the major television networks. He noted that while the major college athletic conferences focus on maximizing revenues in their media rights deals, he stated that many other college athletic conferences prioritize maximizing the visibility of their sporting events. He mentioned how Scripps Sports has the media rights for the Big Sky Conference and how Scripps Sports broadcasts these games OTA. He commented that these Big Sky Conference games would be exclusively distributed via video streaming on ESPN+ without Scripps Sports. He specifically noted how Montana has no professional sports teams and stated that their biggest sporting event is the annual University of Montana-Montana State University football game. He noted how Scripps Sports broadcasts this game and indicated that the lowest rating that this game had received across Montana’s five media markets last year was a 30 percent share of households. He remarked that broadcast television can provide a platform to showcase college sports outside of high population states that are not associated with major college athletic conferences.
• Rep. Dunn expressed hope that the Subcommittee can ensure that consumers have effective options that do not overcomplicate the sports media marketplace.

Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI):

• Rep. Dingell noted how it can be challenging for many sports fans to find where to watch their team’s games. She also described sports as the “lifeblood” of many American communities and commented that sports can foster cohesion. She stated however that the sports media landscape has changed significantly over the previous decade and specifically highlighted how the increased influence of online video streaming platforms has impacted the media marketplace. She commented that video streaming services have broadened the spectrum of choices available to U.S. consumers and have changed how people access sports. She emphasized however that many Americans lack sufficient broadband internet service to access online content. She noted how these Americans often rely upon traditional platforms (such as broadcast and cable television) to watch sports programming. She also stated that consumers often must pay for new and expensive video streaming service subscriptions to watch certain sporting events. She asked Mr. Bergmayer to discuss how the rise of “cord-cutting” has influenced traditional subscriptions, broadcast television, and cable television. She also asked Mr. Bergmayer to identify any less obvious impacts of this trend.
  • Mr. Bergmayer discussed how people access certain types of content through local broadcasters and stated that there does not exist a viable model for providing this content online. He commented that he does not have specific solutions for addressing this problem. He also stated that “cord-cutting” creates challenges around content accessibility and emergency alerts.
• Rep. Dingell then asked Mr. Ourand to address how video streaming services have impacted the viewership of college sports. She also asked Mr. Ourand to indicate whether video streaming services have impacted non-revenue generating and women’s college sports.
  • Mr. Ourand noted how video streaming services generally have fewer viewers than traditional television. He also stated that he had not observed video streaming services having any impact on non-revenue generating and women’s college sports.
• Rep. Dingell then asked Mr. Lawlor to discuss how local broadcast network affiliate station owners (like E. W. Scripps Company) have worked to ensure that local communities have access to local sports programming. She also asked Mr. Lawlor to address how a broadcasting model for sports programming can benefit all communities.
  • Mr. Lawlor remarked that the biggest current challenge facing sports teams and leagues is reach. He noted that while RSNs had reached 80 percent of all households in a given market ten years ago, he indicated that this reach has fallen to 40 percent or less today. He stated that broadcasters are well positioned to address these reach issues. He mentioned how Scripps Sports broadcasts the games of sports teams in many markets, including Oakland University, the Vegas Golden Knights, and the Arizona Coyotes. He predicted that there will exist more opportunities to broadcast sports programming moving forward. He testified that sports league leaders and team owners have consistently indicated that they have reach problems due to “cord-cutting” and media marketplace fragmentation. He stated that these reach problems can prevent between half and two-thirds of fans from watching games, which impacts long-term fandom, merchandise sales, and ticket sales. He commented that these sports teams and leagues are looking to address reach challenges and asserted that local broadcasters can provide a solution to these challenges.
• Rep. Dingell asked Mr. Bergmayer to indicate whether investing in permanent and affordable broadband internet solutions would be beneficial.
  • Mr. Bergmayer answered affirmatively.

Rep. Rick Allen (R-GA):

• Rep. Allen mentioned how many of his constituents have complained to his office about changes in the sports media landscape. He noted how many consumers have complained that sports channels have focused more on social issues than on actual sports and that they must now pay for video streaming services to obtain content that had been previously available as part of their cable television packages. He also mentioned the recent carriage dispute between ESPN and Charter Communications and noted how he had needed to use a video streaming service to watch a college football game. He remarked that large technology companies are playing a major role in sports media and noted how these companies exclusively air certain sports programming. He asked Mr. Lawlor and Mr. Thun to indicate whether they are concerned with the involvement of these large technology companies within the sports media marketplace. He also asked Mr. Lawlor and Mr. Thun to address how these developments would impact the business models of their respective companies.
  • Mr. Thun remarked that the involvement of large technology companies in sports media will have a “big effect.” He noted how these large technology companies are much bigger than the traditional participants in the sports media marketplace. He stated that the increasing costs of sports media rights and declining subscriptions for pay television services will lead technology companies to gain market share within the sports media marketplace. He commented that sports leagues are fairly agnostic regarding who carries their content and simply want to maximize their revenues.
• Rep. Allen commented that the current movement of sports programming to video streaming services fails to account for the interests of consumers (who ultimately pay for sports programming).
  • Mr. Thun stated that pay television still provides the most robust sports watching experience of all available options. He noted however that a growing amount of sports programming is migrating from pay television to other services, which can result in a fragmented market for customers. He stated that he did not know how this trend could be stopped.
  • Mr. Lawlor first expressed agreement with Mr. Thun’s statement that pay television still provides the best viewing experience for sports fans. He described large technology companies as “very concerning” competitors within the sports media marketplace and highlighted how these companies have a lot of money. He mentioned how Apple TV+’s exclusive media rights deal with the MLS includes the local media rights for MLS teams. He called it problematic that soccer fans cannot watch any MLS games (including local MLS games) without having both Apple TV+ and MLS Season Pass subscriptions.
• Rep. Allen lastly emphasized that media companies are currently subject to different sets of rules.

Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-NY):

• Rep. Clarke remarked that the proliferation of cable television providers, satellite television providers, and online video distributors has changed consumer habits and has created more competition. She stated however that these changes have not occurred without challenges and commented that sports programming has not been immune to these challenges. She remarked that the continued fragmentation of sports content across different video streaming services and broadcast television networks has created some turmoil for those that were not early video streaming service adopters. She also stated that these challenges have led to disputes between sports media rights holders and video distributors, which have resulted in content blackouts. She then remarked that the rise of video streaming has resulted in many consumer benefits and opportunities in sports programming. She discussed how the increased competition provided by video streaming platforms allows for consumers to be more selective and only pay for the content they want. She also noted how the lack of contractual commitments for video streaming services provide consumers with the flexibility to cycle on and off services based on their personal budgets. She discussed how over-the-top (OTT) video services also provide more diverse and independent content creators with platforms to reach much greater audiences in new and innovative ways. She further noted how video streaming services have provided a platform for more niche sports. She remarked that reliable and affordable broadband service access is the “fundamental building block” for all of the aforementioned developments. She asserted that Congress must ensure that sports programming remains accessible to all Americans. She stated that the FCC’s ACP serves as the greatest tool for combatting the U.S.’s “digital divide.” She explained that this Program provides low-income households with a monthly benefit to help pay for broadband internet access. She noted how this Program currently serves over 22 million U.S. households and is expected to exhaust its funding as soon as April 2024. She called it “critical” for Congress to swiftly provide additional funding for the ACP. She mentioned how she had introduced the bipartisan and bicameral Affordable Connectivity Program Extension Act of 2024 to provide additional funding for the ACP. She asked Mr. Bergmayer to discuss the importance of affordable and reliable broadband internet access in creating a fair and “pro-consumer” sports media landscape.
  • Mr. Bergmayer thanked Rep. Clarke for her work on the FCC’s ACP. He called the Program “vital” and asserted that the Program should be renewed. He stated that consumers cannot access sports programming online without an internet connection. He warned that an exhaustion of the ACP’s funding would harm people’s internet access and could cause many Americans to downgrade their broadband internet service, which could undermine their ability to watch online sports programming. He further stated that while people may maintain their broadband internet service without ACP benefits, he noted that these people will likely have less disposable income to purchase access to onlines sports and entertainment programming. He concluded that fast and affordable broadband internet service is a prerequisite for video streaming.
• Rep. Clarke expressed agreement with Mr. Bergmayer’s response. She then called it important for policymakers to identify successful video models, particularly models that have contributed to a more diverse sports media environment. She noted how Scripps Sports had entered the sports broadcasting market at a time when other media companies had exited this market. She stated that Scripps Sports has found success broadcasting sporting events outside of the traditional “big four” professional sports leagues. She specifically highlighted Scripps Sports’s promotion of women’s sports. She asked Mr. Lawlor to discuss how Scripps Sports’s business model promotes diverse sports programming to a broader audience. She also asked Mr. Lawlor to discuss the size and the composition of its sports watching audience.
  • Mr. Lawlor remarked that women’s professional sports (including women’s soccer and women’s basketball) deserve to be seen. He noted how E. W. Scripps Company’s ION Television is broadcasting WNBA and NWSL games OTA for free. He also testified that ION Television will be adding live studio shows to support their airings of WNBA and NWSL games. He noted how women’s soccer and women’s basketball have historically been only accessible through pay television services or have been difficult to find. He stated that ION Television will make women’s sports available on a consistent and reliable basis, which will grow viewership for these sports.
• Rep. Clarke indicated that her question period time had expired.

Rep. Troy Balderson (R-OH):

• Rep. Balderson mentioned how certain sporting events (including some Big Ten Conference college football games) have aired exclusively on video streaming platforms (and were thus not available on traditional broadcast television stations). He mentioned how his elderly mother had been unable to access these video streaming-only college football games, which had caused frustration. He asked the witnesses to explain why much of the U.S.’s sports programming is migrating to video streaming platforms. He asked the witnesses to indicate whether these developments are the result of the market adapting to consumer behavior or are the result of something else.
  • Mr. Ourand attributed the migration of sports programming to video streaming services to the fact that entertainment consumers were already migrating to video streaming services. He stated that the sports leagues are simply trying to reach these entertainment consumers that are now using video streaming services. He commented that this is resulting in sports leagues beginning to exclusively stream some of their games.
  • Mr. Thun expressed agreement with Mr. Ourand’s assessment that video streaming services were originally focused on general entertainment and that these services are now pursuing sports media rights to make themselves more appealing to customers. He stated sports leagues are interested in partnering with video streaming services as a way to diversify the pool of buyers for their media rights. He noted that while most sports content currently remains available through pay television services, he predicted that an increasing amount of this content will migrate to video streaming services over time. He commented that this migration of content will result in confusion and friction.
  • Mr. Bergmayer expressed agreement with the previous responses regarding the movement of content to video streaming services. He stated that policymakers should consider why entertainment consumers had first migrated from pay television services to video streaming services. He suggested that this migration was due to MVPD packages being priced too high and having poor quality content. He commented that these problems were likely attributable to a lack of competition.
  • Mr. Lawlor expressed agreement with the previous responses regarding the migration of content to video streaming services. He noted how sports media rights holders are often the owners of new DTC platforms. He stated that these sports media rights holders therefore have an incentive to exclusively air games on their DTC platforms, which reduces their interest in expanding the reach of sports programming.
• Rep. Balderson then discussed how there is currently a hybrid model for sports media rights where certain sporting events are exclusively streamed yet carried via broadcast television in local markets. He asked the witnesses to address whether this hybrid model could work in the future or if sports will be exclusively aired in a single fashion moving forward.
  • Mr. Ourand asserted that it remains unknowable how sports programming will be aired over the long-term. He predicted that there will remain a hybrid model for sports media rights for the next several years. He stated that sports leagues are interested in maintaining this hybrid model as a way of avoiding television blackouts involving RSNs.
  • Mr. Lawlor expressed agreement with Mr. Ourand’s prediction that there will remain a hybrid model for sports media rights for the next several years. He acknowledged that television blackouts have previously impacted sports. He testified however that E. W. Scripps Company has only been involved in one television blackout and has completed tens of thousands of retransmission consent fee deals. He indicated that this one television blackout had lasted for five weeks. He remarked that most local broadcasters reach retransmission consent fee deals with video distributors without challenges. He commented that this success in reaching transmission consent fee deals benefits consumers.

Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA):

• Rep. Eshoo discussed how the entertainment industry is in a transformational period and noted how many customers are eliminating their pay television services and migrating to DTC programming. She noted however that millions of Americans still maintain expensive cable television subscription services. She stated that these market changes have also impacted sports programming and that the Subcommittee must work to protect U.S. consumers. She expressed frustration that U.S. customers are paying for sports programming and not receiving it and described the situation as a “racket.” She applauded the FCC’s work to provide U.S. consumers with a rebate for television blackouts. She mentioned how she had introduced bipartisan legislation with Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) to reform the existing retransmission consent fee negotiation regime to avoid television blackouts. She also noted how this legislation would allow for free market retransmission consent fee negotiations to occur under traditional copyright law. She asked the witnesses to discuss the current retransmission consent fee system.
  • Mr. Thun attributed the current challenges in the retransmission consent fee system to the increasing costs of pay television. He stated that the largest drivers of these cost increases are sports programming and broadcast television and commented that sports programming is contributing to broadcast television cost increases. He indicated that the cost of broadcast television has gone up by 270 percent.
• Rep. Eshoo interjected to ask the witnesses to indicate whether broadcasters support the FCC’s work to provide U.S. consumers with a rebate for television blackouts.
  • Mr. Lawlor remarked that E. W. Scripps Company is “really committed” to completing retransmission consent fee deals with video distributors.
• Rep. Eshoo interjected to ask Mr. Lawlor to indicate whether E. W. Scripps Company supports the FCC’s work to provide U.S. consumers with a rebate for television blackouts.
  • Mr. Lawlor stated that he had not looked into the issue.
  • Mr. Bergmayer interjected to remark that the U.S. broadcast industry does not support the FCC’s work to provide U.S. consumers with a rebate for television blackouts. He stated that the television broadcasters want to keep the money that they collect during these carriage disputes. He expressed agreement with Rep. Eshoo’s frustration over this situation. He also stated that the FCC is addressing other “anti-consumer” practices within the media industry, including the use of early termination fees by cable television companies.
• Rep. Eshoo interjected to ask the other witnesses to opine on television blackouts.
  • Mr. Thun remarked that mandating rebates to customers in the event of a television blackout would provide more negotiating leverage to broadcasters in their retransmission consent fee negotiations with video distributors. He emphasized that the cost of broadcast television has gone up by 270 percent since 2015 and asserted that video distributors are not responsible for this increase. He stated that these higher broadcast television costs are responsible for the increase in television blackouts and people eliminating their pay television services. He commented that retransmission consent fees have reached an “absurd level” and that video distributors are aggressively negotiating to reduce these fees.
  • Mr. Ourand stated that broadcasters would likely argue that their high retransmission consent fees are commensurate with their programming investments.
• Rep. Eshoo indicated that her question period time had expired.

Rep. Diana Harshbarger (R-TN):

• Rep. Harshbarger mentioned how her constituents had almost been unable to watch last year’s University of Tennessee-University of Alabama college football game due to a television blackout. She noted how this television blackout was the result of a carriage dispute between Charter Communications and Disney (who owns ESPN). She expressed relief that the two companies had come to a carriage resolution prior to the game. She expressed concerns however that expensive sports media rights could cause a future television blackout. She asked the witnesses to indicate whether Congress could take any actions to prevent future carriage disputes.
  • Mr. Thun noted how DirecTV had proposed allowing broadcasters to set retransmission consent fees. He explained that video distributors (like DirecTV) would charge their customers these broadcaster-set prices under this proposed approach and that customers would get to choose whether they want to pay these prices to receive broadcast television channels. He commented that this approach would avoid television blackouts. He stated however that broadcasters have rejected this proposed approach because they want to receive full carriage and payment from video distributors. He commented that these objectives from broadcasters result in retransmission consent fee disputes.
  • Mr. Lawlor remarked that television blackouts within the sports context are “not uncommon.” He stated that some of the most significant television blackouts involve RSNs. He noted how DISH Network does not carry any RSNs. He also mentioned how Altitude Sports and Entertainment (which is an RSN in Denver, Colorado) and Comcast have not reached agreements over the previous four years. He stated however that local broadcasters generally reach retransmission consent fee deals with video distributors and emphasized that broadcast television is the most visible distribution platform available.
• Rep. Harshbarger then stated that it may be cheaper for consumers to purchase some sports on a pay-per-view basis rather than accumulating additional subscriptions given the amount of video services required to watch every live sporting event. She asked Mr. Ourand to indicate whether there exists any movement toward a pay-per-view model for live sporting events and to comment on the merits of this approach.
  • Mr. Ourand remarked that he was not observing a movement toward a pay-per-view model for live sporting events. He commented that the sports leagues would likely view a pay-per-view model as harmful because they would only generate revenue from the viewers of their games under this type of model. He stated that a large reason that pay television prices have increased is because all pay television subscribers pay for sports, regardless of whether they watch sports.
• Rep. Harshbarger expressed agreement with Mr. Ourand’s assessment of a possible pay-per-view model for live sporting events. She then asked Mr. Thun to estimate the SEC Network’s value to DirecTV and to project what would happen if the SEC Network chose to have an exclusive media rights agreement with a video streaming service.
  • Mr. Thun remarked that the value of the SEC Network depends on the location within the U.S. He stated that DirecTV views the SEC Network as an important part of its programming lineup and that DirecTV would not like for the SEC Network to leave its programming lineup. He commented that the movement of the SEC Network to a video streaming service could cause DirecTV to lose customers. He stated that while ESPN likely does not intend to move the SEC Network to a video streaming service, he commented that ESPN’s intentions are unknowable. He noted how ESPN’s deal with the SEC Network runs into the 2030s, which means that DirecTV will carry the SEC Network for the foreseeable future.

Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX):

• Rep. Pfluger noted how his Congressional District is located outside of the Dallas-Fort Worth Metropolitan Area. He asked Mr. Bergmayer to indicate whether his constituents will be able to watch Dallas Cowboys football games moving forward.
  • Mr. Bergmayer noted that while NFL games are available on local broadcast television stations, he commented that DMAs do not always coincide with where fans are located. He predicted that fans located outside of DMAs will not be able to watch local sports games via broadcast television as more games migrate to paid video streaming services.
• Rep. Pfluger called it important for areas located outside of certain DMAs to be able to access live sporting events via broadcast television. He asked Mr. Bergmayer to indicate whether the hybrid model of sports programming airing via broadcast television and video streaming services will continue.
  • Mr. Bergmayer predicted that the hybrid model of sports programming airing via broadcast television and video streaming services will continue. He stated that video will be consumed in different ways (including through online channels and traditional MVPDs) across demographics. He remarked that sports leagues will need to explore multiple avenues if they want to maximize their reach.
• Rep. Pfluger then discussed how many consumers often watch sports programming at sports bars on multi-screen displays. He asked Mr. Thun to discuss the changes that businesses will need to make to show a video streaming exclusive game (such as the recent NFL playoff game) to their customers.
  • Mr. Thun mentioned how DirecTV’s commercial establishment business comprises a large share of DirecTV’s overall business. He noted how large sports bar restaurant chains have already wired their televisions to receive satellite television services. He stated that it would be expensive to rewire these televisions to receive video streaming services. He explained that such rewiring would entail the purchasing of incremental bandwidth and new equipment. He also noted that video streaming services do not provide the same simultaneous viewing experience as traditional pay television providers. He explained that video streaming services often have latency issues, which can result in multiple televisions at a sports bar displaying the same sporting event in an asynchronous fashion.
• Rep. Pfluger asked Mr. Thun to indicate whether sports fans like the viewing experience of video streaming services at sports bars.
  • Mr. Thun remarked that DirecTV’s customers like to receive all of their programming needs directly from the company. He described the recent NFL playoff game that aired exclusively via video streaming as a “pain point.” He testified that 97 percent of DirecTV’s hotel, bar, and restaurant customers could not broadcast this recent NFL playoff game because of the aforementioned technical challenges and the expensive investments required to broadcast said games.
• Rep. Pfluger then asked Mr. Ourand to discuss how video streaming has changed the ability of consumers to watch the Olympics.
  • Mr. Ourand remarked that a key benefit of video streaming is that it enables consumers to watch any Olympic sporting event. He noted that consumers will need to subscribe to the Peacock video streaming service to stream Olympic sporting events. He discussed how television networks had previously purchased media rights to sporting events that they could not air due to a lack of available channels. He indicated that this practice is known as “warehousing.” He stated that video streaming can address this “warehousing” problem through providing channels to air these previously unairable events.

Subcommittee Vice Chair Buddy Carter (R-GA):

• Vice Chair Carter asked Mr. Ourand to discuss how the college sports media marketplace differs from the professional sports media marketplace.
  • Mr. Ourand remarked that the college sports media marketplace differs greatly from the professional sports media marketplace, especially in terms of college football. He noted how college athletic conferences negotiate national media rights deals based on their regional footprints. He noted that professional sports leagues only negotiate national media rights deals.
• Vice Chair Carter interjected to ask Mr. Ourand to indicate whether the college sports media marketplace will change given the consolidation of college athletic conferences.
  • Mr. Ourand remarked that the consolidation of college athletic conferences will likely impact the college sports media marketplace. He stated that college athletic conferences are seeking to expand their membership numbers to increase their attractiveness to media rights buyers.
• Vice Chair Carter asked Mr. Thun to comment on changes within the college sports media market.
  • Mr. Thun remarked that college athletic conference realignment is largely attributable to money. He noted how the Pac-12 Conference had failed to secure a market-based television media rights deal, which made it impossible for Pac-12 Conference schools to compete with schools in other college athletic conferences. He indicated that Pac-12 Conference schools had thus moved to different college athletic conferences so that they could remain competitive. He discussed how college athletic conference payments are predicated on team territories and the states where schools are located. He noted how college athletic conference realignment will therefore lead college athletic conferences to obtain more money from pay television services.
• Vice Chair Carter then mentioned how Mr. Bergmayer had written in December 2023 that video streaming services enable consumers to choose which services to subscribe to (rather than being forced to pay for an all-encompassing bundle). He asked Mr. Bergmayer to elaborate on his argument and how the flexibility associated with video streaming services has the potential to save consumers money.
  • Mr. Bergmayer remarked that MVPDs, cable television, and satellite television offer a “one size fits all” model where consumers must pay for all of the content within a given content package. He stated that this model results in the cross-subsidization of content and “inflated” prices for sports. He remarked that video streaming services enable consumers to choose to pay for only the content that they wish to watch. He commented that non-sports fans should not be forced to subsidize sports fans when they purchase content packages. He also noted how video streaming services do not lock their customers into long-term contracts and indicated that customers can add and drop video streaming services as they please. He commented that this ability to add and drop video streaming services puts market pressure on services to provide continuing value for their customers.
• Vice Chair Carter then mentioned how he had received many complaints regarding the recent exclusive airing of the NFL playoff game on the Peacock streaming service. He asked Mr. Lawlor to discuss how the NFL chooses which markets or video streaming services get to air their games.
  • Mr. Lawlor remarked that the NFL had built its business through providing its games via OTA broadcast stations for free within the markets of their teams. He noted how the NFL’s recent playoff game that was exclusively streamed via Peacock had been available via OTA broadcast television in the local markets of the two involved teams. He noted however that this game had not been available via OTA broadcast television in the adjacent markets of the two involved teams. He highlighted how the ratings for this Peacock-exclusive NFL playoff game had been half of the ratings of a traditional NFL game.
• Vice Chair Carter remarked that the NFL’s decision to exclusively stream one of its recent playoff games was a failure based on the feedback he had received from constituents.

Rep. Kat Cammack (R-FL):

• Rep. Cammack first mentioned how she had also heard complaints about the NFL’s recent decision to exclusively stream one of its recent playoff games. She then asked Mr. Ourand to indicate whether Millennial and Generation Z audiences are consuming sports media differently than older generations. She expressed particular interest in determining whether these younger generations are consuming sports on different types of devices (such as phones and tablets). She also asked Mr. Ourand to indicate whether different sports media consumption patterns would impact the future of the sports media industry.
  • Mr. Ourand remarked that sports leagues recognize that younger people are watching sports programming differently than older people and noted how younger people are less likely to watch a full sporting event. He elaborated that younger people are more willing to watch the highlights of a sporting event on social media after the event has concluded. He stated that sports leagues are working to get younger generations to watch sporting events for longer periods of time. He commented that longer viewership will enable sports leagues to better sell advertising around their games.
• Rep. Cammack asked Mr. Ourand to indicate whether he has any data that reflects generational differences regarding the devices where consumers watch sports programming.
  • Mr. Ourand indicated that he did not have any data on the generational differences for how consumers watch sports.
• Rep. Cammack then asked Mr. Ourand to discuss the impact of new and emerging sports (such as Formula 1 and pickleball) on sports media contracts.
  • Mr. Ourand remarked that the goal of all sports is to obtain a contract with a linear television network and mentioned how Formula 1 and pickleball have obtained such contracts. He stated that new and emerging sports want linear television network contracts because linear television has the most viewers (which will in turn support the growth of these sports).
• Rep. Cammack asked Mr. Ourand to discuss the viewership and popularity trends of different professional sports leagues and how they make use of video streaming services and linear television.
  • Mr. Ourand noted how many video streaming services (including Amazon Prime Video, YouTube, and Apple TV+) are part of trillion dollar companies while traditional television companies tend to only be billion dollar companies. He stated that these video streaming services are not spending as much on sports media rights as sports leagues had hoped. He posited that this underspending is due to the fact that video streaming services tend to have smaller audiences than traditional television companies.
• Rep. Cammack then asked Mr. Thun and Mr. Lawlor to discuss how the media industry can continue to innovate and offer different sports programming options to consumers while ensuring the sustainability of the sports media ecosystem.
  • Mr. Thun remarked that pay television remains the best avenue for traditional sports fans to watch sports. He commented that sports fans cannot watch the same level of sports using multiple video streaming services as they can through a pay television service. He stated that the pay television industry must do more to ensure that its experiences can capture other video streaming products. He mentioned how DirecTV is making investments to ensure that its customers can more seamlessly navigate between its pay television services and video streaming services.
  • Mr. Lawlor remarked that less exclusivity will provide more viewing opportunities for sports fans. He noted how E. W. Scripps Company is an OTA broadcast company and highlighted how Scripps Sports broadcasts Vegas Golden Knights hockey games for free on its OTA broadcast television station. He stated that this broadcasting of Vegas Golden Knights games has resulted in a doubling of ratings. He also mentioned how Scripps Sports has partnered with the Vegas Golden Knights on a video streaming platform that gets over one million minutes of content viewed every week. He stated that broadcast television and video streaming services can complement each other to increase fandom for sports.

Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY):

• Rep. Tonko expressed interest in the relationship of the sports media industry to the gambling industry. He noted how there has occurred a “significant” integration of sports betting into sports media content in recent years. He highlighted how DirecTV embeds pregame odds into their sports information for consumers. He stated that this integration of sports betting into sports media content is causing children, teenagers, college students, and young adults to become increasingly familiar with gambling. He raised concerns that the “devastating harms” associated with sports gambling are often downplayed or not mentioned in discussions regarding the evolving sports media landscape. He stated that the sports media industry should know that sports gambling is an internationally recognized addictive product. He noted how 20 percent of people that struggle with gambling addiction will attempt suicide and added that this rate is even greater among veterans. He indicated that gambling addiction has the highest suicide attempt rate of any addiction. He mentioned how he had introduced the Betting on Our Future Act to ban sports betting advertisements. He noted how Mr. Lawlor had stated in April 2023 that sports teams and leagues could compensate for smaller media rights fees they may receive from broadcast television stations relative to video streaming services through reaching broader audiences. He noted how Mr. Lawlor had also stated that these broader audiences could drive increased ticket sales, merchandise sales, and sports betting. He asked Mr. Lawlor to discuss if and how he has considered the potential negative impact that increased sports betting advertisements and content might have on people that are struggling with or are vulnerable to gambling addiction.
  • Mr. Lawlor testified that Scripps Sports has contemplated the potential negative impacts of sports betting advertising and content relative to its acquired sports media rights. He stated that while Scripps Sports believes that sports gambling advertising and content could be appropriately integrated into their offerings, he asserted that this integration should not necessarily exist on OTA broadcast television stations. He discussed how NEXTGEN TV will provide the opportunity for second screen content. He suggested that NEXTGEN TV could provide an opportunity for sports betting-specific content that would not be pushed to the general population.
• Rep. Tonko mentioned how many Americans are in recovery for gambling addiction and expressed concerns that sports media companies may target this population with gambling content and advertising. He asked Mr. Ourand, Mr. Thun, and Mr. Bergmayer to respond to Mr. Lawlor’s previous answer. He also asked these witnesses to discuss whether and how they have considered the potential harms of sports betting advertisements and content.
  • Mr. Thun noted how DirecTV is a national satellite television platform and how the legality of sports betting is governed by states. He stated that DirecTV therefore does not have a broad integration with sports gambling. He noted how DirecTV carries many sports channels and highlighted how there has been an increase in gambling-related content on these channels. He commented that gambling-related shows are likely contributing to certain instances of gambling addiction. He stated that DirecTV takes a passive role regarding these gambling-related shows and emphasized that DirecTV does not produce these shows. He acknowledged that while DirecTV does run advertisements for sports betting companies, he noted how much of these advertisements come from television networks (rather than DirecTV).
• Rep. Tonko asked the witnesses to discuss the actions that their companies are taking to ensure that the sports media landscape is safe for consumers in the face of increasing access, normalization, advertising, and targeting related to sports betting.
  • Mr. Thun remarked that the issue of advertising is outside of his scope of responsibilities and knowledge. He testified that he was unaware of any broader programs to accelerate the availability of gambling on DirecTV’s platforms. He stated however that he lacks information on DirecTV’s spending on sports betting-related advertising.
• Rep. Tonko expressed interest in obtaining information from the hearing’s witnesses regarding how their companies are responding to the proliferation of sports betting-related targeting. He stated that the U.S. does not have enough clinicians to support the existing toll-free gambling addiction helplines. He remarked that the U.S. must proactively work to avoid and prevent a significant uptick in gambling addiction.