NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) is calling for Congress to reexamine the Sports Broadcasting Act to ensure that fans remain the priority in the streaming era and strongly opposes the notion that the status quo is working.
The Sports Broadcasting Act (SBA) of 1961 was designed to push broad public access to sports programming while allowing leagues to pool broadcast rights in ways that supported competitive balance and nationwide reach. As the NFL, MLB, NBA and other leagues have irked Americans by moving more games behind streaming paywalls, the NAB wants the public interest benefits that justified the act in the first place to remain for the next generation of fans.
“The Sports Broadcasting Act was enacted more than 60 years ago to help ensure Americans could access live sports on free, local television. Congress could not have imagined today’s entertainment marketplace, where fans increasingly need multiple streaming subscriptions just to follow their favorite teams,” NAB Vice President of Communications Carrie Healey told Fox News Digital.
FCC BOSS WANTS TO MAKE LIFE LESS FRUSTRATING FOR SPORTS FANS, SAYS STREAMING SHIFT A ‘REAL PAIN FOR CONSUMERS’
The NAB believes free, over-the-air broadcast television remains a more consumer-friendly platform that doesn’t come with costly subscription fees. The broadcasters’ association has put a spotlight on the fact that the antitrust exemption contained in the SBA does not apply to paid streaming services.
But as the NAB pushes for a review of the act, a letter from Rep. Tony Wied, R-Wis., was circulated this week in the House urging Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, to leave the SBA untouched during the next hearing on the matter, which could come as soon as June.
The letter, which has been obtained by Fox News Digital, called for games to “continue to be accessible to fans and communities across the country,” but urges lawmakers to essentially ignore the shift of sporting events to streaming services.
The letter said the NFL has “the most consumer-friendly media distribution policy of any professional sports organization” because 87% of games remain on over-the-air television to a regional or national audience. Wied also noted that the NFL equally divides revenue from broadcasting packages among all 32 clubs, which puts teams in smaller markets on a level playing field with franchises in larger media markets.
“We urge the Judiciary Committee to preserve the SBA’s core protections while maintaining appropriate oversight to ensure that the law is applied consistent with its intent to keep America’s Game thriving,” the letter states.
NFL LAUNCHES LOBBYING BLITZ AT FCC TO DEFEND ITS MEDIA MODEL AS STREAMING SCRUTINY INTENSIFIES
The NAB, which bills itself as the chief advocate of America’s broadcasters, vehemently disagrees.
“As the marketplace evolves and more games move behind streaming paywalls, Congress should reexamine whether fans are still receiving the broad access and affordability the law was intended to protect,” Healey said.
The NAB wants policymakers to examine whether “exclusive streaming arrangements align with the SBA’s original public interest rationale,” if “consumers are better off under increasingly fragmented distribution models” and whether “consumers are better off under increasingly fragmented distribution models.”
A Fox News poll in March found 72% of sports fans think major sporting events should stay free on broadcast TV.
“Constituents around the country are telling Congress that watching their favorite NFL team is expensive and confusing. Everyone agrees broadcasting agreements should benefit consumers,” a Judiciary Committee spokesperson told Fox News Digital when asked about the letter.
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Brendan Carr has also made it a point of emphasis that American sports fans shouldn’t face headaches following their favorite sports teams.
Earlier this year, the FCC announced it would seek public comments on the ongoing shift of live sports from broadcast channels to streaming services. Carr has suggested it’s simply too expensive and inconvenient for consumers to watch their favorite teams, and while he understands the argument that streaming opens more games and more content, he believes the cons outweigh the pros for most fans.
NFL FANS CALL THE LEAGUE’S STREAMING STRATEGY A ‘MONEY GRAB’ AS COSTS SPIRAL OUT OF CONTROL
“Americans are frustrated when they sit down and can’t find the game they want to watch. And that feeling grows only worse when they realize that they might need to sign up for another streaming service to watch the game,” Carr told Fox News Digital in March.
“There has long been a strong and mutually beneficial relationship between sports leagues and broadcasters, and consumers will benefit if that continues,” Carr continued. “I want to see Americans continue to benefit from free over-the-air sports programming.”
Carr has also highlighted that the partnership between broadcasters and sports rights has helped fund local news and journalism, as sports helps drive revenue to local stations that many Americans rely on. He also feels that the relationship could be undermined if leagues continue to ditch local broadcasters for streaming services that are behind costly paywalls.
Rep. Wied’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Fox News Digital’s Ryan Gaydos contributed to this report.