NFL clashes with Wisconsin congressman over games moving to Amazon, Netflix

WASHINGTON (CBS 58) -- A Wisconsin congressman took aim at the country's most popular sport during a hearing Wednesday morning on Capitol Hill. Rep. Scott Fitzgerald (R-Wisconsin) presided over a House Judiciary subcommittee meeting that explored whether the National Football League (NFL) is violating a 65-year-old law by moving some of the league's most high-profile games to streaming platforms like Amazon and Netflix.

The hearing focused on the Sports Broadcasting Act, which became law in 1961. Its inspiration was the NFL, which lobbied Congress to allow the league to sell each of its teams' television rights in a single package. Previously, each NFL team was considered its own business under the law and was responsible for reaching its own broadcast agreements.

The NFL argues going back to that legal standard would doom smaller market teams like the Green Bay Packers. Jeff Miller, the league's executive vice president of public affairs, told CBS 58 in an interview this week any changes to the law could lead to teams in the biggest markets getting substantially more TV money.

"The Chicago Bears would be able to negotiate a set price. The New York Giants or Jets would be able to negotiate a set price," Miller said. "And smaller markets would probably get lesser return for their rights, compared to some of the others."

In April, when the congressional review first surfaced, the Packers called the idea of repealing the law an 'existential threat.'

Fitzgerald pushed back during the hearing by noting the financial landscape has changed considerably. He said when the NFL first reached a broadcast deal covering every team, it provided about $310,000 annually per team. In 2025, each NFL team took in more than $400 million from the league's various media rights deals.

"The NFL is not a fragile enterprise in need of special protection. It is one of the most successful and powerful entertainment businesses in the world," Fitzgerald said. "And it pays its players staff accordingly. To suggest that teams could not remain competitive without an antitrust exemption is simply false."

CBS 58 has sent numerous interview requests to Fitzgerald's office, both this week and back in April. Fitzgerald's office has yet to respond to any of those requests.

Miller specifically called out Fitzgerald during his interview, noting the law was enacted 65 years ago with teams like the Packers in mind.

"I don't know why a subcommittee chairman who represents the people of Wisconsin would be interested in doing harm to the Sports Broadcasting Act," he said. "But that's where we are."

Packers fans feeling the pain

At the center of the lawmakers' bipartisan gripe is the NFL moving some of its biggest games to streaming-only platforms. Packers fans are intimately familiar with the move; last year's Wild Card playoff game was on Amazon, and this season's regular season matchup with the Bears in Chicago will fall Christmas Day and be broadcast on Netflix.

Miller, a Bayside native who graduated from Nicolet High, maintained the vast majority of the league's games are still on over-the-air broadcast networks, such as CBS, FOX and NBC. 

"87 percent of NFL games are primarily on broadcast television," he said. "And this notion that a whole bunch of games have moved to streaming or paid platforms is simply not true. That 87 percent number has remained consistent for many, many years."

When an NFL game is on a streaming service, the league will allow the game to also be broadcast on an over-the-air network in the two teams' home markets.

The Packers' home markets are the Milwaukee and Green Bay TV markets. That means when the team plays on Amazon or Netflix, fans in the Madison, Eau Claire and Wausau markets must either have subscription or watch the game somewhere else.

A CBS 58 reporter asked Miller if the NFL will consider amending what the league considers to be a team's "home" market.

"Those kinds of conversations go on all the time, to make sure we're reaching fans where they are," he said. "In each one of these cases, you can take a look at the idiosyncrasies of the distribution, but the principal remains the same, reaching as many fans as we can."

Will Congress actually do anything? Probably not

Fitzgerald suggested the NFL may now be violating the 1961 law by moving more games to streaming platforms. The hearing featured a lineup including conservative commentator Clay Travis and the president of the National Association of Broadcasters.

"[The law] was not intended to provide a perpetual shield for leagues to coordinate the sale of media rights across every new technology and distribution platform that emerges," Fitzgerald said. "Yet, that is effectively what has happened."

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell was invited to testify at the hearing. Miller said the league declined to have Goodell attend because it felt the committee had stacked the deck against pro sports leagues.

"This panel, led by Congressman Fitzgerald, who's right there in Wisconsin, has witnesses solely on one side of the issue," Miller said. "There is no effort. We've offered many witnesses, and there's no effort to have a balanced group."

So, with all these sharp words, will Congress actually move to repeal or amend the Sports Broadcasting Act? Probably not, according to Matthew Mitten, a sports law professor at Marquette University.

"There's just not been a lot of sports-specific legislation that Congress has historically enacted," he noted.

Instead, Mitten suggested the hearing was a way for members of Congress to signal they're aware of frustrated fans' concerns. He said, if anything, the hearing was a shot across the NFL's bow, warning the league to not move many more of its games to streaming platforms.

"These hearings are a way of telling," Mitten said. "Those in Congress saying, 'We hear you. We're taking a close look at this.'"

The subcommittee also discussed the broader implications of media consolidation, as more and more outlets are controlled by fewer and fewer conglomerates.

Ultimately, however, Mitten agreed when asked if this was political theater more than anything else.

"I think that's a fair assessment," he said.