WASHINGTON, D.C. – In his opening statement at today’s Senate Commerce Committee hearing titled “Field of Streams: The New Channel Guide for Sports Fans,” Chairman Ted Cruz (R-Texas) highlighted how sports fans increasingly struggle to find where they can watch their favorite teams and face increased costs for streaming subscriptions and sports packages.  

Sen. Cruz outlined how the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961, which granted professional sports leagues antitrust immunity to negotiate nationwide broadcast rights, may be affecting current media deals and offerings to fans. In light of the antitrust exemption, public financing of stadiums, and other public benefits, Cruz questioned what obligations teams and leagues had to their fans.

Here are Sen. Cruz’s remarks as prepared for delivery:

“In Texas—where everything really is bigger—we boast some of the most watched teams in the nation. Today’s hearing about sports broadcasting isn’t just a Texas issue; it’s a national one. In an era of a deep partisan division, sports might be the most powerful cultural unifier we have. Whether on the couch or in the stands, Americans come together to cheer, to hope, and to believe.  

“But those millions of fans are asking a simple question: ‘why does it seem to be getting harder—and more expensive—to just watch the game?’  

“For years, fans faced some frustrations—regional sports blackouts, a lack of cable subscription options, and higher costs for sports packages. 

“Consider, for example, that all NFL games used to be broadcast on ‘over-the-air’ channels until 1987 when the first NFL game aired on ESPN. Some pundits and analysts at the time predicted fans would no longer follow the NFL if they had to purchase a cable subscription. How wrong they were. Instead, cable proved to be an evolution in the market and the NFL’s popularity exploded.  

“Today’s shift to internet streaming could be a similar evolution. However, in some ways, rather than simply having more options, sports viewing has become more splintered, requiring multiple apps and subscriptions just to watch a single franchise’s entire season. The app or TV channel that a fan uses one week to watch a game doesn’t work the next. It’s frustrating and annoying for the dedicated sports fan.  

“Such market disruption is not only expected; it’s a sign of innovation. The key is recognizing that and figuring out how to adjust as we go. Importantly, we should be cautious about saddling streaming services with outdated cable-era regulations, something that might do more harm than good. 

“The shift to streaming isn’t just frustrating. It can be expensive. Between league-specific packages and games behind different streaming paywalls, it can cost hundreds of dollars a year for a hardcore fan wanting to watch all of a league’s games.  

“If fans want to spend their hard-earned money on sports streaming, I don’t blame them. I’ve shelled out more than I care to disclose on tickets to the Houston Rockets, Astros, and other Texas teams. But given that sports can get special treatment under the law—whether it be antitrust protection, nonprofit status, or taxpayer financing of stadiums—what do the fans deserve in return?  

“This is a particularly important question for this Committee, which has jurisdiction over telecommunications and broadcasting. In 1961, Congress enacted the Sports Broadcasting Act to grant professional leagues antitrust immunity as it relates to negotiating national broadcast deals on behalf of their teams. This structure allowed leagues to negotiate from centralized offices in a synchronized manner without violating antitrust law.  

“The SBA was intended to ensure that the needs of all sports fans were being met. I think it’s important to regularly revisit and consider whether our laws, like the Sports Broadcasting Act, are fulfilling their intended goals. And if the leagues can show how the SBA continues to benefit fans today, it may be worth exploring whether to give a similar exemption to college sports whose broadcasting rights have no antitrust protection. 

“One growing concern is that the NFL has used its special exemption in the SBA to the frustration of college and high school football schedulers. For example, the SBA explicitly excludes antitrust protection for the NFL if broadcasting a game on a Friday night or a Saturday between mid-September to mid-December. That’s to protect the interests of high school and college football, and ultimately, their fans who are no doubt also followers of the NFL. 

“The NFL has tiptoed up to this rule, now putting a game on streaming on Black Friday afternoon, which used to be a slot reserved for prominent college football rivalries, including in some years, Texas and Texas A&M. There are millions of sports fans who like being able to follow high school, college, and professional football without having to choose amongst them. And it’s partly why Congress wrote the SBA in the manner it did. 

“Professional sports hold a unique space in our culture. They wear our colors, carry our hopes, and represent our cities and towns. Sports teams may be run like businesses, but to fans, they’re sacred institutions. They’re public trusts and it’s why taxpayers have been willing to shell out their money to build stadiums and arenas for pro baseball, football, basketball, and hockey. In exchange, fans are right to ask if these teams have a civic responsibility to their communities that includes making games accessible.  

“I look forward to hearing from each of the sports leagues today on how the fan experience is changing, how fans are benefiting from the new broadcasting landscape, and just as importantly, what responsibilities teams have to the public when taxpayer funding or special legal rights are granted to them.  

"Streaming may be the future—but it shouldn’t sideline the fans.”

###