Court opens possibility that NFL Sunday Ticket case could expand to YouTube TV

On Friday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling overturning a judge's decision to toss a jury verdict levied against the NFL over antitrust violations associated with its packaging of NFL Sunday Ticket to DirecTV. The case, which has been in the courts for about a decade, addressed whether the league violated antitrust law by compelling its Sunday Ticket provider, in this case DirecTV, to price the product artificially high so to protect the Sunday afternoon packages it sells to Fox and CBS.

A jury ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and the NFL was on the hook for $4.7 billion in damages, an amount that would be trebled to over $14 billion under federal antitrust statutes. But shortly after the jury reached its verdict, the judge overseeing the case tossed the ruling citing issues with how the plaintiffs' expert witnesses calculated the damages. On Friday, a three-judge panel ruled on the plaintiffs' subsequent appeal , deciding that the jury's assessment that the NFL was liable for the antitrust violations would stand, but the amount the league owes in damages would be retried.

But, according to a recent report by Puck's legal expert Eriq Gardner , there's another key ruling the panel of judges made that has been largely overlooked. Per Gardner, the judges filed a memorandum disposition that sent "injunction claims back to the district court to consider whether they remain viable now that the NFL's deal with DirecTV has expired."

The ongoing case deals only with a period in which the NFL licensed Sunday Ticket to DirecTV. The league's out-of-market package now, of course, is held by YouTube TV. And for all intents and purposes, NFL Sunday Ticket on YouTube TV is following the exact same model that currently has the league in hot water. Sunday Ticket remains priced at a premium rate to protect the value of CBS' and Fox's Sunday afternoon packages. Gardner suggests that sending the injunction claims back to he district court opens the possibility for those claims to be extended to YouTube TV.

"[T]here's a certain tactical logic to seeking an injunction with a newly restored liability verdict in hand. That finding wouldn't automatically establish that the YouTube TV arrangement is unlawful, but it would give the plaintiffs a substantial starting point. A credible threat to that relationship would rattle the NFL far more than another squabble over how much former DirecTV subscribers are owed," Gardner writes.

Should the plaintiffs pursue that avenue, a district court could begin considering paths that impact the NFL's Sunday Ticket package right now . Obviously, that is something the league would like to avoid at all costs.

This is partly why Gardner suggests the "most sensible ending" to this decade-long ordeal is an ending that, in hindsight, the league likely wishes it pursued a long time ago: a settlement.

It's unclear if the plaintiffs will ultimately pursue an injunction. As Gardner notes, this type of litigation is expensive and it can often take years before any investments pay off. But if the plaintiffs believe it's in their best interests to ratchet up the pressure on the NFL, this is a tactic they can use to do so. It's also the tactic that would be the most disruptive to the NFL's current business operation and how fans access games.