Regardless of whether the NFL will have to pay more than 2.4 million residential class members and nearly 50,000 commercial establishments in the Sunday Ticket case, the plaintiffs want what’s known as injunctive relief. In non-legalese, it’s an order telling the NFL to ix-nay on a distribution and pricing model that violates antitrust law.
As explained in the aftermath of Judge Philip Gutierrez’s stunning decision to scrap a $4.7 billion verdict (which would have become a $14.1 billion judgment), he found that the record contained more than enough evidence to support a finding that Sunday Ticket amounts to an antitrust violation. The judge scrapped the verdict because he rejected the testimony from the expert witnesses who conjured a world that would have existed “but for” the antitrust issue. The judge did not exonerate the NFL.
So, now, the plaintiffs want the judge to tell the NFL to stop doing what it’s been doing, for 30 years and counting.
The fight emerged after the NFL prepared and submitted a draft judgment that, if signed by the judge, would end the case. The plaintiffs, via A.J. Perez of FrontOfficeSports.com, submitted objections to the proposal regarding the issue of “injunctive, declaratory, and equitable relief.” Again, the plaintiffs want the judge to say to the NFL, “Your out-of-market package violates antitrust law. You must abandon it.” And they believe the jury’s finding justifies it.
That’s not only a fair outcome but also the only one that makes sense. Otherwise, more and more plaintiffs will have to keep chasing the NFL in court, hoping to come up with a damages calculation based on a hypothetical, made-up world universe where the NFL isn’t violating antitrust laws through Sunday Ticket.
If the plaintiffs get what they want, Sunday Ticket eventually will become more affordable — not just for the plaintiffs in the lawsuit but for everyone else, too.
