House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan has invited NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell to testify at a hearing on whether professional sports leagues have used a 65-year-old antitrust exemption to stick fans with higher costs and fewer free games. The hearing, titled "Examining the Sports Broadcasting Act," is scheduled for June 10 at 10 a.m. Eastern in the Rayburn House Office Building.
The invitation, sent by letter, is not a subpoena. Fox News reported that Goodell can choose whether to appear, with a response requested by June 3. But the fact that Jordan singled out the NFL's top executive, rather than a league lawyer or lobbyist, signals that Congress is serious about putting the country's richest sports league on the record.
At issue is the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961, a law that gave leagues like the NFL a limited exemption from federal antitrust rules so they could pool their broadcast rights into a single package. The original bargain was straightforward: fans got to watch their team's games for free on broadcast television, and the league got to negotiate collectively instead of team by team.
Jordan made the gap between that original promise and today's reality the centerpiece of his letter. As the New York Post reported, Jordan put it bluntly:
"Back when the Sports Broadcast Act was passed, the promise was you'll get to watch every one of your team's games for free. Things have dramatically changed since 1961."
That is hard to argue with. NFL games now air on Amazon Prime, Netflix, and Peacock, all paid streaming platforms. A fan who once needed only a television antenna to follow the season now faces a patchwork of subscriptions, each carrying its own monthly fee. The league's broadcast model has ballooned into what Fox News described as a $110 billion structure, and a growing share of that money comes from paywalled services rather than free over-the-air networks.
Jordan's letter laid out two questions the committee intends to press. First, how has the distribution of professional sports evolved since the SBA was enacted? Second, and more pointed, has the antitrust exemption the law created been used by leagues to harm consumers?
Just The News reported that Jordan wrote in the invitation:
"It will also examine the extent to which the antitrust exemption created by the SBA has been used by the professional sports leagues to harm consumers and whether potential legislative remedies may be needed to address that harm."
That last phrase, "legislative remedies", is the one the NFL's front office should read twice. Congress is not just asking questions. It is openly floating the possibility of changing the law.
Goodell would not be walking into a vacuum. AP News reported that the Justice Department is also investigating the NFL for potential anticompetitive practices related to affordability for consumers and fairness for media providers. A government official told AP the probe was "about affordability for consumers and creating an even playing field for providers."
Courts have already found that the SBA's antitrust shield applies only to broadcast networks, not cable, satellite, or streaming platforms. That legal distinction matters. If the NFL's exemption covers only old-fashioned over-the-air deals, then the league's streaming arrangements may not enjoy antitrust protection at all. The hearing could force Goodell to explain how the league squares its legal shelter with a business model that increasingly bypasses the very medium the shelter was designed for.
Congress has grown more willing in recent years to use its oversight powers against high-profile figures and institutions, as seen when the House Oversight Committee subpoenaed Attorney General Pam Bondi over a separate matter. The Jordan invitation to Goodell fits a broader pattern: lawmakers on both sides have grown impatient with organizations that enjoy federal legal privileges while behaving like unaccountable monopolies.
Breitbart noted that the hearing centers on whether the NFL's streaming-heavy rights strategy and its antitrust exemption are increasing costs for fans, a kitchen-table issue that cuts across partisan lines. Families paying $15 here and $20 there just to watch Sunday football do not need a law degree to know something has changed.
The NFL has not publicly responded to the invitation, and it remains unclear whether Goodell will agree to appear. The fact pack does not indicate whether other witnesses have been invited, though the hearing's broad title, "Examining the Sports Broadcasting Act", suggests the committee may cast a wider net across professional sports leagues.
If Goodell does sit down in front of the Judiciary Committee, he will face a chairman who has already framed the issue in consumer-harm terms. Jordan is not asking whether the NFL is profitable. He is asking whether a federal law designed to benefit fans has been turned into a tool that benefits the league at fans' expense.
The NFL's intersection with politics is nothing new. Just recently, Giants rookie Jaxson Dart drew criticism for appearing at a Trump rally, a reminder that the league and its players operate in a charged public arena. But this hearing is not about culture-war theatrics. It is about money, market power, and whether a 1961 law still serves the public it was written for.
The FCC has also entered the picture. Combined with the DOJ investigation and now Congress, Goodell faces scrutiny from three branches of the federal regulatory apparatus simultaneously. That kind of convergence does not happen by accident. It happens when an industry's behavior becomes impossible to ignore.
Capitol Hill has become a stage for all manner of high-profile testimony in recent months, from planned appearances by controversial witnesses to media outlets setting up shop in the halls of Congress. The Goodell hearing, if it happens, would rank among the most commercially consequential oversight events of the year.
The Sports Broadcasting Act was a deal between Congress and the leagues: you get to act collectively, and the public gets to watch for free. One side of that bargain has held up just fine. The NFL pools its rights, negotiates as a bloc, and commands enormous sums from broadcasters and streamers alike.
The other side, the part where fans watch for free, has quietly evaporated. Games have migrated behind paywalls. Subscription costs have stacked up. And the league has treated the shift as a business decision, not a broken promise.
Jordan is asking whether it is time to revisit the terms. That is a fair question, and Goodell owes the public an answer, whether he gives it voluntarily or waits until Congress stops asking nicely.
When the government hands you a monopoly privilege and you use it to charge the people who were supposed to benefit, do not act surprised when the people's representatives want a word.
