In a recent Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 debate, some policymakers are questioning whether a decades-old law still makes sense in today’s rapidly evolving media landscape. But as Market Institute Senior Fellow Norm Singleton explains in a recent RealClearMarkets piece, the answer is clear: the Sports Broadcasting Act continues to benefit consumers—and undermining it would be a mistake.
“Every so often politicians recognize that laws empowering government bureaucrats to interfere with the free market produce unintended consequences. One example of this recognition is the 1961 Sports Broadcasting Act.”
The law allows professional sports leagues to collectively negotiate broadcasting rights without running afoul of antitrust laws—a practical solution that avoids chaos in media negotiations and ensures broad distribution of games.
A Changing Market, Not a Broken One
Today’s media environment looks nothing like it did in 1961. Streaming platforms have exploded, offering fans more ways than ever to watch their favorite teams.
“The Sports Broadcasting Act was written at a time when viewing options were limited… Today, the rise of streaming services… offer the opportunity to view live sporting events from our flatscreen TVs, laptops, iPads, or mobile phones.”
Some policymakers—including Brendan Carr and Mike Lee—have raised concerns about the “fragmentation” of sports across platforms and the cost of accessing multiple services.
But increased options are not the same as harm.
More Access, More Choice
While it’s true that watching every game may require multiple subscriptions, fans today enjoy far greater control over what—and when—they watch.
“In the pre-internet era, it was virtually impossible to watch all football games or even to choose to watch specific games… That choice was made for you by networks, local network affiliates, and the NFL itself.”
“Today, football fans… can choose which games to watch and when to watch them.”
What some critics call fragmentation is, in reality, the natural result of innovation and competition—delivering more flexibility and personalization than ever before.
A Solution Worth Preserving
The real risk isn’t the evolution of the marketplace—it’s the potential for unnecessary government intervention to disrupt it.
“The worst thing that could happen to sports fans is for politicians… to increase government intervention in the relationship between sports leagues, online platforms, and sports fans.”
Despite being over 60 years old, the Sports Broadcasting Act remains one of the few areas of antitrust law that continues to function as intended—supporting both market efficiency and consumer benefit.
“The 1961 Sports Broadcasting Act is one of the few parts of federal antitrust law that remains as important to consumers… as it was in the era of limited network… broadcasting.”
For sports fans, preserving the law isn’t just good policy—it’s a home run.
Read more at RealClearMarkets by clicking here.
