The fight between the Green Bay Packers and Republican U.S. Rep. Scott Fitzgerald escalated this week after his hearing in Congress that scrutinized a law that the Packers say is critical for their survival.
A House Judiciary subcommittee led by Fitzgerald is looking at possible changes to the Sports Broadcasting Act, arguing the decades-old law has been stretched beyond its original intent in an era when consumers pay for multiple, expensive streaming subscriptions.
Fitzgerald’s role has led to backlash from the National Football League and his home-state team, which argues the Sports Broadcasting Act helps small-market teams compete on the same level as larger-market teams.
Here’s what to know about the law and the back-and-forth between Fitzgerald and the Packers.
What is the Sports Broadcasting Act, and how could it change?
The Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 essentially created a carveout in antitrust laws, allowing professional sports leagues like the NFL to pool their teams’ media rights and negotiate broadcasting contracts collectively.
The Packers say that model benefits them, because the NFL shares the revenue from those contracts equally among all 32 teams. Without it, large-market teams could strike bigger deals compared to a small-market team like the Packers.
Fitzgerald and other members of Congress who support revisiting the law argue the media landscape is much different now. In their view, the leagues have taken advantage of the antitrust exemption by striking exclusive deals with streaming platforms like Amazon Prime and Netflix.
What has Rep. Scott Fitzgerald said about the Sports Broadcasting Act?
Fitzgerald has said it’s Congress’ job to scrutinize whether the NFL’s use of the law is harming consumers. He has denied that his goal is to eliminate the SBA, but it’s not clear what changes his subcommittee – or the full House Judiciary Committee – could pursue.
Fitzgerald has also said modernizing the law wouldn’t affect the revenue-sharing model, calling it a “red herring” raised by the NFL.
“We all love the NFL, we love football in Wisconsin and the Green Bay Packers,” Fitzgerald said in a June 14 interview on WISN-TV’s “Upfront.” “I think they flex their muscles so many times that we find ourselves in a situation where it needs to be reviewed, and that’s my job.”
A day before the June 10 hearing in Congress, Fitzgerald told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that keeping the Packers in Wisconsin factored “zero” into his considerations, framing it as an issue for the NFL, not individual teams.
On “Upfront,” asked to respond to the Packers’ stance that overhauling the SBA would be an “existential threat” to the team, Fitzgerald called it “absolutely ridiculous and almost laughable.”
“The Packers are going for ‘hair on fire, oh my gosh, the world’s coming to an end’ if this would be tweaked,” Fitzgerald said.
How are the Packers responding to Rep. Scott Fitzgerald?
The Packers put out a lengthy statement June 16 responding to Fitzgerald, worried that he’s being dismissive of the team’s concerns:
“Packers fans everywhere should be deeply concerned that Rep. Fitzgerald admitted to giving ‘zero’ consideration to keeping the Packers in Green Bay as he explores upending the 65-year-old Sports Broadcasting Act. Fans should be offended that Fitzgerald then went further, saying our concerns were ‘laughable.’ What is laughable is that a congressman from Wisconsin is leading this charge. Why threaten the team his community overwhelmingly cherishes and its ability to compete on a level playing field?
“The tremendously successful model of pooling media rights and sharing revenue equally amongst teams has allowed the Packers to survive and thrive in the smallest media market in professional sports. This model is as foundational to the Packers’ existence as the very bricks in Lambeau Field. It is careless and unwise to rearrange the bricks of a foundation which has stood strong for over half a century.”
Amaad Rivera-Wagner, a Democratic state lawmaker from Green Bay who serves on the Green Bay/Brown County Professional Football Stadium District Board, also criticized Fitzgerald.
“The job of government is to represent the interests of the people we serve, not insult them when they raise concerns,” Rivera-Wagner said in a statement. “Whether someone agrees with the Packers’ position or not, treating those concerns as laughable is exactly the kind of politics that leaves people feeling ignored by their government.”
And how did Fitzgerald respond to the Packers comments?
A spokeswoman for Fitzgerald shared this response to the Packers’ statement June 18:
“My subcommittee’s review of the Sports Broadcasting Act is focused on whether a 1961 law is still benefitting consumers in today’s media landscape. As more games move behind paywalls, fans are being asked to pay more and more just to watch their favorite teams. Concerns about the NFL’s media practices are not limited to Congress. The Department of Justice, the FCC, and the Ninth Circuit are all examining related issues, including litigation that resulted in a $14 billion jury verdict against the NFL. Revenue sharing remains vital to small-market teams like the Packers and is not the issue under review. Any suggestion otherwise is simply a distraction from the real issue facing consumers.”
Where do Wisconsin’s other members of Congress stand on the Sports Broadcasting Act?
Republican U.S. Rep. Tony Wied, whose district includes Green Bay, and U.S. Rep. Derrick Van Orden sent a letter to the entire House Judiciary Committee urging them to “preserve the SBA’s core protections while maintaining appropriate oversight.”
Their letter cited numbers and arguments circulated by the NFL. Wied co-led the letter with Rep. Tim Kennedy, a Democrat who represents Buffalo, New York, another small-market NFL city.
Democratic U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin’s office says she supports the Packers’ efforts to keep the SBA intact. At the same time, she criticized the NFL for creating a “complicated and expensive maze of subscriptions.” Baldwin has separate legislation aimed at that issue.
Wisconsin’s other members of Congress haven’t been as vocal on the issue, including U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, who’s running for governor and is on the full House Judiciary Committee. His office previously said he was waiting to comment because NFL officials hadn’t testified.
Mandela Barnes, one of the several Democrats running against Tiffany for governor, has criticized Tiffany for not coming out stronger on the issue.
Hope Karnopp can be reached at HKarnopp@usatodayco.com.
This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Why are the Packers blasting a Wisconsin congressman? What it’s about
Reporting by Hope Karnopp, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel / Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
By Hope Karnopp, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel | USA TODAY Network
