Packers defend SBA as broadcast fight heats up

Packers defend – With Congress pressing the NFL on its 65-year-old broadcast antitrust exemption, the Packers have broken their usual silence through a pointed response in a Packers.com mailbag, arguing the SBA is the “cage” protecting small-market stability while warning that

The question landed like a live wire in the Packers’ inbox on Tuesday—and for once, the team answered.

In a Packers.com mailbag entry under the subtitle “SBA gives small fish a fair shake. ” a supporter asked whether the FCC and DOJ were reevaluating the NFL’s special antitrust treatment. pointing directly to the pressure around broadcast access. The question was blunt: “Do you think there is anything to the FCC and DOJ reevaluating the NFL’s special treatment under antitrust laws?. The NFL has benefitted greatly from special exemptions that not many get under the understanding that the NFL would maintain reasonable customer access to their broadcasts. Is requiring five different streaming services reasonable access in your opinion?”.

Instead of passing it off. the response came from Wes Hodkiewicz on the Packers’ official in-house website in a single long answer that reached far beyond the wording of the question. Hodkiewicz called the Sports Broadcasting Act “a complicated subject” but “also a critical one to address” because of “the possible implications for a small-market franchise like the Packers.” He described the SBA as “the cage protecting the Packers from perilous waters. ” and argued that when other leagues struggle without protections. “it’s the viewers who ultimately lose.”.

The point wasn’t abstract for him. Hodkiewicz said his “95-year-old grandmother from Pulaski can flip on the Packers game every Sunday without fail. ” then explained how she “was thrown into a tizzy this offseason” when Brewers games became “no longer readily available due to MLB broadcasting deals.” He praised the Brewers for “swimming against the current. ” but said a “final boss in the Los Angeles Dodgers” with “nearly four times the payroll” is “awaiting them in the postseason thanks to the Dodgers’ TV deal.”.

From there, the message widened into the economics Hodkiewicz believes fans don’t see. He said the NFL’s “unprecedented growth over the past 30 years” has been driven by parity created through “revenue-sharing and a structured salary cap.” In his view. the SBA “gives small fish such as Green Bay. Kansas City. and Cincinnati a fair shake in this vast NFL ocean.”.

He also pushed back on the political slogan that often floats above these debates. Hodkiewicz said politicians on “both sides of the aisle” like to say. “Make all the games free for everyone. ” but argued it can feel like “a kid wistfully desiring every toy under the Christmas tree without knowledge of what it took to get them there.” He tied that to today’s media reality. saying more households are “cutting cords and switching their media consumption to streaming.” He pointed to subscription numbers. writing that Netflix “now has more than 80 million domestic subscribers to cable’s 55 million.”.

Hodkiewicz framed the NFL’s streaming-era challenge as a balancing act: the league has to “meet tomorrow’s consumers where they are today. ” while also keeping pace with “these NFL titans” as private equity money flows into the league. “Losing the SBA. without any proper plan. would jeopardize that. ” he wrote. and said the topic needs discussion rather than dismissal.

He then questioned the substance of the current congressional spotlight. In his answer. Hodkiewicz asked why “a member of Congress from Wisconsin” who represents constituents that can “already watch every Packers game for free within the Milwaukee market” would be “thrusting himself into the center of this conversation.” He warned that if the SBA goes away. “it’s teams like the Packers that would suffer most. ” because Dallas. New York. Philadelphia. and Chicago “will be fine.” Without it. he wrote. it would become “more difficult for the Packers to compete financially. ” while also likely making it “more expensive for fans who are accustomed to watching the Packers for free.”.

Hodkiewicz ended with a simple challenge: “what exactly are we doing here?”

The Packers’ response landed amid a larger backdrop the league and its teams have largely avoided—especially in public—as the NFL faces what the piece described as an “unprecedented political attack” on its “65-year-old broadcast antitrust exemption.” The mailbag entry also addressed the recurring “87 percent” talking point that appears in the debate: it said the figure is “technically true when looking at the entire nation but inaccurate as to any given market.”.

The broader argument around the SBA in the rest of the Packers.com discussion turned on access. cost. and how broadcast packaging shapes viewing. It said that while Packers fans “living in and around Green Bay and Milwaukee will see all games on a traditional. over-the-air broadcast network. ” fans who live elsewhere—and fans who became “Cheeseheads from afar”—have to “spend plenty of money to see all Packers games.” That access. the entry said. requires access to ESPN. Prime Video. Netflix. and “(most importantly) Sunday Ticket. ” which it described as “deliberately overpriced to persuade Packers fans in Pasadena to choose to instead watch the ‘free’ games on CBS and Fox.”.

In a scenario where the antitrust exemption were rescinded. the mailbag entry argued the Packers “would likely benefit financially.” It suggested they could negotiate a national deal for all home games. putting them on a broadcast network so fans “throughout America” could see all games “for free. ” while producing significant TV money for the club from networks such as Fox. CBS. NBC. or ABC. It also claimed the Packers would likely earn more than their “1/32nd share of total TV revenue” under the current system.

The entry insisted the exemption wasn’t created to save small-market teams but “was put in place to ostensibly save the league” when it “wasn’t nearly as popular and successful as it now is.” It added that equal sharing of TV revenue helps all teams. but that the exemption was designed to avoid a situation where the market would determine home-game revenue for each team—forcing some to fold.

Even as it laid out a case for the SBA’s survival. it acknowledged a separate concern: the “real question” of whether the NFL has exceeded its antitrust exemption by selling packages of games to cable. satellite. and streaming companies. It also said that while chaos could follow if the exemption disappeared. enforcing it “as to Sunday Ticket could result in all games being available on the networks contained in most basic cable packages. every Sunday.”.

The Packers.com post ultimately returned to the heart of the moment: Wednesday’s congressional hearing and whatever follows could sharpen the league’s internal concern. especially since the team has devoted “digital real estate” to the issue—signaling. in the piece’s framing. that there’s anxiety about what might happen next.

Whatever happens in Washington, the Packers have made their position hard to miss: the SBA isn’t simply a policy they’d like to keep—it’s portrayed as the structural barrier between manageable access and a future where costs, fragmentation, and market forces decide who can watch.

Packers NFL Sports Broadcasting Act SBA antitrust exemption FCC DOJ congressional hearing Sunday Ticket streaming services Wes Hodkiewicz