President Donald Trump says the NFL is "killing the golden goose" by pushing games behind expensive streaming paywalls, and two federal agencies are now examining whether the league's decades-old antitrust exemption still holds up in the streaming era.
In a wide-ranging interview with reporter Sharyl Attkisson, Trump sided squarely with working-class football fans who can no longer afford to watch every game without subscribing to a patchwork of paid platforms. The comments came as both the Justice Department and the FCC have opened probes into the NFL's media-rights model, raising the possibility that the league's privileged legal status could be stripped away.
The core question is straightforward: Congress gave the NFL a special antitrust exemption in 1961 so the league could negotiate broadcast deals as a single unit and share revenue evenly across teams. That law, the Sports Broadcasting Act, signed by President John F. Kennedy, was built for an era of free, over-the-air television. It was never designed for a world where fans need subscriptions to Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, YouTube, and Peacock just to follow a single season.
When Attkisson asked whether the NFL is "price gouging" fans and whether the administration plans to act, Trump did not commit to a specific intervention. But he left no doubt about where he stands, as OutKick reported:
"It's tough. You got people that love football. They're great people, they don't make enough money to go and pay this. It's tough. And [the NFL] could be killing the golden goose."
Trump also took a swipe at the league's revamped kickoff format, calling it "unwatchable" and "phony" and saying he hoped college football wouldn't follow suit. But the bulk of his frustration centered on affordability.
"They're making a lot of money. They could make a little bit less... You've got people that live for Sunday. They live, they can't think about anything else, and then all of a sudden they're going to have to pay $1,000 a game?"
Asked directly whether his administration would do something about the situation, Trump answered simply: "I don't know." Then he added: "I don't, but I don't like it."
He returned to the theme of ordinary fans losing access to the sport they love.
"It's something, there's something very sad when they take football away from many, many people, very sad. I don't like it."
Trump's "$1,000 a game" line may have been rhetorical, but the underlying cost problem is real. The cost of adding multiple streaming subscriptions on top of cable or satellite service could easily eclipse $1,000 per season, according to OutKick's analysis. The Associated Press reported that Forbes estimated the cost of watching every NFL game via streaming last season at $765.
Sen. Mike Lee put the figure even higher. In a letter to the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission, the Utah Republican wrote that fans spent "almost $1,000 on cable and streaming subscriptions" to watch every game during the past season, as Newsmax reported.
That cost falls hardest on the fans Trump described, people who "live for Sunday" but don't have the disposable income to stack four or five subscription services on top of a traditional cable package. A family of four that once watched the game on broadcast television now faces a financial obstacle course just to follow their team through the regular season.
The president's willingness to challenge powerful institutions on behalf of everyday Americans has been a consistent theme of his current term, and the NFL streaming fight fits neatly into that pattern.
Trump's public comments are backed by real regulatory action. The Justice Department has opened an antitrust investigation into the NFL over concerns that its media-rights practices may be increasing costs for fans and limiting access to games, the Washington Examiner reported. The inquiry is expected to examine whether the league's current distribution model exceeds the protections granted under the 1961 law.
Separately, Trump's FCC is seeking public comments on the broader shift of live sports from broadcast channels to streaming services, a proceeding that could reshape the regulatory landscape for every major sports league, not just football.
FCC Chair Brendan Carr framed the issue in plain terms. "For so long, Americans were used to just sitting down and grabbing the remote and just very quickly and easily finding the game," Carr told the New York Post in March. A government official added: "This is about affordability for consumers and creating an even playing field for providers."
The twin probes represent the most serious federal scrutiny the NFL has faced over its business model in years. If the league loses its antitrust exemption, or even part of it, the consequences could reshape how football is packaged, sold, and watched for a generation.
The Sports Broadcasting Act was a product of its time. In 1961, professional football was still competing with baseball for the national audience. Congress granted the NFL permission to negotiate television contracts collectively, meaning all 32 teams (now) share broadcast revenue equally, rather than forcing each franchise to cut its own deal. That revenue-sharing model is one reason a small-market team like the Kansas City Chiefs can win multiple Super Bowls while big-market clubs like the New York Jets and New York Giants languish. It kept the league competitive on the field precisely because it leveled the playing field off of it.
But the law explicitly covers over-the-air television. It says nothing about streaming. And that gap is now the center of the legal and regulatory fight. As Sen. Lee wrote in his letter urging federal review: "The modern distribution environment differs substantially from the conditions that precipitated this exemption."
Lee went further, arguing that when "collectively licensed game packages are placed behind subscription paywalls, these arrangements may no longer align with the statutory concept of sponsored telecasting or the consumer-access rationale underlying the antitrust exemption." In plain English: if the whole point of the exemption was to get football in front of fans, locking games behind paid streaming walls may defeat the purpose.
The administration has been willing to press its agenda on multiple fronts, from trade policy battles to immigration enforcement. The NFL probe fits a broader pattern of using executive-branch authority to challenge entrenched interests that have operated under favorable legal arrangements for decades.
Neither the NFL, nor Commissioner Roger Goodell, nor any league spokesperson has been quoted responding to Trump's specific criticism about streaming costs. Goodell appeared alongside Trump at an Oval Office event on May 5, 2025, along with Washington Commanders owner Josh Harris and D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, but no public exchange about the streaming issue from that meeting has been reported.
The league's posture so far has been defensive. It is "fighting to retain its antitrust exemption," and federal officials have warned that the NFL could risk losing its Sports Broadcasting Act protections if it keeps moving too many live games behind streaming paywalls.
That warning should concentrate minds at NFL headquarters. The antitrust exemption is not a constitutional right. It is a legislative favor, granted because Congress believed shared broadcast deals served the public interest. If the league's own choices have turned that arrangement into a mechanism for extracting maximum revenue from fans who used to watch for free, the exemption's rationale collapses.
Trump's broader governance approach, including his willingness to call out Washington institutions that fail ordinary citizens, suggests this is not an issue he will drop quietly.
Breitbart noted that lawmakers in both parties have raised concerns about the NFL's media deals and potential anti-competitive pricing. That bipartisan interest matters. When Republicans and Democrats agree that a powerful institution is squeezing consumers, the political cover for inaction disappears fast.
The NFL generates enormous revenue. Its broadcast and streaming deals are worth billions. The league's owners are among the wealthiest people in the country. None of that is inherently wrong. But when a league that enjoys a special legal privilege from Congress uses that privilege to fragment access across half a dozen paid platforms, while the fans who built the sport's popularity get priced out, the arrangement stops looking like good policy and starts looking like a sweetheart deal for billionaires.
Trump put it bluntly: "They have to be careful because others have tried this and all of a sudden you don't have a sport anymore."
The president's instinct to take hard lines on behalf of American interests, whether against foreign adversaries or domestic monopolies, is well documented. The NFL would be wise to take the hint.
Several open questions remain. The specific scope of the DOJ investigation has not been publicly detailed. The FCC's comment proceeding has not produced a formal ruling. And Trump himself stopped short of promising executive action, saying only "I don't know" when asked directly.
But the direction of travel is clear. Two federal agencies are probing the NFL. The president has publicly sided with fans over owners. A sitting U.S. senator has laid out the legal argument for why the antitrust exemption may no longer apply. And the cost data, whether $765 or nearly $1,000 per season, speaks for itself.
The NFL built its dominance on the idea that football belongs to everyone. If the league keeps acting like it belongs only to those who can afford five streaming subscriptions, it shouldn't be surprised when the government decides the special treatment is over.