Network affiliates ask FCC to protect local sports rights from networks and streamers alike

The trade associations representing more than 700 local television stations affiliated with ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC filed a joint set of reply comments asking the Federal Communications Commission to take several specific regulatory steps to keep sports programming on free over-the-air broadcast television.

The filing in MB Docket No. 26-45, the FCC’s inquiry into sports broadcasting practices and marketplace developments, went beyond the broad policy positions staked out by other broadcast industry commenters. The affiliate associations laid out a series of concrete asks directed at the commission’s authority over network-affiliate relations, retransmission consent and the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961.

Taken together, the proposals would give local stations more freedom to acquire and air local sports, require virtual multichannel video programming distributors to negotiate directly with those stations, and restrict the circumstances under which networks and sports leagues can place games behind streaming paywalls.

Broadcasters urge FCC to halt migration of sports behind streaming paywalls

The two-front problem

The affiliates described a market in which local stations face pressure from two directions simultaneously.

On one side, streaming platforms operated by Amazon, Google, Netflix and Apple are bidding up the cost of national sports rights with budgets that local broadcasters cannot match. The filing noted that NFL games appeared on 10 different paywalled platforms in 2025 and that the cost of subscriptions needed to watch every NFL game approached $1,500.

On the other hand, the Big Four broadcast networks have launched direct-to-consumer streaming services, creating a situation in which they compete with their own affiliates for the same audiences. The filing said some networks have begun offering certain games exclusively on their streaming platforms, bypassing local affiliates entirely.

“It is one thing for local stations to help finance the Networks’ acquisition of valuable sports programming when the Affiliates get the benefit of exclusively distributing that programming,” the associations wrote. “It’s quite another when the ‘benefit’ of financing the Networks’ acquisition of that sports content nets Affiliates non-exclusive distribution or no distribution at all for that same sports content.”

The affiliates argued that this dynamic is eroding the economic foundation that allows local stations to produce news and public affairs programming. When networks pay more for sports rights to keep pace with streaming competitors, those costs are passed down to affiliates in the form of higher affiliation fees, the filing said. Because those fees grow faster than local station revenue, local service is reduced.

Advertisement

Preemption for local sports

The first specific policy ask addressed network preemption rules. Under current FCC rules, local stations have the right to preempt network programming in favor of content that a licensee determines is of greater importance to its local community. The affiliates asked the commission to state clearly that this right applies when a station chooses to air local or regional sports programming instead of network content.

The filing described network preemption policies as a barrier to local stations acquiring sports rights. Big Four network rules can limit stations to airing only a handful of local sports games on their main channels, pushing the rest to multicast channels or commonly owned independent stations that receive less distribution from cable and satellite providers.

“This step will allow local broadcasters to compete for local sports rights without the fear that doing so could negatively impact their relationship with their affiliated Networks,” the associations wrote.

The filing noted that some networks have indicated interest in acquiring local sports content themselves, making the application of preemption restrictions against affiliates, in the associations’ view, particularly questionable.

The E.W. Scripps Company, which has built a sports division around free over-the-air distribution of NHL, WNBA and NWSL games, supported a similar position in its own filing. Scripps urged the commission to recognize the role of local sports in its separate network-affiliate relations proceeding.

vMVPD retransmission consent

The second ask concerned virtual MVPDs, internet-based pay television services such as YouTube TV, Hulu + Live TV and FuboTV.

Under the current system, the Big Four networks negotiate retransmission consent with vMVPDs on behalf of their affiliates. The affiliates argued this arrangement leaves local stations without the ability to negotiate directly for carriage of their signals.

The problem, the associations said, is that network-negotiated deals typically do not include carriage of multicast channels or commonly owned independent stations. Those secondary channels are frequently the home of local sports programming that affiliates have acquired. Without vMVPD distribution, the value of those sports rights is diminished and local stations are less competitive in bidding for them.

“The Networks won’t negotiate for those signals, and the vMVPDs won’t negotiate with local Affiliates,” the filing stated. “That means the multicasts and independent stations that are frequently the home of local sports programming aren’t carried by vMVPDs.”

The associations asked the commission to clarify that its rules require vMVPDs to negotiate retransmission directly with local television stations rather than through the networks. The filing cited Section 303(i) of the Communications Act as a source of authority for addressing the issue.

Cox Media Group raised a related concern in its own reply comments, noting that network affiliates’ inability to negotiate for carriage of local signals with vMVPDs handicaps their ability to bid for local sports rights because affiliates cannot fully monetize their relationship with a significant class of distributors.

Sports Broadcasting Act interpretation

The affiliates’ most aggressive policy recommendation concerned the Sports Broadcasting Act, the 1961 federal law that gave professional football, baseball, basketball and hockey leagues an antitrust exemption allowing them to pool their teams’ television rights and sell them as a package to broadcast networks.

Advertisement

The associations urged the FCC to declare that the SBA’s antitrust exemption applies only to distribution agreements that result in free over-the-air broadcast of league games. They argued that the statute, which refers specifically to “sponsored telecasting” by broadcast stations, cable systems or satellite providers, contains no provision covering streaming deals.

“The Affiliates Associations would go a step further and join the Center for American Rights in urging the Commission to clearly state its legal conclusion that the SBA covers only agreements that ensure local over-the-air broadcast distribution of all league games,” the filing stated.

The National Association of Broadcasters called for a fresh examination of the SBA in its own reply comments, and Scripps supported a similar review. Fox Corporation and Sinclair, Inc. raised concerns about the SBA in their initial round comments as well.

The affiliates acknowledged that the FCC may lack direct authority to apply or enforce the SBA but argued the commission has a responsibility as the expert agency overseeing American media to inform Congress when federal policies are being misused. The filing called on the commission to develop a record and transmit it to Congress with a recommendation for legislative action.

Sen. Mike Lee of Utah sent a letter to the FCC and the Department of Justice on March 2 regarding the issue, according to the filing.

Local exclusivity under Section 303(i)

The affiliates went further than other filers on the question of how networks distribute sports content obtained under the SBA. They asked the commission to use its authority under Section 303(i) of the Communications Act — which grants the FCC broad power to regulate the network-affiliate relationship — to require that networks distribute all games acquired under SBA-covered agreements exclusively through their local affiliated stations.

The practical effect of such a rule would be to prevent networks from simultaneously offering those same games on their own streaming platforms in direct competition with affiliates who help pay for the rights through affiliation fees.

“Networks should not be permitted to compete with their affiliates for distribution of marquee sporting events that Affiliates help pay for,” the associations wrote.

Scripps endorsed the use of Section 303(i) in its own filing, arguing that while the provision does not allow the commission to regulate whether networks purchase programming rights from leagues, it could give the commission authority over how affiliates are used to distribute that programming.

Ownership rules and ATSC 3.0

The affiliates also aligned with the broader broadcast industry position on two additional policy items. They agreed with NAB and Sinclair that the FCC should reform its ownership rules to allow local broadcasters to achieve the scale needed to compete for sports rights. Under current rules, the associations argued, local broadcasters have no prospect of gaining meaningful negotiating balance with sports leagues or teams.

Advertisement

On broadcast technology, the associations called on the commission to establish a deadline for full transition to the ATSC 3.0 broadcast standard, which they said would provide a viewing experience for sports that streaming platforms cannot match. NAB, Scripps and Cox all supported accelerating the ATSC 3.0 transition in their filings.

The RSN collapse and what it means for local stations

The affiliates’ filing described the decline of cable-only regional sports networks (RSNs) as having created new opportunities for local stations to compete for sports rights. That observation landed just as the most significant remaining RSN operator was preparing to go dark.

Main Street Sports Group, the parent company of FanDuel Sports Network, confirmed in early April that it would cease operations at the end of the NBA regular season and the first round of the NHL playoffs, expected later in April. The shutdown follows months of missed rights fee payments to teams and the collapse of a potential acquisition by London-based streaming company DAZN.

FanDuel Sports Network, which previously operated under the Bally Sports brand before Main Street Sports Group emerged from Diamond Sports Group’s bankruptcy in early 2025, held local broadcast rights for 29 professional teams across MLB, the NBA and the NHL at its peak. All nine remaining MLB teams terminated their contracts with the network in early 2026 after missed payments, with six of those clubs moving their broadcasts to MLB Media, the league’s own production operation.

The shutdown leaves NBA teams and NHL clubs without a local broadcast home heading into the 2026-27 season. The two leagues are taking different approaches to what comes next.

NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman said the league has no plans to centralize local rights, leaving individual teams to negotiate their own broadcast arrangements. The NBA has urged its teams to sign one-year deals or contracts with exit clauses as the league considers a centralized national streaming platform for the 2027-28 season.

For local broadcast stations, the wave of newly available rights represents both an opportunity and a test of the regulatory constraints the affiliates described in their filing.

Teams that have already exited the RSN model for over-the-air alternatives have seen significant revenue declines, the Utah Jazz went from $34 million to $16 million annually, and the Phoenix Suns dropped from $37 million to $15 million, according to Sporting Goods Intelligence. MLB reported in 2026 that among teams that lost RSN deals, contracts with new broadcasters have paid roughly 50 percent of former RSN rights fees.

The affiliates argued that local stations can fill the gap left by RSNs, but only if the FCC removes the barriers they identified: network preemption policies that limit how many games a station can air on its primary channel and the inability to negotiate vMVPD carriage for the multicast and independent channels where much of that programming ends up.

The filing arrived at a moment of broader tension in the network-affiliate relationship.

The associations referenced their own prior filings in a separate FCC proceeding on network-affiliate relations, MB Docket No. 25-322, where the same issues of streaming competition and affiliate economics have been contested.