The WNBA tips off its 2026 playoffs on September 27, and every Finals game will reach viewers through NBC or USA Network, with Peacock streaming alongside. This arrangement may fall outside the antitrust exemption that American sports leagues have relied on for more than sixty years.
The league pooled its broadcast rights and sold them collectively in an eleven-year package now worth roughly $3.1 billion, or about $281 million annually, up from a prior average near $43 million. The deal spreads 216 national games across Disney, NBCUniversal, Amazon, Paramount, Scripps, and Versant’s USA Sports. It also pre-allocates the WNBA Finals a decade out. NBC and USA hold 2026, 2030, and 2034. ABC and ESPN take the odd years. Amazon claims 2028, 2032, and 2036.
Section 1 of the Sherman Act forbids agreements that unreasonably restrain trade, and pooled rights sales fit this description on their face. Congress carved out relief in the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961, codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 1291-95. The statute shields joint agreements that transfer rights in the “sponsored telecasting” of professional football, baseball, basketball, and hockey games.
But, does “sponsored telecasting” include subscription streaming? Congress wrote that phrase when advertiser-supported over-the-air television dominated the market. A Finals package that routes most games through Peacock, and future Finals entirely through Prime Video in 2028, tests whether a 1961 term extends to a paid subscription service. A 2025 Minnesota Law Review note argued the phrase likely does cover streaming in the NFL context, but the question remains open.
If the exemption fails, the deal faces rule of reason review. American Needle, Inc. v. NFL confirmed that leagues do not automatically escape Section 1 as single entities, and that courts must weigh anticompetitive effects against procompetitive justifications. The WNBA can raise benefits from pooling its rights, such as building a larger audience, funding its expansion, and raising its annual media revenue. A challenger to the deal would argue that three broadcasters split the Finals for the next decade before any market could test what each year was actually worth, and the early lock-in limited output and drove up prices for viewers.
No one has filed such a claim, and the deal’s reset provisions, which either side may trigger after 2028, may defuse the issue before anyone does.
Sources
Am. Needle, Inc. v. NFL, 560 U.S. 183 (2010).
Sherman Act § 1, 15 U.S.C. § 1.
Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1291–1295.
WNBA Unveils National Broadcast Schedule for its 30th Season, NBA Commc’ns (Apr. 22, 2026).
WNBA’s Media Rights Deal Reportedly Grows to More Than $3 Billion, Yahoo Sports (May 11, 2026).
William Holt, Note, The Penalty Is Declined: The NFL’s Exclusive Streaming Agreements and the Limits of Antitrust Law, 110 Minn. L. Rev. 561 (2025).
As a second-year law student at UB Law, I've found my calling at the intersection of sports, labor law, and collective bargaining. Growing up watching professional basketball and football, I was always captivated by the games, but in law school, I developed a deep interest in what happens off the court and field.
I'm particularly drawn to the high-stakes world of CBA negotiations, where leagues and players' unions negotiate over revenue sharing, workplace protections, and compensation models. Through this blog, I analyze the legal strategies behind sports headlines, breaking down complex labor disputes, arbitration cases, and contract negotiations.
This is where my love of sports meets my dedication to law. Welcome to the conversation!
Leave a Reply