NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has declined an invitation to testify before a U.S. congressional hearing examining the future of sports broadcasting, citing ongoing legal matters as the league faces mounting scrutiny over its media rights strategy.

The decision came ahead of a June 10th hearing of the House Judiciary Committee titled Examining the Sports Broadcasting Act, convened by committee chairman Jim Jordan. The hearing is expected to focus on whether professional sports leagues continue to deserve antitrust protections granted more than six decades ago as media consumption increasingly shifts from free-to-air television towards subscription-based streaming platforms.

In a letter to Jordan, NFL general counsel Ted Ullyot said Goodell would be unable to participate ‘due to ongoing litigation related to the topic of the hearing’.

The exchange arrives at a sensitive moment for the league. The United States Department of Justice opened an investigation in April into whether the NFL’s distribution practices are anti-competitive and potentially result in consumers paying more to access games. That investigation followed calls from Mike Lee, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights, for federal regulators to review the continued application of the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961.

The legislation allows professional leagues to pool individual team television rights and negotiate media contracts collectively without violating antitrust laws. At the time of its passage, however, professional sports were distributed almost exclusively via free over-the-air television, and critics argue the modern media environment looks very different.

The NFL now distributes games across a growing portfolio of broadcast, cable and streaming partners, including exclusive packages that require paid subscriptions. Opponents contend that evolution raises questions about whether the league should continue to enjoy protections originally designed for a far simpler broadcasting landscape.

The NFL has vigorously defended its position, and Ullyot’s letter argued that broadcast television remains the foundation of the league’s media strategy, noting that more than 87 percent of NFL games continue to be primarily distributed through free broadcast television. He also emphasised that every game remains available via free over-the-air broadcasts in the local markets of the competing teams.

“The NFL’s decision to license a few more games to widely adopted streaming services is simply a reflection that those platforms now offer significantly more reach than the current pay TV ecosystem and that broadcast television remains the foundation of our media distribution,” Ullyot wrote.

The league further maintains that the Sports Broadcasting Act remains central to preserving competitive balance across the NFL.

“If the league were not to handle media distribution as it has since the passage of the SBA, the result would be to harm NFL fans through increased cost and confusion and the undermining of the competitive balance that makes NFL games so exciting,” Ullyot continued. “By contrast, under the current SBA-driven model, this past season saw the second-highest viewership in the NFL’s history. Fans continue to embrace how our games are offered.”

The hearing represents the latest front in a broader debate surrounding the NFL’s business model. Alongside the Department of Justice investigation, the league continues to defend itself against legal challenges relating to media distribution, most notably the ongoing fallout from litigation surrounding the NFL Sunday Ticket package.

While Goodell will not be appearing before lawmakers next week, the questions facing the league are unlikely to disappear. As streaming services become increasingly important to sports broadcasting, pressure is growing in Washington to determine whether rules written in 1961 remain fit for the NFL’s multi-billion-dollar media empire in 2026.