sights

The Dept. of Justice is investigating the NFL’s media deals with streaming companies as more of its games go behind subscription pay walls.

The investigation first reported by the Wall Street Journal centers on the financial impact of live sports streaming on consumers and whether the league’s traditional broadcast partners are getting fair treatment.

The Justice Dept. did not respond to a request for comment. A government official told NBC News the DOJ’s investigation into the NFL is “about affordability for consumers and creating an even playing field for providers.”

Early last month, Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah requested the investigation in a letter to the DOJ, and issued a statement Thursday on X saying he was glad to see it move forward.

The Sports Broadcasting Act passed by Congress in 1961 allowed professional football teams to collectively license the TV rights of their games to national broadcast networks without running afoul of anti-trust laws. Lee noted that courts have recognized the act refers to broadcasts “financed through advertising and made available free to the public.”

Lee said sports packages that go behind subscription paywalls “no longer align” with the intention of the act which was passed when the public only had access to three TV networks.

The NFL has not received a letter from the DOJ saying it is under investigation, according to a person familiar with the matter who was not authorized to comment. But the league issued a statement asserting that fans can see every NFL game played by the teams in their markets for free on broadcast TV unlike every other major sport.

“The NFL’s media distribution model is the most fan and broadcaster-friendly in the entire sports and entertainment industry,” the league said. “The NFL has for decades put our fans front and center in how we distribute our content.”

The NFL said 87% its games can be watched on free TV. The other 13% on streaming and cable platforms are made available on the local TV stations of the teams involved in those contests.

The sports rights landscape has shifted dramatically in the last 10 years as deep pocketed tech companies such as Amazon, Google and Netflix have provided the NFL with significant leverage in its negotiations with its longtime TV partners NBC, CBS, Fox and ESPN.

While streaming companies initially eschewed live sports because of the high cost of rights fees, they have found them to be an effective way to bring a massive number of viewers to their platforms.

Amazon Prime Video is paying $1.5 billion a year for the rights to “Thursday Night Football,” a package that was a money loser when carried by the broadcast networks. Netflix has picked up the rights to games on Christmas Day, while Google’s YouTube became the home of the Sunday Ticket package that gives subscribers access to out-of-market games.

The pressure from the newer competitors comes at a time when companies with traditional TV networks depend on the NFL more than ever as it provides the highest rated programming by a wide margin. The NFL packages also give TV station groups with leverage in negotiating carriage deal fees with cable and satellite companies.

Tensions over the rising rights fees are growing as the NFL has the right to open up the deal with Paramount, because the company underwent an ownership change last year when acquired by Skydance Media. The league is reportedly looking for another $1 billion annually from Paramount which is already paying $2.1 billion a year for its package of games on CBS.

The league has also made it clear it plans to exercise its option in 2029 to open the current 10-year media rights contract that runs through the 2032-33 season.

Fox Corporation — home of the Trump-friendly Fox News Channel — heavily depends on the NFL for programming on its TV stations — has already raised concerns about the renegotiation.

Executive Chairman Lachlan Murdoch has said he believes the $2.5 billion a year Fox pays the NFL is “fair market value.” But he has also told Wall Street analysts the company may have to re-examine its other sports deals in preparation to pay more to the NFL going forward.

Last week, Fox and station group owner Sinclair Broadcasting filed a statement with the FCC asserting that the NFL’s antitrust exemption does not apply to streaming platforms that require paid subscriptions.

“Congress provided a valuable exemption from the antitrust laws for leagues that bargain collectively for sports broadcasting,” wrote Joseph Di Scipio, Fox Corp.’s senior VP, legal and FCC compliance. “But on its face, the statute does not exempt negotiations that the leagues may have with streaming services.”

SACRAMENTO — Former Assemblyman Tom McClintock, a Ventura County conservative Republican and anti-tax crusader, today will announce plans to run for state controller.

A staunch critic of waste in government spending, McClintock is trying to recapture public office after losing a congressional bid last year to Democratic Rep. Anthony C. Beilenson in a district that encompasses most of Thousand Oaks.

McClintock, 37, a Republican who represented Ventura County in the Legislature for a decade ending in 1992, said Wednesday that he considers the controller’s post the perfect outlet for his vision of government reform.

“The more I looked at the controller’s office, the more it became clear that everything I want to accomplish in public office falls in its purview,” McClintock said. “And that is to identify, expose and eliminate waste throughout the state bureaucracy.”

Up to this point, the outspoken director of the Center for the California Taxpayer had been mentioned in conservative circles as a possible challenger to Gov. Pete Wilson in next June’s Republican primary.

McClintock admitted he was tempted to seek the governor’s seat, but decided the state controller’s office was more winnable.

“I came to the conclusion that Wilson can probably be beaten in the Republican primary and (Democrat Kathleen) Brown can probably be beaten in the general election, but they can’t both be beaten.”

Just as he often assailed fellow state lawmakers during budget debates, McClintock has not been shy about criticizing the governor. In a scalding opinion article published earlier this year, McClintock said Wilson was so tainted by tax increases, deficit spending and state budget shell games that former Democratic Gov. Edmund G. (Jerry) Brown Jr. actually made a better Republican than Wilson.

Sometimes described as strident and unyielding in his views, McClintock is also known for putting forth specific proposals to cut through what he contends is a thicket of government overspending and excessive taxation.

“I have issued very precise warnings of the deterioration of the fiscal condition of the state and proposed literally hundreds of spending reforms totaling billions of dollars of savings,” he said Wednesday. “The controller’s office is the ideal office from which to wage a crusade to eliminate government waste.”

But other lawmakers have at times accused McClintock of using inaccurate data to drive home his points. Two years ago, for example, state Sen. Gary K. Hart (D-Santa Barbara) asked Legislative Analyst Elizabeth Hill to check McClintock’s figures, and she was unable to verify them.

While pursuing the office of California’s chief fiscal watchdog, McClintock said he plans to take a leave of absence next spring from the taxpayer advocacy group he heads in Sacramento. He said he will continue to maintain his Thousand Oaks residence, although he lived and worked in the Sacramento area for the past year.

He is the first prominent Republican to enter the race for state controller, the $90,000-a-year post that accounts for and disburses state money. Democratic State Controller Gray Davis is leaving the job to run for lieutenant governor.

Also running for state controller are Democrats Rusty Areias, an assemblyman from San Jose, and Brad Sherman of Granada Hills, who is chairman of the State Board of Equalization.

“Take your time and don’t be afraid to get lost.”

When holidaying abroad, it’s far more enjoyable to explore your destination on foot rather than relying on vehicles or public transport. Whether wandering between landmarks or hunting for restaurants, being in a genuinely walkable location can significantly reduce travel anxiety.

Bearing this in mind, Braw Scottish Tours examined the walking distances and step counts between five principal attractions across 30 of Europe’s most visited cities. Their findings revealed that the Turkish metropolis of Istanbul ranks as Europe’s most walkable city.

There, a mere 2.5km stroll connects major sites including Hagia Sophia and the Grand Bazaar. Exploring this area requires roughly 3,250 steps and approximately half an hour’s walk.

On TripAdvisor, one traveller to the metropolis commented: “Istanbul is a magical city. Phenomenal and historical buildings pepper this amazing place. Literally, it takes days to soak in the nuances and atmosphere of Istanbul. Take your time and don’t be afraid to get lost.”

Another visitor added: “Istanbul is a magnificent city… one full of beauty, history, spectacular architecture, amazing restaurants, views to die for, wonderful little family-owned hotels, exceptionally kind and honest people, fun-filled nightclubs, exotic sounds, exotic smells, and many other fabulous things too numerous to mention.”

A third person said: “There are so many cliched phrases used to describe Istanbul – ancient and modern, where east meets west, old world blended with new world, etc., etc., and they are all true. There is history, culture, shopping, sightseeing, museums, galleries, boat trips. There is SO much!”

For those who have already explored Istanbul, or perhaps feel it’s not quite their cup of tea, fear not, there are numerous other pedestrian-friendly destinations across Europe.

Europe’s most walkable cities:

1. Istanbul, Türkiye
2. Milan, Italy
3. Hamburg, Germany
4. Dublin, Ireland
5. Prague, Czechia
6. Amsterdam, Netherlands
7. Copenhagen, Denmark
8. Birmingham, UK
9. Frankfurt, Germany
10. Kraków, Poland