NFL fans will likely have to spend more to watch the league’s full slate of games each week in 2026. 

A YouTube TV “NFL Sunday Ticket” subscription can cost several hundred dollars, but does not provide access to every game. Fans must also subscribe to Amazon Prime, Peacock and Netflix to watch the full slate. All-in costs for these packages exceed $1,500, but that figure does not include fees or internet costs.

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Brendan Carr has made it a priority to support American sports fans as the NFL, NBA, MLB and other leagues move key games from broadcast and cable television to costly streaming services. However, the NFL could lose its antitrust exemption if too many games are placed behind a paywall, Carr said this week.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE SPORTS COVERAGE ON FOXNEWS.COM

“Does the NFL still benefit from the antitrust exemption when they’re negotiating for carriage of games not on a sponsored telecast, but on a streaming service?” Carr said at an event in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, via Semafor. “That’s a very live, very ripe question.”

Carr cautioned there is “a point at which you sort of tip the scale, and they’ve just put too many games behind a paywall, and then that whole exemption collapses.”

NFL FANS CALL THE LEAGUE’S STREAMING STRATEGY A ‘MONEY GRAB’ AS COSTS SPIRAL OUT OF CONTROL

A 1961 law allows the NFL to negotiate leaguewide TV deals without violating U.S. antitrust rules, provided it meets certain conditions, including protecting customer access. The stakes are high if the NFL’s antitrust exemption goes away, particularly if individual franchises begin selling their TV rights separately.

Carr pointed to broader implications for media rights negotiations. “If the NFL teams were able to collectively negotiate,” he said, “should the broadcasters, perhaps, be able to collectively negotiate as well?”

Fox News Digital contacted the NFL for comment, but league officials did not immediately respond.

Last month, the FCC said it would seek public comment on the shift of live sports from broadcast channels to streaming platforms. The comment period runs through March 27, and replies are due April 13.

Carr acknowledged that the rising cost and sometimes inconvenient nature of sports streaming are frustrating fans, arguing the drawbacks ultimately outweigh the benefits.

Carr acknowledged the rising cost and sometimes inconvenient nature of sports streaming are frustrating fans, arguing the drawbacks ultimately outweigh the benefits.

“Americans are frustrated when they sit down and can’t find the game they want to watch. And that feeling grows only worse when they realize that they might need to sign up for another streaming service to watch the game,” Carr previously told Fox News Digital. 

“There has long been a strong and mutually beneficial relationship between sports leagues and broadcasters, and consumers will benefit if that continues,” Carr continued. “I want to see Americans continue to benefit from free over-the-air sports programming.”

Fox News’ Brian Flood contributed to this report.

Follow Fox News Digital’s sports coverage on X, and subscribe to the Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.

In the wake of the recent deadly collision at LaGuardia Airport that killed both pilots and injured dozens of passengers, questions about airline safety are once again on people’s minds. 

The aircraft, carrying 72 passengers and four crew members, struck a Port Authority vehicle while landing Sunday night.

As investigators continue to piece together what went wrong, many travelers are discussing whether seat location can influence passenger safety and survival.

AIRLINES TOLD TO REEVALUATE EMERGENCY EVACUATION PROCEDURES AFTER CARRY-ON CONCERNS

Daniel Bubb, a former airline pilot and commercial aviation expert at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, told Fox News Digital there is no guarantee about the safest seat on an airplane.

He also said some seats could be better than others.

“Sitting toward the back of the plane gives passengers the best chance of survival,” said Bubb. “This is because the front and middle parts absorb most of the impact if it is a head-on collision, as was the case of the Jazz Air crash at LGA.”

He went on, “In this crash, we saw the front of the aircraft absorb most of the impact. Perhaps what was an anomaly — but thank goodness miraculous — was the flight attendant, who was seated in her jumpseat with her seat belt and harness on, surviving the crash when she was ejected 300 feet.”

CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR LIFESTYLE NEWSLETTER

Motley Rice aviation attorney Jim Brauchle, based in South Carolina, told Fox News Digital the safest location in an emergency evacuation would first be the emergency exit row. 

Then, he said, the closer passengers are seated toward an exit, the quicker they’ll be able to evacuate.

“In the event of an evacuation, it’s important not to retrieve your personal belongings,” said Rice. “In many of the recent evacuations, we continually see people evacuating with their carry-on bags.”

Travelers, he said, should carefully consider which shoes they are wearing. 

“People should wear comfortable footwear when flying, preferably closed toe — and high heels are not conducive to an emergency evacuation.”

CLICK HERE FOR MORE LIFESTYLE STORIES

Though most airline passengers zone out “when the crew is going over their emergency instructions at the beginning of a flight, it is important to note the closest exit and also the next closest exit, should the primary exit be blocked,” said Brauchle.

In 2015, Time magazine reviewed aircraft accidents that involved fatalities and survivors over the previous 35 years. 

TEST YOURSELF WITH OUR LATEST LIFESTYLE QUIZ

The publication’s analysis showed that seats in the rear third of the plane had a 32% fatality rate, compared with 39% in the middle section and 38% in the front.

It also found that middle seats in the rear offered a 28% fatality rate, which was the highest survival rate.

Aisle seats in the middle section had the poorest outcomes — with a 44% fatality rate.

The University of Southern California (USC) is under fire after canceling the California gubernatorial debate with less than 24 hours’ notice. The reason? None of the polling candidates are people of color. It was a crushingly revealing moment in a state where universities have long defied voters who demanded an end to affirmative action in admissions.

USC Dornsife Center for the Political Future and ABC/KABC Los Angeles were scheduled to co-host the debate at Bovard Auditorium on Tuesday evening. Then it was canceled on Monday.

Former Biden Health and Human Services Secretary and California Attorney General Xavier Becerra had sent a letter to President Beong-Soo Kim, alleging “election rigging” and objecting “you disqualified all of the candidates of color from participating.”

For many, USC succeeded in beclowning itself by first defending USC Professor Christian Grose’s “data-driven” selection process and then abruptly canceling the debate lineup selected through that process. If that seems incomprehensible, welcome to American higher education.

JON STEWART BLASTS CALIFORNIA DEMS, WARNING THEIR EIGHT CANDIDATES MAY SPLIT VOTE, LEAD TO GOP VICTORY

The cancellation is only the latest unexpected turn in the election, where the two top vote-getters will face each other in a runoff election.

California Democrats are in a panic as two Republicans currently top the polling: Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and commentator Steve Hilton.

At the same time, the leading Democrats include controversial candidates such as former Rep. Katie Porter and Rep. Eric Swalwell. Porter is best known nationally for spewing profanity and abuse at staff members. Last year, Swalwell was outvoted by Rep. Raul Grijalva, who died in March 2025. However, they are still doing markedly better than Becerra with voters.

BIANCO SAYS ‘DEMOCRAT POLICY IS INDEFENSIBLE’ AS GOP CANDIDATES TOP CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR POLLING

USC insisted that it “vigorously defends the independence, objectivity, and integrity of USC Professor Christian Grose, whose data-driven candidate viability formula is based on extensive research and enjoys broad academic support.”

That “data-driven system” produced a lineup of Bianco and Hilton as well as Democrats billionaire Tom Steyer, San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, Porter and Swalwell.

Advocates then went into full rage, calling the process racist and rigged. Becerra declared:

CHAD BIANCO REVEALS HIS CALIFORNIA SPORTS VISION: SAVING THE LA OLYMPICS AND TRANS ATHLETE CRISIS CONSEQUENCES

“USC goes to great lengths to justify its exclusionary candidate formula. But you can’t escape the detestable outcome: you disqualified all of the candidates of color from participating while you invited a white candidate who has NEVER polled higher than some of the candidates of color, including me.”

However, the methodology considered both polling percentage and fundraising with the polling given greater weight.

Becerra has been shown at 3%, notably within the statistical margin of error for most polls. In other words, he could be closer to zero. (He is shown as tied with Mahan, who Becerra appears to be referencing in his letter as lacking higher polling).

CALIFORNIA DEMS LASH OUT AT ICE DURING GUBERNATORIAL DEBATE

USC then yielded after trying to expand the number of participants to appease objectors. In a statement, USC stated:

“We recognize that concerns about the selection criteria for tomorrow’s gubernatorial debate have created a significant distraction from the issues that matter to voters. Unfortunately, USC and [debate co-sponsor] KABC have not been able to reach an agreement on expanding the number of candidates at tomorrow’s debate. As a result, USC has made the difficult decision to cancel tomorrow’s debate and will look for other opportunities to educate voters on the candidates and issues.”

Becerra took a victory lap: “We fought. We won! … Thank you to everyone who stood up, raised hell and demanded justice. Never give up when you’re fighting for fairness!”

NO CLEAR CHAMPION OF CASH PAYMENT REPARATIONS AMONG DEMOCRATS IN CALIFORNIA GUBERNATORIAL RACE

At least Becerra’s position is comprehensible. He has long defended affirmative action in California. Indeed, despite statewide votes against the practice, California universities continue to be accused of applying racial criteria in admissions. Becerra is effectively demanding such action for himself as a “candidate of color.”

USC was left stumbling in search of a place to hide. USC scholars defended the process that USC affectively scuttled:

“All of us expect and welcome critical engagement from inside and outside the academy. What Professor Grose has faced, however, is not substantive or methodological debate. Attacks and insinuations from members of the political classes include completely baseless allegations of election-rigging, inconsistency, bias and data manipulation. These are harmful character assassinations, not substantive debate. They are of a piece with other attempts to strong-arm or malign scholars that have become all too common in America.

Whatever their intent, the effect of these attacks is to diminish academic freedom and chill scholarly willingness to add their voices to the public square. It is imperative that universities defend their faculties’ integrity when it is unfairly attacked.”

That is a powerful statement if one does not then consider that the university caved, cancelled the debate, and meekly said that it will “look for other opportunities to educate voters on the candidates and issues.” The “strong-arming” succeeded.

What is particularly disappointing is that I just spoke at USC and was impressed with the members of the USC community seeking to restore a diversity of viewpoints. The event was sponsored by The Center for the Political Future, which was the sponsor of the debate. It was also organized by the USC Open Dialogue Project and the USC chapter of the Heterodox Academy. Both have written in defense of this process.

Professor Morris Levy with Heterodox wrote: “[USC’s] message is unmistakable: USC was allowing ‘concerns’ and a public ‘distraction’ to override its own institutional conviction that the selection formula was data-driven and backed by research.”

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

So Heterodox, The Center for the Political Future, and ABC7 issued statements indicating that they were prepared to go forward and also defended the process of selection. That left only USC.

In this controversy, USC succeeded in finding the least defensible ground to make its stand. It denounced the cancel campaign but then effectively yielded to it.

The alternative is to stand by your race-blind, data-driven process and hold the debate for all invited candidates willing to attend.

Where USC was criticized recently for its fake punt in the game with Northwestern, it actually punted in this play and left the field.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM JONATHAN TURLEY