When Thanksgiving Eve rolls around this November, a Cheesehead in Wisconsin cannot just turn their TV on and watch the Green Bay Packers vs. the Los Angeles Rams. They would need a $19.99/ month Netflix subscription. It gets worse because they could add another member to their account, but it would cost them $9.99 / month extra. That’s what the 2026 NFL schedule has planned: every marquee holiday game is locked behind a streaming paywall.

With the league only inclining towards more streaming service broadcasts over local or national television, it is a new problem that an NFL fan like you and I has to face. But that is the problem Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) is trying to fix. Her For The Fans Act – introduced in April – is the federal response to holiday games and national streams being pushed behind paywalls.

“That’s why I’m introducing the For the Fans Act, because it shouldn’t take ten different subscriptions and a second mortgage to watch sports,” Senator Baldwin said in her press release. “My bill will stop the big streaming platforms and sports leagues from blacking out games for fans and ensure local fans always have a single place they can go to watch their team for free.”

While this Act does help, it doesn’t go far enough, and the gap between what it fixes and what is actually broken in sports broadcasting is the real story here. Let me explain the whole situation:

This is what the bill wants to fix

The For the Fans Act, applicable to every major league in the US, does two things: One, it requires every major pro league to give in-state fans a single free option – broadcast or ad-supported stream – to watch their home team’s games. And two, it bans blackouts on league-owned streamers like MLB.TV or NBA League Pass, once fans have paid for them.

Baldwin was triggered after Green Bay’s Wild Card matchup with the Chicago Bears this January. Amazon had the exclusive rights to that game, with only Green Bay and Milwaukee getting to watch the live game on local TV stations. Meanwhile, five other major media markets in Wisconsin – accounting for over two million Packer fans – battled the blackout.

“The only way to watch was by paying Jeff Bezos and forking up a subscription to Amazon Prime Video,” Baldwin said.

The act comes four years after the Go Pack Go Act from 2022, designed to stop 13 border-county fans from being pushed out of Packers broadcasts entirely based on which TV market’s signal reached their home. Both of these Acts aim to work in tandem with the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961, which gave the NFL antitrust immunity to sell its rights as a collective package.

But you see, Baldwin isn’t trying to tear the existing system down; she just wants some “basic ground rules” that still let leagues and streamers earn, without pricing families out of their own home teams.

“It is leveling the playing field for fans,” Baldwin said in an interview with The Athletic’s Andrew Marchand.

The bill specifically targets holiday games – Thanksgiving Eve, Black Friday, Christmas Day – because those are the windows the league keeps selling to the highest-bidding streamer. This trend has only accelerated over the years, and now even the lawmakers have had enough. But even if Tammy Baldwin’s bill addresses the average NFL viewer’s pain point, the bigger questions remain up in the air.

The bill falls short here

What the For the Fans Act does not do is just as important as what it does. It guarantees one free path for in-state fans. But it does not cap streaming prices, does not simplify the subscription maze for the fans outside that local market, and does not touch what teams charge to actually sit in the building.

She argues her act is inspired by the fans having to buy multiple subscriptions for a handful of games worth hundreds and thousands of dollars. But solving one blackout doesn’t fix what a national fan staring at six different subscription pages is dealing with week after week.

A 2026 live-sports report by Reviews.org found that the average American household is now spending about $1,475 a year on sports streaming alone, with fans in some markets reporting close to $100 a month just to follow one of two teams across the NFL, NBA, and MLB platforms. These numbers exist before a single person buys a ticket. Sportswriters like Joon Lee have already mapped the full stack expense they have to pay to stay up to date.

“I subscribe to nearly every service there is with live sports – YouTube TV, MLB.TV, NBA League Pass, NFL Sunday Ticket, Peacock, Apple TV+, Max, Amazon Prime, Paramount – for $2634 a year,” writes Lee.

“But to watch the Boston Red Sox play the New York Yankees earlier this month, I would have had to fork over an additional $19.99 a month for some obscure baseball-focused service that has that slice of one of the most iconic rivalries in America’s national pastime.”

The NFL moved its primetime Thursday Night Football games behind an Amazon Prime paywall, with one narrow way out: each game is simulcast free on over-the-air local TV stations in the two competing teams’ home markets. But what about the entire state?

Now, with Netflix in the running for holiday games, the math only gets more complex. At some point, it stops being a bundle and starts being a second cable bill. But that’s just the first layer of the cost being dumped on the fans in 2026.

On top of all this sit the stadium costs that jump up the moment you try to trade the couch for a seat.

• The Buffalo Bills’ move into the new $2.1 billion Highmark Stadium comes with ticket prices that start from $663.
• In New England, Patriots owner Robert Kraft just hiked season-ticket prices again.
• The Kansas City Chiefs have also doubled their ticket prices in the Patrick Mahomes era.

Behind these moves is a financial logic that has nothing to do with fans and everything to do with business. But how does a team make profits when it doesn’t even have a fan investment?

On top of that, the NFL owners’ approval of the entry of private equity firms into franchise ownership back in 2024 has allowed private equity firms like Arctos to shift the dynamic further. It already has stakes in two NFL teams, five NBA franchises, and six MLB clubs, and is lining up to buy a minority stake in the Cleveland Browns.

The league’s aim is becoming clearer. It wants a bigger audience, bigger contracts with streaming giants, and a bigger payoff.

Tammy Baldwin’s bill addresses the streaming paywall, but doesn’t address any of this. The league, meanwhile, keeps writing contracts as if the fan on the other side will keep paying, indefinitely, without any pushback. But nothing’s ever so simple.

When protecting fans meets protecting power

The Department of Justice opened a probe into sports leagues’ media-rights structures this year. For the NFL, they aim to find how games are distributed across CBS, FOX, NBC, Amazon, ESPN/ABC, and the league’s own platforms, and whether they should continue to benefit from the 1961 Sports Broadcasting Act.

This investigation traces back to FOX owner Rupert Murdoch raising alarms that more games migrating to streamers would damage FOX’s business in a way the old deals never did.

It pays $2.25 billion a year for Sunday afternoons, and FOX needs those NFL games to break even. Streaming giants like Amazon and Netflix do not need football the same way. The NFL certainly doesn’t need the bigger bucks. Even Donald Trump agrees as much! And a democrat like Baldwin is also agreeing. To some extent, the pressure on NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell can be seen.

The DoJ probe and increased scrutiny have made Goodell reshuffle the NFL schedule this season to add more on-air games. FOX has a tripleheader in Week 10, including the international matchup between the Detroit Lions and the New England Patriots in Munich. NBC and CBS have also received an additional game each to add to their roster.

But Goodell isn’t just giving it to them. He has hinted at opening negotiations with broadcasters this year, with many networks expected to face a 50 percent hike on what they currently pay the league for its football package.

Networks like CBS and FOX cannot walk away from the NFL and survive intact. But if the league keeps demanding more money for game rights, they might just be forced to cut other departments, or risk walking away from football. Streaming giants like Amazon, Netflix, and Google have no problems coughing up more money, but all of it comes back to what the fans have to pay for.

What a real fix could look like

A truly unified streaming bundle is the obvious structural solution to the broadcasting maze – one subscription that carries every national NFL window at a transparent price. Right now, ESPN’s Unlimited Monthly Subscription costs around $29.99 / month, but can also be bundled with FOX One for a $39.99/month bundle.

The streaming platforms also offer bundled packages, but with very limited, high-profile games reserved for them, there is no single place where you can watch everything.

On the stadium side, any franchise that receives public money through bonds or the state legislature for a new building should owe its existing seat-holders something concrete. Perhaps a cap on the yearly price hikes, clear pricing structures, and a basic commitment that the new venue still serves the generational fans.

Just look at the Bills’ case who took a part of the money for their new stadium from public funding but then slapped a bigger fee on opener tickets.

None of this requires the NFL to stop making money (well, maybe a little less than what they would have made). But at this point, the case for protecting the blue-collar fan goes hand in hand with balancing the pressure on legacy networks.

A league with a broad, engaged middle-class audience sells loyalty. But a league that has turned itself into a premium niche product has a much smaller negotiating position every time a rights deal is placed on the table.

Tammy Baldwin is fighting for the fans the NFL should already be protecting. The question now is whether the NFL does something about it before the audience it has taken for granted decides one more subscription, one more holiday paywall, and one more price hike is the last line in the sand.