For the record, I’m not a big fan of the NFL’s business model.

Among the aspects I find loathsome (its embrace of gambling is at the top of the list) is its nifty little exemption from antitrust laws that allows it to collectively bargain on behalf of its teams with broadcasters vying to air the nation’s most popular sport.

The league cranks out $23 billion annually in revenue business; it’s worth around $228 billion.

It shouldn’t have to rely on any government subsidy, particularly as it uses its muscle to squeeze every last dollar out of its various deals with networks, advertisers or anything else that touches its vaunted “shield.”

Even worse, its clout goes beyond the game or simply chasing money.

More From Charles Gasparino

Channeling progressive agitprop during halftime shows has become the norm.

So has its embrace of the destructive habit of gambling that turns sports fans into addicts glued to their screens as they bet on every last angle of the game.

Put all that together and you’re just asking for scrutiny.

The investigation was sparked by US Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), who heads the Senate Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on antitrust.

Last month, he wrote federal regulators imploring them to take a look at the NFL’s antitrust perk.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr followed up with his own missive.

Both made their points: The antitrust exemption — created by Congress via something known as the Sports Broadcasting Act way back in 1961 — allows the league to sell TV rights as lucrative package deals to networks airing games on free, ad-supported TV.

It now seems like an anachronism.

Who in 1961 envisioned streaming, which seems to be carrying more games every year?

“Instead of a small number of free broadcast networks, the NFL now licenses games simultaneously to subscription streaming platforms, premium cable networks and technology companies operating under different business models,” Lee wrote last month to the head of the DOJ Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission.

Put me down as a bit dubious.

There are also some uncomfortable truths about the NFL’s programming suggesting to me that, at least for now, the case against the league is overblown and the exemption is safe.

Lee, for instance, argues that “to watch every NFL game during this past season, football fans spent almost $1,000 on cable and streaming subscriptions.

And why is it a violation?

OK, but why is it a violation of antitrust laws if consumers have to pay to watch every NFL game?

I can remember my old man back in the 1970s jerry-rigging the TV antenna on our house to try catching a signal to watch games played in Philly because he hated the Giants so much (and had bet on the Eagles, but I’ll save that for another column).

If we had streaming back then, he probably would have splurged to see every game he could — and that’s a good thing: You pay for what you get.

Charlie Gasparino has his finger on the pulse of where business, politics and finance meet

Sign up to receive On The Money by Charlie Gasparino in your inbox every Thursday.

Thanks for signing up!

There is no constitutional right to see every game on any given weekend.

The NFL argues that 87% of its games appear on free TV, and that 100% of the games of competing teams are broadcast in their local markets for free and aired without a streaming sub.

Also, unless I’m missing something, you get more than just NFL games if you’re buying a streaming package.

You’re getting all the entertainment that comes with it and there’s nothing stopping you from canceling your streaming subscription once the season ends.

Here’s where things get complicated: The NFL was a nascent, some would say weak, business back when the antitrust carve-out was created.

The negotiating power resided with the networks and the exemption allowed the NFL to pool revenue to help teams in smaller markets and keep the game competitive.

That’s clearly no longer the case.

Even with the Bad Bunny halftime fiasco (songs in Spanish that most Americans didn’t understand and ignored) and a lousy Super Bowl this past February, the big game averaged a record 128 million viewers.

And let’s not forget that the NFL is run by some of the most aggressive executives in corporate America.

It’s always looking to make a dollar whether it’s with its new flag-football league or playing games in other countries.

Its embrace of gambling and partnerships with sports books may be seedy, but it keeps fans hooked.

That mentality is great for the bottom line; the least valuable NFL franchise, the Cincinnati Bengals, is worth more than $5 billion.

The most valuable, the Dallas Cowboys, is worth $13 billion.

You can see how that power could breed arrogance.

That’s why some NFL insiders I speak to say the league needs to watch its back on this one, maybe take a beat before it continues to squeeze every last dime it can.

“This antitrust stuff is total BS,” said one NFL executive while attending a recent owners meeting.

“But this has to be taken seriously,”

In other words, what Congress created could easily be taken away.

The post The Justice Department probing the NFL’s antitrust exemption could lead to new regulations put in place appeared first on Our Story Insight.

A federal court order in the case involving Disney Worldwide Services Inc. and Disney Entertainment Operations LLC also bars Disney from operating on YouTube in a manner that violates the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, the department said.

Disney has been barred from operating on YouTube in a manner that violates the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, the Department of Justice said. REUTERS

The order requires Disney to create a program that will ensure it properly complies with the privacy law on YouTube in the future, it added.

The law requires websites, apps and other online services aimed at children under 13 to notify parents about what personal information they collect, and obtain verifiable parental consent before collecting such information

“The Justice Department is firmly devoted to ensuring parents have a say in how their children’s information is collected and used,” Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate of the Justice Department’s Civil Division said in a statement.

Disney will be required to create a program that will ensure it properly complies with the privacy law on YouTube in the future, the DOJ said. AP

Disney could not immediately be reached for a comment.

The order finalizes a settlement reached in September in a case referred to the DOJ by the Federal Trade Commission.

The post Disney to pay $10M to resolve alleged violations of child privacy laws, Justice Dept. says appeared first on Our Story Insight.

The U.S. Justice Department said Thursday that it would dismiss a case against Elon Musk’s SpaceX, in which the rocket company had been accused of discriminating against people based on their citizenship status.

In an unopposed motion filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, the Justice Department said it intended to file a notice of dismissal with prejudice, which means prosecutors would not be able to file these charges again.

The motion did not say why the case was being dropped.

The Justice Department had filed the case against SpaceX on Aug. 23, 2023, accusing the company of violating federal law in its hiring practices.

SpaceX did not fairly consider job applications from refugees and people who have been granted asylum in the United States, the department said. SpaceX also discouraged refugees and asylees from applying for jobs, refused to hire them even when they were qualified, and rejected them repeatedly because of their citizenship status, the department said.

Mr. Musk had said at the time that SpaceX was told it could not hire anyone who was not a citizen or permanent resident of the United States because of export control laws. “This is yet another case of weaponization of the DOJ for political purposes,” he had posted on X.

The Justice Department had rejected that position, saying that export control laws posed no such restrictions.

This is a developing story and will be updated.

The post Justice Dept. to Drop Discrimination Case Against Elon Musk’s SpaceX appeared first on Our Story Insight.