When a federal lawmaker learns that one of their state’s most cherished cultural institutions will only be accessible behind a paywall on a particular Wednesday in November, a subtle political dispute ensues. This week, Wisconsin Democrat Senator Tammy Baldwin, who has served in the U.S. Senate for more than ten years, did just that. The Green Bay Packers and Los Angeles Rams will play their first-ever Thanksgiving Eve game at SoFi Stadium in Inglewood, according to the NFL, which also disclosed that the broadcast will only be available on Netflix. Baldwin’s statement was as direct as anything she has released in years, and it was posted just hours after the announcement. “Enough is enough.”
The political reasoning is more difficult to refute than it first seems. By all standards, Wisconsin boasts one of the nation’s most passionate football fan bases. Game day has been the focal point of Packers households’ fall schedules for generations. For the state, Lambeau Field is more of a civic ritual than a sporting event. Telling those fans that they now need to have a Netflix subscription in addition to the cable, internet, or other streaming services they currently pay for in order to watch a Packers game is more than just a common annoyance for customers.
It seems like a minor theft of something that was previously unrestricted. Baldwin is obviously aware of this. The For the Fans Act, which was presented in April, mandates that major sports leagues offer a live, free local broadcast alternative for the state where the home club is headquartered in order to combat precisely this kind of fragmentation.
To be fair, Netflix’s defense of the agreement is more thorough than it typically receives credit for. According to the firm, local over-the-air broadcast television in the corresponding team cities will also carry the Thanksgiving Eve game. This is how it handled its two NFL Christmas Day games in 2024 and 2025, which were broadcast on local CBS affiliates in the participating teams’ home cities. At first appearance, the compromise makes sense. If you want nationwide streaming, pay the monthly fee.
If you live in the team’s local market, you can get the game for free over the air. The problem is that only the designated market areas of Green Bay and Milwaukee are included in the NFL’s definition of “local market” in Wisconsin. Wausau, La Crosse, Eau Claire, Madison, and Superior are all outside. That is the majority of the state in terms of population.
This is the most persuasive portion of Baldwin’s case, and in subsequent correspondence, her office made this point very evident. The local broadcast that a Packers fan in Green Bay receives is not available to a Packers fan in Madison, the state capital. Eau Claire’s fan is in the same spot. Even farther outside the borders is the fan in Superior, which is located three hundred miles north of Milwaukee. Even if none of those supporters reside in the team’s home city, they are all clearly a part of the Packers’ true fan base. For them, it is not a hypothetical decision to pay for Netflix or miss the game. It is the current reality for consumers.
Baldwin’s office pointed out that earlier this year, when the Packers’ playoff game versus the Chicago Bears was shown on Amazon Prime Video, the same scenario took place. In that instance, local over-the-air arrangements were also inadequate, and Wisconsin supporters without a Prime membership were prevented from attending one of the team’s most watched games of the season. To put it another way, the pattern is not new. The Thanksgiving Eve game is just the most recent example of a long-standing trend that the typical sports fan has sensed long before any senator made the decision to openly oppose to it.
This dispute is more fascinating than the usual political back-and-forth over a single game because of the larger media background. With regard to its NFL strategy, Netflix has been purposefully cautious. The streaming service is not bidding on full-season packages for any major sports league, including the NFL, as co-CEO Ted Sarandos has stated on multiple occasions. Marquee events are of interest to the company. Mike Tyson versus Jake Paul. Earlier in the season, the Yankees shut out the Giants on opening day. the NFL games on Christmas Day.
The match on Thanksgiving Eve. Instead of creating a season-long sporting identity, each of these is intended to attract cultural attention. Netflix is not interested in becoming ESPN. It aspires to take ownership of the moments that everyone discusses the following day. By most accounts, that is a wise course of action. Additionally, it creates precisely the kind of fragmentation that Baldwin is currently attempting to prevent through legislation.
As I watch this narrative unfold, I keep thinking about how frequently the contemporary streaming era has been constructed under the covert presumption that the people most impacted by its compromises will not mobilize politically. That assumption has held true for the majority of product categories. Despite complaining about the price of streaming bundles, customers continue to pay for other services. But sports might be an exception.
Few other consumer problems are as cross-partisan and cross-regional as the political coalition supporting free over-the-air access to local team broadcasts. It would be difficult for a Democratic senator from Wisconsin to oppose a Republican senator from a Southern state on a bill that would allow the typical football fan to watch their team without having to pay a subscription fee. Baldwin seems to have recognized that kind of cross-partisan vulnerability, which is uncommon in contemporary Congress.
It is unlikely that the For the Fans Act will be passed swiftly. Few advocacy organizations can equal the NFL’s lobbying resources, and major legislation rarely does. Even if the bill never makes it to the floor for a vote, the political pressure it generates is substantial. Watchers of this discussion on streaming services are aware that Congress and state attorneys general will assess the next big rights agreement differently than they did previous agreements. Concerning sports fragmentation, the Federal Trade Commission has been more involved. The window of opportunity for unlimited streaming exclusivity on major NFL events seems to be closing.