During an earnings call on Monday, Fox CEO Lachlan Murdoch announced that the network will add two nationally televised games to its 2026 slate. This modest expansion comes amid a broader campaign by his father, Rupert Murdoch, who has been applying political pressure on the NFL over contract renegotiations. Despite the backdrop, Lachlan Murdoch stated, “There is really no tension with the NFL.”
If the current climate doesn’t create friction, it’s hard to imagine what would. In February, Rupert Murdoch reportedly told President Donald Trump that the NFL’s shift of games from broadcast to streaming could, if unchecked, “kill the networks.” His Wall Street Journal—a powerhouse publication—then ran an editorial challenging the league to justify its continued broadcast antitrust exemption. Even before that piece appeared, the league suspected Murdoch of orchestrating a multi-pronged federal assault questioning whether the NFL had overstepped by selling games to paid platforms.
The tension escalated Sunday when President Trump criticized the cost of streaming for fans who “live for” pro football. While his numbers were off—he claimed fans pay $1,000 per game—the issue had clearly reached the White House. The leader of the free world doesn’t like it.
After a Monday packed with developments in NFL-network relations, Joe Flint of the Wall Street Journal tweeted: “I’m sure that there is no correlation between the DOJ probe into the Sports Broadcasting Act and grumbling about too many streamer games and today’s NFL news that Fox, NBC got more games and CBS moved an afternoon game to prime time.” If there is a correlation, it may be mere window dressing.
The real issue is the push—started by CBS—for major payment increases under existing broadcast deals that run through 2029 for CBS, Fox, NBC, Amazon, and YouTube, and through 2030 for ESPN/ABC. The NBA’s mammoth broadcast contracts likely inspired this effort, as a recent Vanity Fair profile of Commissioner Roger Goodell made crystal clear.
Fox, CBS, and NBC buying extra games for 2026 doesn’t resolve the deeper question: whether the league wants more money from networks now, with the implicit threat of shifting current broadcast packages to streaming companies. So, yes, there is obvious tension between Fox and the NFL. A media titan has engineered a significant political headache for the league, putting at risk the very mechanism that powers the NFL’s economic engine—the broadcast antitrust exemption.
Without that exemption, teams would have to sell TV rights individually. Some—starting with the Cowboys—would earn dramatically more than others. Revenue sharing would collapse. The salary cap would skew in favor of wealthy teams. In an extreme scenario, the NFL could fracture into two leagues: one with attractive TV packages, another without. All of this traces back to Fox. How can anyone claim there’s no tension when Fox has deliberately lit a fuse that could blow up the entire house?