Yeah I know, but I'm just curious. A ruling like this would make a huge difference to a few teams with some very noticeable "territory" issues; just curious who's involved.
You'll see a lot of lucrative TV deals down South being made related to teams/broadcasts like New York, Toronto, and Montreal. It'd especially benefit an area like New Jersey and Buffalo/Toronto, where I believe there is a big overlap in fanbase allegiances. I'm curious how Anaheim/LA/San Jose are set up too, and especially Detroit/Chicago/Minnesota.
It'll also be interesting to see what effect it would have on small market teams like Arizona or Florida, and perhaps places that are looking for an expansion team like Seattle. The regional exclusivity probably does help those teams maximize their followings. I mean, how appealing would it be for a group that wants to spend hundreds of millions to put a team in Seattle, if it turns out that locals will also get to choose to watch Canucks games? It's especially the case when you consider that it usually takes expansion teams a few years to be competitive on the ice. While it used to be that an expansion team could weather the storm by being the only game in town, it might be less so in the future.
I quickly perused the decision, and am not an expert on antitrust laws, so I can't really speak to the merits. It is important to note though that this judge is notoriously inclined to side with plaintiffs in these kinds if cases and does have a tendency to be overturned on appeal. I believe she was the one that held that the NFL's age limit on draft eligibility in the Maurice Clarett case was illegal, which was overturned on appeal,