NFL Fights To Save TV Blackout Rule Despite $9 Billion Revenue

An anonymous reader writes with word of new movement on an old front: namely, the rule that makes it hard for sports fans to see coverage of local teams. The 39-year-old blackout rule basically "prevents games from being televised locally when tickets remain unsold." The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), in response to a 2011 petition by consumers, has decided to consider abolishing this rule. The National Football League (NFL) has of course objected, claiming that the rule allows it to keep airing their games on free TV. If that were to change and they would have to move to cable, they argue, the "result would represent a substantial loss of consumer welfare." In their petition to the FCC, consumers point out that the NFL charges "exorbitant prices for tickets" which results in lower attendance. The blackout rule, they claim, therefore punishes fans by preventing them from watching the game if the NFL can't sell enough stadium tickets. NFL yearly profits reportedly number in the billions. Even if the FCC supports the petition, however, sports leagues can and probably will privately negotiate blackouts to boost their revenue.

Comments

Punishes fans?

[TrollstonButterbeans]

"NFL charges exorbitant prices for tickets" ...

" punishes fans by preventing them from watching the game if the NFL can't sell enough stadium tickets"

"NFL yearly profits reportedly number in the billions.".

Sounds like the obvious answer is "Then don't watch it."

But I can see this article isn't about rationality, but about "I want to watch it" and "I want it to be free" and "I want it available under my terms".

Re:Punishes fans?

[gl4ss]

I don't understand how the rule that prevents airing the matches keeps them on free air channels?

I mean, if NFL wants, they sure as fuck can put on a rule that causes them to be always available for broadcasting? and the other way too for that matter.

I mean, the "if tickets not sold then no show" as a rule sure sounds like it only makes it harder for them to show the matches if they want.

furthermore, WHAT THE FUCKING KIND OF RULE IS THAT!?!? shouldn't the organizer of the event -any event- get to choose if it can be broadcast or not, since aren't they in control of the copyright of the recording????

Re:Punishes fans?

[sjames]

There is a very high probability that the team has received many valuable considerations from the local government including having the stadium built for them. It's not so unreasonable that the local citizens might expect a return on the investment.

Re: Punishes fans?

[Anonymous Coward]

"But I can see this article isn't about rationality, but about "I want to watch it" and "I want it to be free" and "I want it available under my terms"."

You sound like a share holder?

Re:Punishes fans?

[dk20]

They can also do what Toronto, Ontario did with its skydome.
Taxpayer funded cost of construction: $570 million
Sale price to private corporations: $151 million

So yeah, i can see how the taxpayers might want something after taking a $400 million dollar loss. The kicker is this is not the only "stadium" for such a small city.

A lot of sports is all about taxpayer subsidies and huge player salaries.

Re:Punishes fans?

[Gogo0]

pro football is like smoking crack, only harder to kick.

the NFL hates its fans with a *passion*, as evident by their business practices, and they punish us every way they can find (new terrible red zone ads, EA madden exclusivity, directv/verizon exclusivity, ~$90 preseason game ticket prices, $200 streaming games only outside the USA [NHL is $50, MLB similar -both available in the USA], etc).

if anyone (myself included) *could* quit enjoying seeing their team play, we would have already, and the NFL knows. the NFL is a shit organization, but we the fans have made it clear that we will put up with whatever bullshit they throw at us.

anyway, i dont think its unreasonable to want to be able to watch a game on tv. watching at home and attending a game are entirely different things. no one says 'lets not go to the game, it's on tv".
its very telling that the NFL needs a *law* to force people to go to games and pay their exhorbitant ticket costs.

Re:Punishes fans?

[Sarius64]

Not to mention the billions in free taxes from the feds, state, county, and city governments. Because billionaires have it so hard.

Re:Punishes fans?

[Shakrai]

Toronto is a small city? It's the largest city in Canada and the 4th largest in North America, after Mexico City, New York, and Los Angeles.

Re:Punishes fans?

[jbolden]

Yes. And the best thing for them have done would have been to buy the team and make it a municipal asset in full or in part. Huge corporate subsidies with no guarantees of public return are bad policy across the board.

Re:Punishes fans?

[jbolden]

All the things you listed as punishment are getting you to pay more money to them. They aren't punishing you they are however charging you for a service you like a lot. I suspect having local games often not be on TV is a way to encourage people to have season tickets. It doesn't matter on an individual level if collectively that behavior raises ticket prices.

Re: Punishes fans?

[Anonymous Coward]

But it has that small city feel.

Re:Punishes fans?

[Gogo0]

i consider it punishment as numerous very popular services they *could* provide dont exist:
-a competitor to the ever-stale Madden games
-streaming games online
-a way to watch all games (not only the ones you happen to get on tv in your area) without needing a ~$200 satellite subscription

these give consumers more choice and flexibility and are things that fans *really want* and will be happy to pay for. maybe "punishment" is the wrong word, "abuse" or "mistreatment" may fit better

Re:Punishes fans?

[dk20]

Small in the sense that how do you justify so many sports stadiums for that population?

Just a boondogle, the leafs wont play in the old stadium, nor will they build a new one when they can just get the taxpayers to do it.

Re:Punishes fans?

[jbolden]

a competitor to the ever-stale Madden games

It is unclear if that generates more or less revenue for the NFL. Clearly lots of football games do exist. The only thing Madden has is rights to use trademarks. It may very well be the case that having the unique rights to those trademarks are substantially more valuable than splitting them.

streaming games online

Why would they want to do that? They make a lot revenue from charging the broadcast networks the rights to their games. That's not punishing fans that's charging.

-a way to watch all games (not only the ones you happen to get on tv in your area) without needing a ~$200 satellite subscription

They want you to buy an expensive subscription. Again they are charging you for their services.

these give consumers more choice and flexibility and are things that fans *really want* and will be happy to pay for.

Probably not as much as they are paying now. The level at which a person feels a product is too expensive but still worth buying is usually pretty close to the maximum they are willing to pay. They are doing their job if they have you paying more than you want to be paying. That's maximizing revenue.

maybe "punishment" is the wrong word, "abuse" or "mistreatment" may fit better

Its none of the above. They are just charging you for their services. Same as most entertainers in a capitalist society.

Re:Punishes fans?

[ShanghaiBill]

Yes. And the best thing for them have done would have been to buy the team and make it a municipal asset in full or in part.

Green Bay, Wisconsin has done exactly that. Their football team is the only community owned professional sports team in the US.

Re:Punishes fans?

[anmre]

its very telling that the NFL needs a *law* to force people to go to games and pay their exhorbitant ticket costs

Indeed. And so many of the players are either arrogant thugs or outright criminals. It's a disgusting organization from the inside-out.

Re:Punishes fans?

[Gogo0]

the business aspect makes sense, theyre obviously doing what brings in the most cash. no argument there. my point is that other US professional sports manage to treat their fans much better. probably because theyre afraid of actually losing fans (revenue) if they get too stupid. most companies have to balance their product, consumer happiness, and price. the NFL clearly understands that their fans are masochists who only care about the product and not the price or their own happiness. the NFL has none of the fear most regular businesses have (one of the benefits of having a monopoly -fortunately no one *needs* to see NFL games)

Re:Punishes fans?

[Anonymous Coward]

that's not the way it works .. your taxes pay for their stadiums and infrastructures , they rake in all profits and you get screwed .. easy enough ?
nothing simpler.

Re:Punishes fans?

[Gogo0]

i stopped reading ESPN during off-seasons. the only thing they have to report is "XXXX was banned for X games for XXXX reason". the reason typically being DUI, drugs, shooting people, beating women -general dumbass illegal stuff. maybe the NFL should be year-round, practice and playing seems to be the only thing that keeps players busy enough to stay out of jail.

Re:Punishes fans?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you can't claim that the NFL is just doing business and the customers should take it or leave it. The fact is that the NFL is the beneficiary of some rather unique laws, lobbied just for them. Take away their tax breaks. Take away their stadiums paid for by government money. Take away their excessive copyright laws. And then you can make your laissez faire claims.

Re:Punishes fans?

[Anonymous Coward]

The same thing happened in Dunedin, New Zealand. About 86% of the population were against building a stadium for a city of no more than 120,000 people, so they spent quarter of a billion dollars on it promising it would be paying its own way within a few years.

It's not, it won't, and they keep borrowing millions from the rates of the city.

The local Highlanders rugby team are constantly whinging that they have to pay to use it, even though they're getting a large subsidy and constant gifts of cash - not too many years after they went bankrupt after spending thousands on parties.

Professional sports is a fucking rip-off.

Re:Punishes fans?

[CrimsonAvenger]

furthermore, WHAT THE FUCKING KIND OF RULE IS THAT!?!? shouldn't the organizer of the event -any event- get to choose if it can be broadcast or not, since aren't they in control of the copyright of the recording????

Ummm...for NFL games, the NFL is the organizer of the event, and get to choose whether it can be broadcast or not.

So, what exactly is your problem with the rule?

Re:Punishes fans?

[Anonymous Coward]

So just stop watching it, then.

I didn't like the way a TV show I was watching from the start was going, I got angry about it, how it recycled plots and stole them from other shows, the stupid dialogue, the ridiculous way the story arc went and how the fans were being ignored, so I stopped watching it.

Took a few weeks to get over it - I realised after the first week that I was only watching it out of habit, or ritual. I couldn't think of anything else to do so I'd just turn it on. Once I got through that, I realised something:

I didn't really give a shit about it. It just wasn't that important.

I think you'll find the same, if you just give it up. You'll struggle for the first game or two, then it'll get easier, than you'll realise that it just doesn't matter.

Because it doesn't matter.

Re:Punishes fans?

[AchilleTalon]

However, if you consider the metropolitain area, it is the 14th largest metropolitain area in North America.

Re:Punishes fans?

[the_other_chewey]

I don't understand how the rule that prevents airing the matches keeps them on free air channels?

Because the NFL has been forced to allow at least that.

I mean, if NFL wants, they sure as fuck can put on a rule that causes them to be always available for broadcasting? and the other way too for that matter.

Yup, absolutely. That's why Blackout Rule is an NFL rule.

I mean, the "if tickets not sold then no show" as a rule sure sounds like it only makes it harder for them to show the matches if they want.

furthermore, WHAT THE FUCKING KIND OF RULE IS THAT!?!? shouldn't the organizer of the event -any event- get to choose if it can be broadcast or not, since aren't they in control of the copyright of the recording????

They are. And again, it's an NFL rule preventing the broadcasting.
In fact, the NFL had to be forced by law (Public Law 93-107) to at least allow broadcasting
in those instances where a game is sold out 72h in advance.

I do understand your confusion though, the summary does a horrible job at explaining what's going on.

Re:Punishes fans?

[jbolden]

I was thinking of them when I wrote that. It was a good choice for the community. That way the local team has real meaningful ties to the community and the "home team" can act in the public interest.

Re:Punishes fans?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's compare apples with apples. Toronto city has something like the population of the North Island and the Greater Toronto Area has a great many more people than NZ. In resource rich countries like Canada or countries that siphon off significant proportions of world GDP through corruption and nefarious bank schemes (UK, USA, etc.) they have plenty of money to waste on things like that.

NZ is different. NZ has rugby and bugger all else. NZ could have many great things but the agricultural heritage and proper democracy has meant that there are just too many farmers making decisions. Nowhere near enough money is spent on conservation and honestly apart from the wilderness, what does NZ have? The population is so small that intelligent, motivated young people just leave to where shit is actually happening...

So why not spend the money so at least you don't get soaked watching the Highlanders lose?

Re:Punishes fans?

[jbolden]

my point is that other US professional sports manage to treat their fans much better..

Maybe I don't know. Take horse racing for example. One of the things most destructive to the sport is early retirements. Horses retire early because there is much more money in breeding potential winners than being a winner. So once a horse wins enough to get a following it is likely to be breeding not racing. Incredibly destructive, has had huge impact on lowering the quality of the racing horses. It has undermined the fan base. Yet because the top .5% of fans (the breeders) like breeding and that maximized revenue... I'd say that's worse than the NFL.

Another example is boxing and women's ice skating. In both of those the judging in uniformally corrupt. The results of the "games" are modified for the purposes or raising revenues since fans like to see "their team" (by analogy) win and pay more for winning teams. Whatever problems the NFL has, it doesn't cheat.

most companies have to balance their product, consumer happiness, and price

I suspect the NFL is doing that. You seem like you are at exactly the balance point. You feel like you are paying a bit too much and feel pressured to pay more. But you don't completely walk away.

Re:Punishes fans?

[the_other_chewey]

its very telling that the NFL needs a *law* to force people to go to games and pay their exhorbitant ticket costs.

It's the law forcing a limiting of the Blackout Rule on the NFL, not
the NFL being forced to use the Blackout Rule by the law.

The NFL doen't even care about people coming to the stadiums:
The teams are allowed to purchase remaining seats to "unlock"
the broadcasting for the price of the league's share of the ticket sales.

So it's the NFL trying to force maximum revenue per game (for the NFL, that is).

Re:Punishes fans?

[zippthorne]

Sounds like the obvious answer is "Then don't watch it."

This is not necessarily the same thing as not paying for it, though.

But I can see this article isn't about rationality, but about "I want to watch it" and "I want it to be free" and "I want it available under my terms".

An important question is: who paid for the stadium?

I'm not sure the FCC ought to be involved, but any city paying for a stadium ought to negotiate, as part of the deal, that their residents can watch the games on free TV or on at-cost tickets or something until the city gets back its investment. Also, maybe we should stop electing star-struck fanbois who keep giving away the farm any time someone famous comes to town.

Re:Punishes fans?

[AthanasiusKircher]

Depends on whose stats you look at. If you look at "metropolitan area," recent stats I see come up with around rank 8 (similar size to Houston and Washington DC). If you look at urban "agglomeration" (which actually measures connected urban land, rather than "metro areas" which are usually defined by surrounding municipal structures and may include more rural or disconnected surrounding areas), then Toronto may be more like 5th. But no matter how you calculate, it's one of the most populous cities/areas in North America -- it's not in any sense "small" as GGP termed it.

Re:Punishes fans?

[Gogo0]

thats the logical solution, but people tend to be illogical when it comes to things like religion and sports as someone above already remarked.
at least i've only got the one monkey on my back

Re:Punishes fans?

[TubeSteak]

But I can see this article isn't about rationality, but about [...] "I want it available under my terms".

You don't actually explain why this is a bad thing.
Merely asserting that it is irrational does not make it so.

"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to the public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back."

Life-Line by Robert A. Heinlein, 1939

Re:Punishes fans?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what competition is all about. If this "NFL" won't do things your way, start your own sports league. Try to compete while offering free TV . . .

Re: Punishes fans?

[Anonymous Coward]

The NFL has grown too big for its own good. They don't even pay taxes for Christ sakes.

Re: Punishes fans?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because if you add up the population of every town between Toronto and Hamilton you get a lot of people, and they can all take public transit to downtown Toronto to see a game.

Re:Punishes fans?

[pepty]

You're right, you don't have to watch it.

Paying for it however is mandatory (building stadiums, local tax breaks for teams) for most folks who live near an NFL team, whether or not they like football.

Re:Punishes fans?

[pepty]

Seeing as many of the local citizens don't actually follow football, we'll take that ROI in cash, not tickets or broadcasts, thank you very much.

Re:Punishes fans?

[gl4ss]

oh nfl rule.

in that case, why fcc need do something about it or why they are involved? they don't have a monopoly on sports.

now, if cities give them preferential money, stadium leases etc. then the cities should ask them to show the games in return - or just let them pay like every other business..

Re:Punishes fans?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the largest city in Canada

That's like saying you're the smartest person in the special Olympics.

Re:Punishes fans?

[dreamchaser]

The NFL, like most professional sport leagues, gets special anti-trust exemptions from the Government. In return the Government gets some say in how they operate.

Re:Punishes fans?

[pepty]

And the leagues banned this type of ownership (corporate, both public and private) to keep it from happening again. A team has to be owned by a maximum of 32 people (not corporations), one of which must own at least 30% of the team.

Re:Punishes fans?

[pepty]

Are the breeders retiring their horses earlier because they want immediate cash flow or because of risk management? Modern racehorses are so fragile that there is a very good chance they will be injured/put down if they are raced for one more season. If that happens: no breeding fees at all. That would definitely help explain a lowered quality (resilience) of the race horses in succeeding generations.

Re:Punishes fans?

[turp182]

Fantastic statement, one a lawyer should take up (or a team, with different players in different positions).

If there is a single penny of public money supporting the league (stadium) via public debt or financing, then why the F*** should the public not be able to watch it publicly.

If there isn't, do as they please.

F***ing great point. I can't say it hard or long enough.

The clause should read as follows: Broadcasting rights can be limited only if there is no public money involved in financing the location or presentation of a game.

And I live in St. Louis, we suck. We partied like it was 1999 in January of 2000...

Re:Punishes fans?

[pepty]

I'd add take away their anti-trust exemptions.

Re:Punishes fans?

[pepty]

It's not elected star-struck fanbois that are the problem, it's elected officials who subsequently work for the team after the negotiations have ended, the elected officials that are given sweet investment deals by the owners of the teams, the local newspapers that are both highly influential in local elections and dependent on the sports section for a huge chunk of their dwindling revenues ...

Re:Punishes fans?

[pepty]

Try starting your own football league, see how far you get before the NFL stomps you flat for violating its intellectual property. Broadcasters probably couldn't show your games if they wanted to due to their contracts with the NFL.

Re:Punishes fans?

[jbolden]

It isn't immediate cash flow, these are rich people. But total cash flow is higher for breeding than racing. A winner is worth more not racing.
Risk is higher both for injury and the horse might start to suck lowering their eventual value.

Also the horses become much more pleasant to be around when they are breeding. It is more fun for the owners.

Re:Punishes fans?

[Stan92057]

Got to be a local sports fan to understand or even a sports fan period. Tickets are in my area 85+ dollars for 1 seat. I have a much bigger problem with NFL Teams forcing season ticket holder to buy preseason tickets they are also forced to buy a seat license of over 10,000.00 in that's what the Eagles charged when the new stadium was built..most at the same price for half the talent on the field. So I am forced to watch it on TV and no I will not buy any packages I will go back to listening on the radio I did for 15 years when I was younger. But if your not a football fan you really don't have a clue.

Re:Punishes fans?

[westlake]

Toronto is a small city? It's the largest city in Canada and the 4th largest in North America

Population of Metro Toronto 5.6 million.

Then there is the golden triangle: Toronto - Hamilton - Buffalo.

Re:Punishes fans?

[GIL_Dude]

no one says 'lets not go to the game, it's on tv"

Bzzt! Wrong! Maybe not many folks do, but I sure do. When presented with an opportunity to go I always decline and say that I would rather see it on TV. (Sometimes this has even been with free tickets). At home, there is no a-hole standing up in front of me the whole game. At home, no jackass behind me spills their beer on me. At home, the noise level is very low. At home, I can see the play and can see it from multiple angles with amazing replays. At home, the beer doesn't cost $10. At home, the bathroom is clean and safe and doesn't consist of a long metal trough. At home, I am unlikely to get attacked by some crazy drunk asshole and my car is unlikely to get vandalized. At home, the parking doesn't cost $25. Yeah, I've BEEN to pro football games twice. Never again.

Re:Punishes fans?

[anarcobra]

Sounds to me like people trying to get a better deal. What's wrong with that? Why should only the NFL be allowed to get a good deal? If they can't make money if the rule is removed they can just stop organizing games.

Re:Punishes fans?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet somehow the main highway leading to/from it has the most traffic of any highway in north america.

Re:Punishes fans?

[Anonymous Coward]

The FCC regulates TV broadcasts. That's why they are involved. It's one of their points of existence.

Re:Punishes fans?

[Wycliffe]

And the leagues banned this type of ownership (corporate, both public and private) to keep it from happening again. A team has to be owned by a maximum of 32 people (not corporations), one of which must own at least 30% of the team.

I would love to hear their "politically correct" reason for doing that. That basically means that they intentionally made a rule that
made it a rich person only game. I'm not sure what the non politically correct reasoning would be either. This just reeks of cronyism.
I'm glad I'm not a sports fan and I think everyone else would be better off if they also stopped contributing to professional sports.
Watch college sports or better yet join a local league and play yourself. Stop contributing to the corruption that is professional sports.

Re:Punishes fans?

[Desler]

Is that before or after they lose all their tax breaks, special regulatory statuses and pay back all the taxpayer money they used to build their stadiums?

Re:Punishes fans?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you a twat on purpose? The point is, Mr. Dipshit, you can't watching if enough locals aren't spending $100 a head to go. Duurrrrr.

Re:Punishes fans?

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct. The Tampa Bay Bucs got a free stadium on the back of our property taxes. The locals aren't interested as they've not really locals, so they support the Dolphins or the N.E. franchise they clung on to before moving south. Likewise with the girls game baseball. St. Pete gave the MLB side massive financial help, again using our property tax money, only for them to realise the locals don't give a shit.

Forget the "sport", they are businesses getting a free ride well above and beyond what income they generate locally. Furthermore, they also want to get out of their contracts that wasted over $800,000,000 of the local tax payers' money to fuck off to a new site to repeat their ruse.

Re:Punishes fans?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pro football is like smoking dick, only faggots are so ape-shit crazy over pro fagball that they'd take it up the ass from the owners.
 
When I see a faggot with a NFL team shirt on I know I've found someone who deserve to have their balls kicked in right before they're pushed into an active volcano.
 
You're a fucking corporate whore.

Re:Punishes fans?

[sconeu]

You forgot, ESPN also has nonstop 24/7 coverage of LeBron James.

Re:Punishes fans?

[Berkyjay]

Well sure, you'd think this would be a "free market" thing. Except for the fact that the NFL is a government sponsored monopoly. If you are a fan of football, you have no where else to turn to watch football.

Re:Punishes fans?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think they reckon if it was available on FTA nobody would bother going to the game. But at least in Europe that doesn't seem to be how things work. People go to a game because they want to cheer on their team, they want the atmosphere etc. There are still immense soccer crowds at matches in the English Premiership, the German Bundesliga, Italian Ligue A etc. as well as lower leagues, because the experience is good enough that people want to go and watch their teams. And yes, tickets are extortionate here too. Then the leagues sell television rights to TV channels. Some are bought by Sky, cable etc. but some are also bought by FTA channels. The TV rights are also hugely expensive for the companies involved, but it brings them advertising viewers and seems to be worth it because they keep paying more and more for the rights.

It sounds like the NFL is scared of TV because they're not used to it; experience from this side of the pond suggests they don't need to be (and in fact can INCREASE their overall revenue by aggressively marketing the TV rights)

Re:Punishes fans?

[Chris Mattern]

shouldn't the organizer of the event -any event- get to choose if it can be broadcast or not, since aren't they in control of the copyright of the recording????

Well, yes, they do. They are. The NFL is the organizer of the event, and controls the copyright of the recording. It's their rule that the game can't be broadcast locally if it isn't sold out, nobody else's. Who else did you think it might be?

Re:Punishes fans?

[Anonymous Coward]

That is normal, in the netherlands they do:
- Build stadium
- Sell stadium for 1 euro to football team.
- Football team is not doing well financial, so sell the stadium back to the city for a few hundred milion.
- Football team buys the stadium back for 1 euro.
- 10 years later, they sell and buy the stadium again.

Re:Punishes fans?

[93 Escort Wagon]

I don't believe this is correct - Major League Baseball is the only American sport with a broad antitrust exemption. Baseball's exemption is considered an "aberration".

The NFL is generally subject to antitrust law.

Re:Punishes fans?

[paiute]

It sounds like the NFL is scared of TV because they're not used to it; experience from this side of the pond suggests they don't need to be (and in fact can INCREASE their overall revenue by aggressively marketing the TV rights)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...

The NFL is so afraid of TV that they are willing to let the broadcast rights go for several dollars. Wait. I forgot nine decimal places.

Re:Punishes fans?

[bondsbw]

They could let the host venue determine whether to blackout. Some might, others wouldn't, and eventually the better outcome would become the most popular.

Re:Punishes fans?

[l0ungeb0y]

Sounds like the obvious answer is "Then don't watch it."

People such as yourself who tell people to just give something up if they don't like a particular issue with it are fucking morons. The world is not made of absolutes, nothing is perfect and companies are out to make a profit off the back of the consumer.

And if you had any actual capacity for thought in that little numbnut that rattles around in that cranial cavity of yours, you'd have realized that that bit about "consumers will govern companies in the market place" is antiquated 19th century BULLSHIT that no longer has any merit.

Companies no longer need to care about the consumer, when they have so many different ways of obtaining revenue without having to rely upon the pennies you have to offer. And it's a well known fact that the most PROFITABLE companies are the most HATED by consumers. Companies like Comcast are laughing all the way to the bank. Seems pissing all over consumers pays quite well.

You think ticket sales amounts to fuck-all compared to all the Licensing and Merchandising fees the NFL takes in every year? Fact is there is not a single Public Company that you can control with your little fist full of pocket change. And the only thing consumers hurt by giving up services for things they actually enjoy over idealistic bullshit is themselves -- not the corporate target of their ire.

Re:Punishes fans?

[Fnord666]

Also the horses become much more pleasant to be around when they are breeding.

Funny, I'm the same way.

Re:Punishes fans?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why waste your time posting inflammatory comments? Get a life and do something useful and contribute to society.

Re:Punishes fans?

[ZipK]

The FCC regulates TV broadcasts. That's why they are involved. It's one of their points of existence.

Why is the FCC involving itself with what's not broadcast on television?

Re: Punishes fans?

[rherbert]

Chicago is larger than Toronto - 2.7m compared to 2.5m.

Re:Punishes fans?

[diamondmagic]

s/profit/revenue/

Two totally different things.

Re:Punishes fans?

[Anonymous Coward]

But it is unreasonable to expect the local citizens to pay $10 for lukewarm, flat beer.

Re:Punishes fans?

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember the NFL has an exemption from antitrust regulations that essentially lets them collude and do whatever they like to prevent any competition from other startup leagues.

Re:Punishes fans?

[Anonymous Coward]

College sports are no better. The NCAA is every bit as bad if not worse than the NFL.

Re:Punishes fans?

[radarskiy]

The NFL's rule is that the local station cannot broadcast the local game if there are unsold tickets.
The FCC's rule is that if the local station cannot broadcast the game then no one can rebroadast a non-local station that is carrying the local game.

See the actual notice of proposed rulemaking: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/docum...

Re:Punishes fans?

[pepty]

Also the horses become much more pleasant to be around when they are breeding. It is more fun for the owners.

Are they on less drugs during breeding compared to racing? The horses that is, not the owners.

Re:Punishes fans?

[pepty]

The rule has some validity - they wanted to keep syndicates of owners from controlling a bunch of teams, which I think happened in the NHL. The 30% rule was to prevent decision making from being paralyzed due to lack of a single owner able to end a stalemate. Of course, the NFL could have written rules that prevented these problems without banning municipal ownership.

Re:Punishes fans?

[EvilJoker]

That's something different - you're saying "Let's not go to the game, it sucks there". Whether it airs on TV does not affect whether you will go to the stadium.

Re:Punishes fans?

[jbolden]

They get clean once they stop racing. The big drugs used are Lasix (which controls bleeding in the lungs), phenylbutazone (an anti-inflammatory), and cortiscosteroids (for pain and inflammation). Also for many horses steroids and pain killers. Those aren't needed for breeding just racing.

Re:Punishes fans?

[coinreturn]

Also the horses become much more pleasant to be around when they are breeding.

Funny, I'm the same way.

What? You like to watch horses breeding?

Re:Punishes fans?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have stopped watching it. How do you propose I keep the state from sending my tax dollars to the NFL? Stop paying taxes?

NFL is a business/monopoly

[Monoman]

FCC should pull the rule to let supply and demand work it out.

Re:NFL is a business/monopoly

[gnupun]

Whoever gave the NFL monopoly rights (resulting in price gouging tickets) over all football matches in the country is at fault. So the solution is to increase supply by allowing more associations to form alternative football organizations. This competition will likely reduce ticket prices everywhere even if their playing quality won't be as good as the NFL players.

But forcing the NFL to give their content away for free (i.e. abolishing the blackout rule) will mean fewer people will pay stadium prices and is unethical, unfair and communist.

Re:NFL is a business/monopoly

[Mr D from 63]

The FCC has no business making rulings that have sports ticket prices as a central factor.

Re:NFL is a business/monopoly

[AK Marc]

But forcing the NFL to give their content away for free (i.e. abolishing the blackout rule)

Abolishing the blackout rule will do no such thing. The FCC used to enforce a private blackout rule against the NFL (at the NFL's request). Now, the NFL is free to enforce the rule themselves. This is more freedom for the NFL, not less.

It was spelled out in TFS, you didn't even need to read TFA.

Re:NFL is a business/monopoly

[jbolden]

There is no government guaranteed monopoly. There is the arena football league. There are college leagues. There used to be the XFL (a fun league). The NFL just feels like a monopoly because the fans are very very picky.

Re:NFL is a business/monopoly

[gnupun]

The NFL just feels like a monopoly because the fans are very very picky.

But why does every pro football player have to play ticket-selling (i.e. commercial) matches under the umbrella of the NFL? ... that's pretty monopolistic. In other words, why should the NFL profit from every top-tier football player? Organizing matches is hard, but not as hard as being a good football player. If the govt. or whoever grants only one organization the power over organizing/distributing all football matches, naturally its prices are going to be sky high.

The player should have a choice of various organizations with different pay structures/benefits to choose from. Similarly, ticket buyers should have a choice of various leagues that have very, very good players. If league A is charging high ticket prices, the consumer can go to league B with cheaper tickets.

Re:NFL is a business/monopoly

[jbolden]

But why does every pro football player have to play ticket-selling (i.e. commercial) matches under the umbrella of the NFL

They don't. The AFL is professional. The XFL was professional. There is no government guarantee. Now what is the case

If the govt. or whoever

The whoever here is the customer base. The customer base wants to see top tier players and wants to see them in competition with one another. So there are are substantial network effects. These mean that with very few exceptions good players make more money working for the NFL than they would with any competing league.

The player should have a choice of various organizations with different pay structures/benefits to choose from.

They do.

Similarly, ticket buyers should have a choice of various leagues that have very, very good players.

That only happens if multiple leagues are able to attract the best players. And that requires that network effects not be present.

Re:NFL is a business/monopoly

[Anonymous Coward]

They do have business when television broadcasts are being withheld due to ticket sales extortion.

Re:NFL is a business/monopoly

[Anonymous Coward]

I would much rather see them strengthen the rule. No sports games of any kind will be televised ever, regardless of ticket sales.

Re:NFL is a business/monopoly

[Anonymous Coward]

But forcing the NFL to give their content away for free (i.e. abolishing the blackout rule) will mean fewer people will pay stadium prices and is unethical, unfair and communist.

Kind of like begging the taxpayer to build your stadium for you. Communist indeed. For the "greater good" (us, not you).

You are right, but it takes one to know one. Why is corporate communism flowing upwards OK, but communism for individuals flowing
downward not?

Pot, meet kettle. Oh, it seems you've already met? How delightful!

Re:NFL is a business/monopoly

[swillden]

FCC should pull the rule to let supply and demand work it out.

It's not the FCC's rule, its the NFL's rule. The NFL is exercising its rights as a copyright holder to prevent games from airing locally unless the stadium is sold out. The NFL believes this encourages local fans to attend, boosting revenues, and argues that if fans can watch it on free TV rather than going to the stadium, many of them will, so the NFL will be forced to pull the games from free TV and move them exclusively to cable, probably pay-per-view, to make up the lost revenues.

I have no position on whether the NFL is right, but this is them exercising their rights as a business to sell their produce in the way they choose (well, they're using the government granted and enforced copyright in order to control their product, which muddies that argument quite a bit).

Re:NFL is a business/monopoly

[swillden]

Whoever gave the NFL monopoly rights (resulting in price gouging tickets) over all football matches in the country is at fault

That would be the pro football fans.

Seriously, there are any number of other, smaller, leagues, and it would be easy to start more, but the fans keep flocking to the NFL. Why? Well, this is a case of a sort of natural monopoly. If there are multiple competing pro football leagues, then none of them can lay claim to having all of the best athletes, coaches, etc., so there is no real football championship. So the fans are always going to pick one league to be "the" league, and everything else will more or less disappear.

Re:NFL is a business/monopoly

[Anonymous Coward]

I seriously doubt the NFL will "be forced to switch to cable", they will lose TV contracts and fans. They can sit there and makes all the threats they want, they've pretty much done whatever they want, when they want. It's not surprising considering they, more or less, are a monopoly. 9 billion dollar business and they dont pay taxes, but I can promise you since the FCC is a defunct agency, they are buying off such government agencies to keep their monopoly.

For the NFL to make threats like that, it has a arrogance believing fans will follow them. Since they've been caught doing all kinds of stuff behind fans, and players backs there already losing their fan base.

Re:NFL is a business/monopoly

[radarskiy]

They only have power over the people who signed contracts with them.

Why would anyone go willingly to the stadium?

[Opportunist]

That's the main problem you have there. At home, on the screen, you simply and plainly get the better experience. Now, I'm no expert on sports, but it doesn't take an avid watcher to notice the immediate advantage of sitting at home over going to the game.

1. Cheap drink & snacks. No need to explain. You understand it even if you don't care about sports, you have the same deal with movies.
2. Better view. Even if you have a front row seat right at the 50 yards sideline, you can't compete with a dozen cameras showing the game from every possible angle. You get an overview to see how the play unfolded, you get a closeup of the catch, hell, even the referees don't have that kind of luxury overview you get on TV.
3. No hassle getting to or from the game.
4. If the game stinks, just flip over to some movie and keep flipping back now and then to see whether it improves.
5. And of course you can do something while watching your game on TV. Personally I can't really concentrate on watching something if it's fractured like football or, worse, baseball, where moments of action are interrupted by long times of boredom for too long without getting incredibly bored.

So, tell me again, why the fuck should I go to the stadium, pay a fortune for a ticket where I'll then sit next to Bob who had onions for lunch, somewhere about a mile from the field where the players look like they are sprites of a badly done C64 game?

Re:Why would anyone go willingly to the stadium?

[CastrTroy]

Not only that, but perhaps if they can't fill a stadium, it's because they are asking too much for tickets. I'm not sure what NFL tickets cost, but if it's going the same way as the NHL, then they are bordering on completely unaffordable for most people. When it's minimum $200 to take your family to a game, or closer to $500 if you want some good seats where you can actually see what's going on, then it's no wonder people don't got to the stadium. The only people who go are people who decide to treat themselves and go to one game a year, or people who have a lot of money.

Re:Why would anyone go willingly to the stadium?

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot the most important part!!! After drinking 3 8$ beers who can stand to wait in line for 30 minutes to use the restroom???? OMGWTFBBQ

Re:Why would anyone go willingly to the stadium?

[Dutch Gun]

At home, on the screen, you simply and plainly get the better experience.

From a purely logical or intellectual viewpoint, you're absolutely correct. But watching sports isn't an intellectual exercise, and I don't mean that in a disparaging way.

Have you ever been to a live concert? A magic show? A broadway musical or play? How about a technical conference or lecture where you listen to someone really interesting speaking? There's nothing at those events that, objectively speaking, couldn't be better delivered to your home entertainment system in the comfort and safety in your own home.

Human beings are social creatures, and enjoy experiencing interesting and entertaining events while in the company of others. For a sports event, sharing the thrill of possible victory or defeat with thousands of other fans around you is also about sharing in a certain camaraderie. Unless you're a fan yourself and already enjoy the game, or if you really hate crowds in general, it's probably hard to understand the appeal.

I can strike up a friendly conversation with anyone wearing my home team colors and feel pretty confident that we have something in common to talk about. When my team comes back from near-certain defeat and wins the game in overtime, I'm in my seat, shouting and cheering, and giving high-fives to other like-minded fans around me whether I know them or not. The roar of the crowd is a visceral experience, adding to the excitement and helping to create an experience that's very different than watching the game from home. It feels more like you're a bit closer to participating in the game itself, because you know your home team can hear you cheering for them - not individually, of course, but certainly collectively.

Football season is almost here. This 12 is ready. Go Hawks!

Re:Why would anyone go willingly to the stadium?

[Anonymous Coward]

$8 beers at a stadium? Holy shit that is cheap. I cannot even get soda or even water for that cheap at the stadium here. The stadium here seemingly has better restroom capacity though. Either that, or the lines are so short because no one can afford the far overpriced food and liquid.

Re:Why would anyone go willingly to the stadium?

[Anonymous Coward]

"But watching sports isn't an intellectual exercise"

I agree!

"and I don't mean that in a disparaging way."

OK, you lost me here...

Re:Why would anyone go willingly to the stadium?

[Anonymous Coward]

yes we get it, you dont enjoy large social events, many other people do. its a fun and exciting way to enjoy an event, and is also a very easy way meet people and make new friends.
enjoy your sports/concerts/events in the comfort of your mom's darkened basement

Re:Why would anyone go willingly to the stadium?

[Afty0r]

You are clearly one of a VERY small minority of people who prefer to NOT socialise.

Most of the rest of us enjoy doing things in groups, it's a primal thing and appeals to our base urges, especially if we get to be all tribal about it.

Re:Why would anyone go willingly to the stadium?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the main problem you have there. At home, on the screen, you simply and plainly get the better experience. Now, I'm no expert on sports, but it doesn't take an avid watcher to notice the immediate advantage of sitting at home over going to the game.

1. Cheap drink & snacks. No need to explain. You understand it even if you don't care about sports, you have the same deal with movies. 2. Better view. Even if you have a front row seat right at the 50 yards sideline, you can't compete with a dozen cameras showing the game from every possible angle. You get an overview to see how the play unfolded, you get a closeup of the catch, hell, even the referees don't have that kind of luxury overview you get on TV. 3. No hassle getting to or from the game. 4. If the game stinks, just flip over to some movie and keep flipping back now and then to see whether it improves. 5. And of course you can do something while watching your game on TV. Personally I can't really concentrate on watching something if it's fractured like football or, worse, baseball, where moments of action are interrupted by long times of boredom for too long without getting incredibly bored.

So, tell me again, why the fuck should I go to the stadium, pay a fortune for a ticket where I'll then sit next to Bob who had onions for lunch, somewhere about a mile from the field where the players look like they are sprites of a badly done C64 game?

Because you're watching it in a location with a thousands of other people.

And, maybe you'll sit next to Tracey the supermodel. Or even if it is Bob, maybe Bob is actually a really nice guy who will help you out with the big problem you are having.

You really want to be a cliche of the lonely guy with a big TV and fancy speakers thinking that is life.

Re:Why would anyone go willingly to the stadium?

[Ruprecht the Monkeyb]

I know, right? I mean, why would anyone go to a concert when they can listen to the same music on their headphones, pause when they want, not have to worry if the lead singer has a sore throat, or deal with the second-hand pot smoke?Or go to the theater to see a play when it's probably been made into a movie you could torrent and watch for free?

There are a lot of people that enjoy the live sports experience. The NFLs problem with blackouts isn't the overall product or experience. Blackouts are only a problem in small markets with perennially shitty teams Even the team with the worst attendance had 400,000 attendees at home games last year. The problem consumers have with blackouts isn't that it prevents them from seeing their local team, it's that it prevents them from seeing other out of market teams. Even though the networks broadcast two early and two late games, if your local team is playing, they have to show that and can't show the other conference games. It's twice as bad if you live in a television market with one team from each conference.

Re:Why would anyone go willingly to the stadium?

[drinkypoo]

2. Better view. Even if you have a front row seat right at the 50 yards sideline, you can't compete with a dozen cameras showing the game from every possible angle. You get an overview to see how the play unfolded, you get a closeup of the catch, hell, even the referees don't have that kind of luxury overview you get on TV.

A lot of people take a TV with them so they can see the replays. These days, they fit in your pocket.

So, tell me again, why the fuck should I go to the stadium,

Either you want to be surrounded by other excited people, or you don't.

Re:Why would anyone go willingly to the stadium?

[hibiki_r]

Regular, over the air TV football is not really better for the football geeks, because camera selection is based on what is more spectacular, but misses quite a bit of action. You only get to see a wide receiver when the ball is thrown in his direction. Is he playing his best and getting beat? Is the QB just missing open receivers? Is a receiver just not trying when he is not the top option, giving away where the play is really going? Good luck getting any of that from the TV broadcast.

There is a camera that shows everything through: All 22 players, all the time. But since it's very far away, it trades bring close to the action away in exchange for great Xs and Os information.

It'd be far better to have this camera, which coaches use all the time, along with a close view of the action, but the only good way of getting close to that live is to have what an offensive coordinator has: Access to the TV broadcast, while being able to watch the game live from a relatively high vantage point, instead of down at the sidelines.

Re:Why would anyone go willingly to the stadium?

[Anonymous Coward]

im going to assume english isnt your first language, even a child learning to read would not have responded to what i said as stupidly as you did

Re:Why would anyone go willingly to the stadium?

[buck-yar]

Also there's people that don't like how cameramen video the event. Worst is the NBA. The camera gets caught following the ball around and its tough to see the other 9 players. Or when they zoom in on the ball at its being shot so it fills the screen, but the cameraman isn't good enough to keep it centered and it moves all over the screen.

Re:Why would anyone go willingly to the stadium?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Have you ever been to a live concert? A magic show? A broadway musical or play? How about a technical conference or lecture where you listen to someone really interesting speaking? There's nothing at those events that, objectively speaking, couldn't be better delivered to your home entertainment system in the comfort and safety in your own home."

Goddamnit i wish live concerts were broadcast on teevee. Why has that never been a thing?

I might go back to owning a teevee if there was as much live music coverage as there is live sports coverage.

Re:Why would anyone go willingly to the stadium?

[dunkelfalke]

No, that is not it.
I've been on several gigs where the performer sounds better than their canned performance. Also the pyrotechnics - the blasts, the heatwaves - yet impossible to achieve the same on TV.
Well, also the little things like when Loreena McKennitt was in Mainz, it was an open air gig and since the Frankfurt airport was in close vicinity there were airplanes regularly overflying the area, so she commented on one "this is not my flight". It was cute.
For me, other fans are annoying. But it is still better live.

Re:Why would anyone go willingly to the stadium?

[Overzeetop]

15 years ago it was close to $300 each for decent seats in San Francisco. The only Pro game I've seen was a pregame San Diego game at $60 a seat. At $60 a seat, it was worth it and a lot of fun. At a couple hundred, there's no reason to bother.

Re:Why would anyone go willingly to the stadium?

[Opportunist]

If I wanted friends, I'd get a Facebook account...

But in all seriousness. I'm not really comfortable in large crowds. I do enjoy a football night with a couple friends over, but that's the key here: FRIENDS. People I know and I like. That's about as social as I willingly get.

Re:Why would anyone go willingly to the stadium?

[Fnord666]

Either you want to be surrounded by other drunk and obnoxious people, or you don't.

FTFY

Re:Why would anyone go willingly to the stadium?

[volmtech]

Can you explain why I wasted $90 for a ticket to see ZZ Top? How will I know they are not lip syncing to a CD? Can't see their lips so they don't even need to pretend.

Re:Why would anyone go willingly to the stadium?

[Anonymous Coward]

Everything you say is true for a practical person. The stadium experience is for people that enjoy tailgating and being a part of the noise. It is not for everyone, but some people just love those social elements.

I would be more shocked that a team cannot sell out games. That team should immediately move to LA.

Re:Why would anyone go willingly to the stadium?

[eth1]

Human beings are social creatures, and enjoy experiencing interesting and entertaining events while in the company of others. For a sports event, sharing the thrill of possible victory or defeat with thousands of other fans around you is also about sharing in a certain camaraderie. Unless you're a fan yourself and already enjoy the game, or if you really hate crowds in general, it's probably hard to understand the appeal.

Which is why I know where the good sports bars are. They're easier to get to, free parking, the food is better, the beer is better, and on game days, they're usually packed with other fans. You have multiple large screens with the better TV viewpoint, too, and they have cable, in case the game isn't on broadcast TV (which is all I have at home).

Re:Why would anyone go willingly to the stadium?

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of us feel even more isolated when surrounded by lots of people who insist on ignoring us.

Re:Why would anyone go willingly to the stadium?

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of is about bragging rights. If your team wins the SB, it would be nice to talk about the times you sat up there in the stands, even if it was a couple years removed from the SB run.

It's like the difference between going to a Rolling Stones concert, and listening to all of their records on an ipod. With the former, you have more of a feeling of being a really committed fan who can talk to other committed fans as a peer.

Re:Why would anyone go willingly to the stadium?

[Anonymous Coward]

You've never had a football (or insert other sport here) party?

Re:Why would anyone go willingly to the stadium?

[RyoShin]

Most of the rest of us enjoy doing things in groups

If by "groups" you mean a number of friends/relatives, you would still have a far superior experience at home if everyone pooled the money they would spend on tickets and instead bought a large and very nice TV(+sound system.) Can't find hard data on a quick search, but this suggests that even the lowest per-team ticket average is $106; so amongst 5 friends you can get a 50" TV, or a 40" and decent sound system, according to a quick check from Amazon. You don't have to compete with surrounding noise to talk, snacks/drinks are all to your liking (with the only limit being supply), people aren't in a single line and have to shift around to talk to someone else, and you save money on gas. Added bonus: Nice TV afterward (you could raffle it off amongst those who paid, or sell it and split the proceeds amongst those who chipped in; it's not like you can take the stadium seats home with you after the game, so you're not out anything more.)

I can understand a sense of camaraderie with fellow fans might enhance the enjoyment, but I don't consider merely being around people of like mind "socializing", and from my (admittedly limited; 2 or 3 games in my life) experience attending people don't really strike up a conversation with someone next to them.

NFL is boring - Only exists for the Advertisers

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should anyone want to watch it is beyond me. There are plenty more exciting sports.

Take Kabbadi for example. WTF you might say.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabaddi

I saw plenty of it in India. Fantastic skill and you don't have to hide the players under layers of padding in case the poor babes get injured.
Sadly I'm too old to play it myself but there are plenty of videos available. Take a look and you might be surprised at how good it is.

New For Nerds, stuff that matters?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this tripe on slashdot?

Who the fuck cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

C'min, NFL is shit and why the fuck should geeks and nerds care about this tripe?

Re:Who the fuck cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

did you know that it is possible for people, even geeks and nerds, to have more than one interest? some even enjoy sports, regardless of how bad you happen to be at them. some like girls, even though you probably lack the skill to even speak to one.
now that you know, you can do more with your time than reading slashdot and masturbating in the basement

Re:Who the fuck cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Masturbating in the basement is an actual useful use of time, unlike watching idiots smash into each other for 10 seconds then 5 minutes of advertising

So given you are reading Slashdot, how good are you at masturbating?

Re:Who the fuck cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

i'm damn good at masturbating, i also happen to enjoy going to baseball games and sometimes meet women willing to take care of the job for me. please dont try it, we dont want an accident resulting in another one of you

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Wrong Organization

[Anonymous Coward]

If one were to, you know, look at FCC's Rules on Sports Blackouts, you'd notice that basically the only blackouts the FCC requires involving sports involve exclusive broadcast rights on broadcast TV requiring blackouts on cable/satellite (and even then:

Sports programming that originates on broadcast television (programming that originates on cable or satellite channels or systems is not affected); and
Cable systems with 1,000 or more subscribers, and satellite television systems with 1,000 or more subscribers within a certain zip code.

)

The short and long of it is that (1) the NFL has cornered the market on getting local governments to back stadium construction through loans and tax breaks and (2) cornered the market on exclusive broadcasting rights to effectively ban local broadcasts to allow ridiculous ticket prices for anyone local to actually watch the game--this latter part, btw, is likely what the local government wants anyways as it removes a lot of the plebs and grants a higher tax revenue when the tax breaks end (or are reduced).

Going and whining to the FCC as if they're responsible entirely misses the point except in so far as the FCC may have some sort of obligation to demand that public broadcasts be used to allow local people to watch games they're effectively subsidizing in multiple ways (tax breaks for the stadium and broadcast rights for the tv stations). Yet, I think that too much of a stretch, personally, given that it's quite clear that the FCC's job is not to be some sort of universal enforcer on tv broadcasters. This, like the issue with Verizon's throttling, are issues the FTC should be taken to task to deal with as clearly the real issue in both cases are ones of fair trade.

Government paid for stadiums

[Firethorn]

I happen to agree with you. We're downright illogical about our sports, but given the number of government built stadiums out there that sports teams normally get dedicated access to for next to nothing, it's not out of line to expect some concessions.

Re:We all pay either way

[d0wnthe11235813]

this and the fact that the NFL is a registered non-profit organization. if they make $9b and block the broke local fans to try and shake out more money from those who help pay for the venue then i say to hell with that

Similar in the UK...

[Anonymous Coward]

All Saturday 3pm kick off (the historical standard time for games to be played) football games in the Premier League are not allowed (at all) to be shown live on ANY UK TV channel. I presume this is also to protect ticket sales at the clubs. A slight difference is that there is no live football from the Premier League on free TV at all.

People just get around this by watching an internet stream, usually from a US or Arab sports channel network, or going to an enterprising pub that shows such a stream or foreign satellite channel (very dodgy legally).

A lot of teams in the Premier League make a loss, so although the Premier League itself makes a profit, the money from ticket sales does directly affect each club. The smaller clubs rarely sell out, unless they are playing a big team.

Re:Similar in the UK...

[Gogo0]

people watch streams? but thats impossible! according to the leagues, if the option to watch from home existed then the stadiums would be empty!

Re:Similar in the UK...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not an option they give, it's an illegal option that's available :)

Re:Similar in the UK...

[Anonymous Coward]

Official option or not, NFL and Football's argument is that if people CAN watch instead of going, they'll stay at home.
This argument breaks down with the fact that people are able to see games unofficially and yet attendance has not been noticably affected (if at all)

Re:Similar in the UK...

[mjwalshe]

Just be thank full that Rupert Murdoch doesn't have a lock on the NFL as he does on the premiership until recently football fans had to pay the Murdoch tax to watch any premiership games

Re:Similar in the UK...

[Smauler]

This is not to protect Premier League teams, this is to protect smaller league teams. Most Premier League teams operate at a profit, especially the smaller ones, due to the huge TV revenues.

For Americans who don't know, there are over 100 full time professional football (soccer) teams in the England alone, and they're relatively well supported. Here's the attendances for today's games in League 2, averaging about 4,000. League 2 is the 4th division in the UK, the worst fully professional division (Premiership > Championship > League 1 > League 2.... it used to be just division 1, 2, 3 & 4, but marketing). Sheffield Utd, in League 1, got 20,000 today.

I think one of the big differences between US sport and just about everywhere else is that there's promotion and relegation just about everywhere else. Teams in the US can be completely shit, and it can be an advantage because they get good draft picks the next season. If you're shit in England, you get booted down a league, whoever you are.

p.s. I'm a Colchester Utd fan (League 1).

Re:Similar in the UK...

[Anonymous Coward]

We still do, although the tax is now either to Murdoch or BT (or both if you want it all, which could be even worse!). Only highlights are available on free TV, hours after the event.

"a substantial loss of consumer welfare"

[bistromath007]

I might never stop laughing.

Re:"a substantial loss of consumer welfare"

[gnupun]

It's a loss because what you could watch on free OTA TV would now be available only on cable.

Re:"a substantial loss of consumer welfare"

[rogoshen1]

This boils down to pettiness and the logic the RIAA used against piracy. Each 'freeloader' represents lost revenue. It's just as wrong here. The consumer is willing to pay 0 dollars to watch either the game in person; or ads interspersed with football (presumably they don't have cable). Clearly that's costing the NFL oodles of money.

So, move the games to cable. The consumer doesn't get to watch the game at all, the NFL loses eyeballs for those ads they would have been showing to other 'freeloaders', and no one wins. Except the cable company.

Meanwhile just about every NFL team plays this game with their host cities "Build/upgrade the stadium, at tax payer expense; or we'll move to another city".

I fail to see why this is relevant...

[roger10-4]

I fail to see how this is relevant to the /. audience or how this matters in any meaningful way. It is professional sports after all...quite possibly one to the most useless aspects of our culture.

Re:I fail to see why this is relevant...

[Anonymous Coward]

you also forgot to mention that nfl is gay

Re:I fail to see why this is relevant...

[Anonymous Coward]

thanks for your slashdot post, its contribution to the discussion and our culture is truly immeasurable.

Re:I fail to see why this is relevant...

[Anonymous Coward]

I fail to see how this is relevant to the /. audience or how this matters in any meaningful way. It is professional sports after all...quite possibly one to the most useless aspects of our culture.

Because /.ers are voracious consumers of media and professional sports is a large producer of media.

Also, the local sports team support club is a great way to show group affiliation. Knowledge of local sporting entities gives you a common theme to socialize since professional sports are personality based and are a natural conversation piece among people with differing technical expertise.

Re:I fail to see why this is relevant...

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, dude, you're spending a lot of time telling us how we should care that you watch sport.

We get it. You like sport. That's fine.

We don't give a fuck.

This is (or at least is supposed to be) a nerd news website, not a jock news website. Take your crude, overpaid and over-billed public-funded tribalistic war shit somewhere else. There are better things that money could be used for.

Re:I fail to see why this is relevant...

[Fnord666]

I fail to see how this is relevant to the /. audience or how this matters in any meaningful way. It is professional sports after all...quite possibly one to the most useless aspects of our culture.

It is relevant to today's /. because it is a controversial topic that is likely to draw many comments which turn into page views and ad impressions. You must be thinking about the old /. which went away quite some time ago.

Having said that, it is also meaningful to you because you likely pay, via several different avenues such as taxes and cable fees, money to support the NFL.

Here's a thought for the NFL

[HangingChad]

If I don't get the games on terms I want, then I'll go do something else, watch movies on Netflix or play video games and your advertisers can go pound sand. What a bunch of arrogant, self-entitled bastards. Fuck you and the corporate jet you rode into town on.

As usual when businesses fuck their customer base

[ruir]

Boycott them. But them when we are talking about religion and sports people tend to be irracional about it.

Re:We all pay either way

[enjar]

Local team games are always broadcast OTA when they are on NFL Network or ESPN. IIRC it's a FCC rule that they have to do it.

Of course that has little to do with the public funding of private enterprises that are wildly profitable and make millions of dollars. I enjoy watching football, but there are many better things to spend public money on. Roads, bridges, schools, universities, libraries, etc. are all for more generally useful than a stadium that stays vacant the majority of the year.

Go to a team web site and see the ticket prices

[tquasar]

I had season tickets years ago. Our seats were in the nosebleed section and the cost was pretty high. We met some really great people and started parking in the same area every week, had a pre and post game party. Now a season ticket for the San Diego Chargers is $1100.00. Or sit in the cheap seats to watch a losing team for $50.00 or $75.00.Think end zone. Parking is $25.00. Food and beverages? What is the cost of four hot dogs or what you order and beverages at your sports place? . http://www.chargers.com/ticket...

No it does not make 9 billion profit.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

NFL is a non-profit organization. It does not make any profit. What you call 9 billion dollar profit, might look like profit, walk like profit, bark like profit, smell like profit, bite like profit. But it is NOT profit. IRS will not get a dime.

America has been consistently electing politicians who promise to cut taxes. And they have been dutifully cutting the taxes for the richest people (and corporations which are people). But corporations are special citizens who can claim a non-profit status and exempt themselves from taxation. It is very expensive to create a new people-citizen. But corporate citizen is just a 25$ filing fee, no nine month waiting period, no active cooperation between two different people required. Corporation-people don't go to jail. They can be killed when it is suitable without any penalty. But corporation-people can be enslaved by other corporation-people and people-people. Corporation-people can have religious beliefs when it is profitable to have them. But they don't have religious responsibilities .

Don't blame the politicians. Blame ourselves, collectively.

Re:No it does not make 9 billion profit.

[radicimo]

Don't blame the politicians. Blame ourselves, collectively.

Yes, blame the politicians. To paraphrase Pogo, I have met the politician and he is us.

NFL is a non-profit organization. It does not make any profit. What you call 9 billion dollar profit, might look like profit, walk like profit, bark like profit, smell like profit, bite like profit. But it is NOT profit.

Damn straight Skippy!

http://www.sportsonearth.com/a...

That's the heart of the problem. Fsck the brain-dramaged NFL oligarchy. We the public have given them too much, and the real question is can we revoke what has been given? Do the lawyers and politicians really speak for the public good. Do they represent us (or at least some craven manifestation of our collective unconscious?)

There is a subtle shift in power taking place within the sports world right now as evidenced by the lawsuits vs NCAA and NFL by players and former players, the ouster of Donald Sterling, and any number of other more minor incidents. Those are taking place between labor and management in the courts, and in public opinion, in as much as anyone is paying attention, which most probably do not as long as they get their sports fix on a metered dose.

Re:No it does not make 9 billion profit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Protip: revenue isn't profit.

Re:No it does not make 9 billion profit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Revenue =/= profit

You changed my mind, except government

[raymorris]

You actually have a good point. If someone wants to hire me, they can pay my price, or I can choose not to work for them. If I don't want to pay for NFL tickets, or NFL Network, I can simply choose not to do so. I have no right to force them to work at a price I set.

That said, the FCC doesn't need to enforce this rule. The NFL can negotiate with the teams and the TV stations. The government doesn't need to do the NFL' s dirty work for them.

Re:You changed my mind, except government

[Desler]

Sure, at the same time revoke their anti-trust exemptions, revoke their tax breaks and make them back pay with interest the taxpayer money used to build their stadiums.

Re:You changed my mind, except government

[dryeo]

It's amazingly hard not to pay them. You have to carefully pick where you live (property taxes supporting the local team and federal government passing special laws for them) and any content you consume (many cable packages include paying for ESPN which shovels money at the NFL and possibly even some cell plans include ESPN).
Easiest is to move away from N. America and if American, revoke your citizenship if you really don't want any of your money going to the NFL.

Re:You changed my mind, except government

[fxsoap]

Is that really true? There is no way to avoid this in the US without choosing your home location that carefully?

Re:You changed my mind, except government

[dryeo]

From what I hear, many cable packages include paying ESPN and therefore the NFL. Same with many ISPs, they pay for ESPN and get the money from subscribers and now cell phone providers are offering streaming football.

Re:Class Warfare

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't $9 billion revenue just a little too much for a non-profit to be complaining about making?

2,500 year old comment

[nightcats]

Lao Tzu, who seems to have a line for every human inanity compressed into his 81 little poems, said (in my translation):

"There is no greater disaster, no blinder ignorance
than not knowing when you have enough."

The NFL is a NON-Profit Organization

[DrTime]

Why is the NFL permitted to operate as non-profit when it controls so much of the experience and generates so much revenue?

That alone should get this rule changed.

And as others have pointed out, tax payers build the stadiums for these teams, so we should be able to watch them.

BTW - I am not a sports fan. I watch the super bowl only, and even then, I channel surf.

Who cares about this stuff anyway?

Re:The NFL is a NON-Profit Organization

[Trepidity]

It's a special case written into nonprofit law by Congress specifically for the NFL (not even sports leagues in general). The more familiar nonprofit status, 501(c)(3) charities, include amateur sports leagues but not professional sports leagues. But then there's 501(c)(6) status, which is basically a grab-bag of industry/trade organizations that would probably not otherwise qualify as nonprofit, but are given that status anyway:

(6) Business leagues, chambers of commerce, real-estate boards, boards of trade, or professional football leagues (whether or not administering a pension fund for football players), not organized for profit and no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual.

Re:The NFL is a NON-Profit Organization

[bws111]

Do you know what profit is? It has nothing to do with 'controlling the experience' or 'generating so much revenue.' Profit is income minus expenses. While everyone likes focusing on the revenue number, they conveniently ignore the expenses, which happen to be exactly the same as the revenue. Why? Because all the revenue the NFL makes is distributed to the teams, which are NOT non profits and DO pay taxes.

Way to go!

[Anonymous Coward]

That will win the fans over for sure.

Not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently, /. is not the place to find people that understand sports.

The blackout rules aren't for the league's benefit, but for the benefit of the team owners. They need to fill the seats. By blocking local OTA TV until the stadium is filled, they have a sure way to fill the seats. Typically, the local broadcasters buy any remaining tickets just before the start of the game because that is cheaper than losing their advertising revenue.

If you have a problem with stupid stadium deals made by your local government, you should take it up with your local government. Requiring that the owners lose revenue will just cause the next stupid deal.

How to vote with wallet?

[tepples]

So just stop watching it, then.

Sure, one can stop watching NFL football. But how would someone go about subscribing to MSNBC, Fox News, or any other cable TV channel without paying for ESPN and Monday Night Football? Or is this an issue over which people are expected to give up multichannel subscription television entirely?

Driven by revenue split?

[clay_buster]

The team/league/player revenue split is different between televised games and game tickets. I'd guess the team owners want to push to fill the stadium because of the revenue. They get game broadcast revenues either way since their game will probably broadcast outside the local area even if it isn't a sellout

USFL is a business, coming in 2015

[tepples]

But why does every pro football player have to play ticket-selling (i.e. commercial) matches under the umbrella of the NFL?

It doesn't. The United States Football League, a new minor league of professional American football, is scheduled to kick off in 2015. Ability to start your own league is a big difference between football and so-called e-sports, as unlike a video game publisher, the NFL lacks legal power to shut down a competing league.

Re:We all pay either way

[tepples]

The NFL doesn't make money. The team makes money. The NFL is just an administrative association to which the teams belong.

Its teams do though

[tepples]

NFL is a non-profit organization. It does not make any profit. [...] IRS will not get a dime.

As I understand it, the NFL's not-profit goes straight back to the teams. The IRS sees the NFL's not-profit when each team pays income tax on its own profit.

Re:Its teams do though

[sysrammer]

Yeah, I was going to mention this too. Taxing the league then taxing the owners would be double-taxation. A popular notion the world over, but not exactly fair.

Eh, they charge what the market will bear. Don't like it? Vote w/ your pocket-book.

Here in LA, the Dodgers made a great deal w/ Time-Warner for TV rights. Time-Warner overpaid, and the end result is 2/3 of the audience is unable to watch it, for any price. I'm pissed, so I resolved to go to no games this year. I don't like it, but I'm putting my money where my mouth is.

That is all. I've used up my quota of aphorisms today.

Re:Its teams do though

[tepples]

Don't like it? Vote w/ your pocket-book.

How would one go about that, as I asked in another comment?

Re:Its teams do though

[Sarius64]

By your analogy, taxing any corporation is double taxation. Personally, even if this were true I'd be all for it for the bullshit we have to put up with NFL owners and players.

Re:Its teams do though

[sysrammer]

Well, in my case, I resolved to not go to any games. If enough people do that to hurt ticket sales, then it's a win. If they see tic sales go up because people can't see it on TV, they win. And the Dodgers will look brilliant and become a case study at business colleges.

Sounds like a terrorist threat to me

[Khyber]

"result would represent a substantial loss of consumer welfare."

Welfare is the provision of a minimal level of well-being and social support for all citizens. This sounds like they're threatening our lowest basic levels of well-being.

Sounds like the NFL needs to be classified as a terrorist organization.

NFL is a non-profit organization...

[QuietLagoon]

... as such it does not have to pay taxes on its revenue. Plus local and/or state governments usually fund the stadiums the NFL uses.

.
Then there is the entire health problem with all the head injuries.

It really makes me wonder why the NFL is so pervasive in our society.

Re:NFL is a non-profit organization...

[Anonymous Coward]

... as such it does not have to pay taxes on its revenue. Plus local and/or state governments usually fund the stadiums the NFL uses.

The league is non profit but all the teams are for profit and do play taxes. That league revenue is split among the teams.

Free TV?

[buckfeta2014]

"claiming that the rule allows it to keep airing their games on free TV"

Last time I checked, the TV stations have to pay a hefty fee in order to have the privilege of broadcast sporting events.

This whole thing smacks of "I need more money".

Re:We all pay either way

[Anonymous Coward]

The NFL itself operates in the red every year. Costs outweigh expenses for the "NFL Events" (the Draft, the Combine, the Hall of Fame induction and things like that,) not to mention the NFL staff that doesn't make the league any money directly. The 32 member teams, each an independent corporation in their own right, pay league dues to make up the shortfall in "NFL" revenue.

$9 billion is the sum of the revenue from the "NFL Events" plus the revenue from the "Team Events." The Team events are primarily games, and that's where the NFL teams (and really the NFL itself) makes its money. The teams each send checks for their share of the $9 billion. It's just not one big check from "The NFL."

Silicon Valley

[Anonymous Coward]

We need a need new Football League for Americans, an OpenNFL or FreeNFL, a free and open source experience for web viewing to watch Craft professional football players in the 21 century.

If it isn't over OTA I am not buying it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry NFL, I will not switch from free over the air HDTV to pay TV for watching football. I will give it up. Really, I cut the cord a few years ago and $75-90 extra in my pocket every month is worth it. If it isn't on free OTA you are getting advertising to me...

Opt Out

[speedlaw]

When my cableco hit me for a $5 per month "sports programming fee", or $60.00 per year, my response was to snip the cable cord-don't miss cable, with endless reality and infomercials, at all. Sports is the only thing they really have left, isn't it ?

Re:Opt Out

[sysrammer]

Good solution, don't blame you. OTOH, I'd love the opportunity to watch the Dodgers in LA, and am willing to pay the fee. Unfortunately I don't have the option.

Yeah, there's a lot of shit out there. I can't believe what some people want to watch. And, some would have the same opinion of some of the things I watch. I have a DVR, and it's always stuffed full of things that I like and generally don't have time to get to, but it's there when I want it. And there's the skip button for when the commercials become annoying.

If I could get the things that I like to watch off of the net, I would consider dropping the cable and upgrading my networking infrastructure to handle it.

Wish they'd black my team out more often

[Anonymous Coward]

As bad as my team (unnamed here) is, I wish they'd black them out more often.

Blackouts in the Bay Area..

[HockeyPuck]

I live in the SanFrancisco area, home to two teams (niners and raiders)... and the blackout rules are killing me...

*There's two primary time slots on Sundays when the majority of teams play (not including the Sunday night game).
*The NFL will never schedule both teams to play at the same time.
*If the game isn't sold out, it's not televised.
*The NFL will not allow another game to be shown on TV if a local game is blacked out.

If I lived in Nebraska, I would have the option of watching four games (2 early games and 2 later games). However, I've had more than enough Sunday's whereby both the niners and the raiders didn't sell enough tickets and thus BOTH slots were blacked out.

I'm not going to watch a game at the Oakland Colesium and having visited the new Levis Stadium, I won't be going there either (transportation is a disaster). They'd get my advertising dollars by watching them on TV tho.

cheap

[gerardrj]

So the consumers love their team so much they always want to watch the team play. They just don't want to pay for tickets or pay for the TV channel to watch.
Maybe it is time for the major league sports teams to just give in and make watching their games completely free and supported by advertising. I mean we're pretty far along already. Adverts on the screen all the time, swooshing adverts on the screen intermittently, adverts between plays, commercials, logos all over the field, etc.
Let's just for for the gusto... "Frito Lay presents the snapping the ball the quarterback, as he fades back in the team's signature Cadillac move. He Snickers tosses the ball to the wide receiver who's catch is sponsored by Taco Bell and runs to the Minute Maid mid-field where he's taken down by Office Max's linebacker.

Look.. the teams in cities and states have 0 to do with the city or state any more, the players are from all over the world, training camps are in another part of the county and they'd relocate for a deal that made them 2% more money. The stadiums are owned by the team and they sell the naming rights to the highest bidder.
Just go full out commercial with this stupid professional games stuff.

Re:cheap

[Anonymous Coward]

So the consumers love their team so much they always want to watch the team play. They just don't want to pay for tickets or pay for the TV channel to watch.

You can't just "pay for the TV channel to watch." That's the problem with blackout rules. If you are in team X's home region and the game is blacked out then you can't get it. Even if you subscribe to DirecTV's NFL Sunday Ticket the game will be blacked out there as well. So you could just "pay for the TV channel to watch," but you'll be denied the ability to actually see the game due to blackout rules.

I think they should allow that. I can't imagine that blackout rules really drive a lot of fans to the stadium an hour before kickoff (usually teams or local channels buy up extra tickets). Why not allow fans to purchase live streaming of individual games for $10? Same thing with Sunday Ticket. I just want to see my team not all teams. Why do I have to pay $200 for the extra stuff I don't want? Why can't I pay $50 for my team? I guess you can tell I don't buy the NFL's faux concern for my "consumer welfare" one bit. Perhaps striking down the blackout rule may add consumer choice and value.

One more bullet point

[Anonymous Coward]

--NFL is a non-profit charitable organization.

Here's an idea...

[Anonymous Coward]

How about not paying some dumb athlete a salary equal to what many CEO's of major corporations make for wearing a shirt that says "rent this space to see your home town name here" and then pass on the savings? Then I bet the NFL could suffer through allowing free broadcast of their games (because we all know the team owners are eating nothing to canned beans in order to make ends meet - poor, suffering team owners...)

I mean honestly, some guy who runs around chasing a ball gets paid millions of dollars a year just because he puts some city's name on his shirt? (well, technically, they auction the space on their shirt - they have your city's name right up until some other city pays them more money - but we still seem to believe that somehow how person, aka mercenary, represents "us") How vain and shallow do we have to be to think that is a good way to spend our money?

No to blackouts and force viewership of local team

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd be alright with the blackout rules if they pertained to the actual fans of the team within a reasonable location near the stadium. But I have to watch Orioles broadcast, even though I am a Yankees fan, whenever they play my team. Not only that but Orioles Park is a 4 hour drive not accounting for traffic on I-95 which the traffic is always present and extremely heavy. Blackouts should pertain to a one hour limit and only for fans of that team.

How can not showing the game.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Result in them making more money? Granted, butts in the seats makes them money, but certainly the tv royalty fees paid to them for showing the game to a million(s?) of viewers for that one game is more than the gap between a partially full stadium and a sold out one? MLB shows every single game in its market, and there lucky to have 30% seats some games, AND have 112 whatever games a year.

Publically funded stadiums and anti-trust

[Anonymous Coward]

I get the free market rant, but that doesn't exist here. The NFL has an anti-trust exemption and most stadiums are strongly financed with public money. I would tell them that if they want to maintain the right to blackout the games, then they get to fully fund their stadiums and lose the anti-trust exemption. Then they can have the free market back that they most certainly do not want.

What the FUCK is this article doing on Slashdot ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Football is for brain-dead mouth-breathing fucktards to watch while they
avoid thinking about the harsh reality that they are serfs.

Slashdot has become a cesspool filled with idiots.

other sports are FAR worse

[simishag]

I'm not backing the NFL here, but this blackout rule doesn't bother me much and it has at least some basis in reality and fairness: to have a full stadium experience (I won't argue whether that's really worth it these days). IIRC, the doesn't kick in until 72 hours before kickoff, it only applies to networks within 75 miles and it only applies to local broadcast/cable TV (you still get the game on Sunday Ticket). And, in most cases, local businesses will buy up the unused tickets to give to charity, and the NFL relents, and the whole issue is moot.

I'm far more pissed with the blackout rules for MLB. I live in Las Vegas, I have the MLB.TV package, and I am blacked out from at least 6 teams (Dodgers, Angels, D-Backs, Padres, A's, Giants). None of those teams are within 300 miles of me, so I'm not driving to home games. And yet, I can't watch any of those teams, because (in theory) I should have access to those teams from my local cable network. But the cable cos and the networks like to bitch about retransmission fees and so I haven't seen the Dodgers all year.

The REALLY stupid blackout rule: Hawaii is blacked out from the Giants & A's. HAWAII !!!! I know there's kayaks in McCovey Cove every game, but I have yet to see any Polynesian catamarans.

Business leagues

[tepples]

If sport exhibition is a business, then I can't see why leagues in other sports wouldn't be be considered "business leagues", so long as all the "profit" goes back to the teams and is declared on the teams' respective tax returns.

Talk shows

[tepples]

Sports is the only thing they really have left, isn't it ?

That and live political talk shows, such as MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News, depending on which way you lean. And a lot of channels' web sites offer streaming but require viewers to log in with a name and password issued by a participating cable or satellite TV provider.

Collusion

[EmagGeek]

"Even if the FCC supports the petition, however, sports leagues can and probably will privately negotiate blackouts to boost their revenue."

That would be illegal, Poindexter. Corporations cannot collude to control prices.

Re:As usual when businesses fuck their customer ba

[Anonymous Coward]

Many consumers of videogames started boycotting Ubisoft years ago for their anti-PC practices. What happened was they just blamed the lack of sales on pirates and got worse. Boycotting does send a message, but how that message is interpreted is up to the organization that is being boycotted.

Why is this a Federal matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, I forgot, because SOMALIA!!!!11!!

All praise to the modern megastate.

Stadiums are massively expensive

[marcgvky]

Ticket revenue probably goes to maintaining those monstrous stadiums and huge salaries. If you take away their ability to control WHO sees the content and WHEN they see it, they couldn't rape fans for $100-$2000 per ticket. If there is only one local source to view the LIVE content (read: go to the game), the NBA can continue to charge OBSCENE fees for the tickets and morons will continue to pay those fees for the privileged of viewing the LIVE content.

.

Personally, I am a free market person. If fans weren't so rabidly willing to pay the OBSCENE ticket prices, the market would correct downward. However, it would seem that the market is willing to support these OBSCENE ticket prices, so game on!!

Temp solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Free streaming sites like vipbox, atdhe, and if you're on XBMC, download the SportsDevil app.

some truth to both sides of this

[Lawrence_Bird]

yes, a lot of teams have put their ticket prices in the stratosphere and have seen waiting lists vanish and in some cases, fail to sell tickets (season or otherwise). When the empty seats are not a large number the team ownership will often "buy" the surplus to avoid the blackout.

But getting rid of the black out could be even worse on revenues. At say 80K seats per game X 10 games, thats 800K tickets at .. $100 per (yes some are more, some may be less) thats $80 million in revenue. Remember that $9B of TV revenue is distributed across 32 teams, about $280M each. So that original $80M in ticket revenue is a big chunk of total team revenue. If a large % of attendees now decide to save money and just watch at home, demand plummets and with it revenue (either through decreased sales or sales at much lower price). If the NFL goes cable only you can fully assume your cable bill will rise. And those who do not use cable (ie, OTA only) will suffer.

Very much an exercise in tipping points.

Shigoto des

[See Attached]

Its business. Not Sport. Business. Would be interesting to consider the sum of salaries and expenses to the revenue derived from tickets and broadcast.

My provider has a 'broadcast only' option

[Anonymous Coward]

My provider has a 'broadcast only' option. I thought most did, or were even required to.

It gets me about 25 channels including 4 PBS stations (movies, BBC, nature, science, etc.), local sports (which I don't care much about), news (fox but not MSNBC - no big deal, there's this thing called the internet for news.) and the main broadcast networks for the once-in-a-blue moon decent TV series on those channels.

For the rest there is the library DVD collection (movies and most of the "premium" TV series), or online. I don't even use Netflix because between the library and PBS there is more than I even have time to watch.

I live in a 'dead zone' so switching to actual broadcast is not a workable option (would only get a few watchable channels at best, for a very minimum level of watchable) or I might drop cable TV altogether.

I specifically did this to avoid paying the sports extortion fee(s). On top of all the other price increases and dropped channels that just pissed me off.

Re:My provider has a 'broadcast only' option

[tepples]

I too wish to cut the cord entirely. I'm just looking for help getting over the last few hurdles:

My provider has a 'broadcast only' option. I thought most did, or were even required to.

True, but there's someone in my family sample willing to pay $30 per month extra for the channels that she can't get on "limited basic". She watches PBS, PBS Create, the other locals, C-SPAN, C-SPAN2, C-SPAN3, and MSNBC. And today I learned that she doesn't feel ready to sit down and learn to use XFINITY On Demand either; she prefers to watch things as they air.

fox but not MSNBC

Which isn't helpful for someone who explicitly wants to watch the Democrat Channel because the Republican Channel nauseates her.

no big deal, there's this thing called the internet for news.

Which isn't helpful for someone who prefers to watch from a recliner and listen while doing housework instead of reading while seated in front of her laptop.

Re:My provider has a 'broadcast only' option

[EvilJoker]

I just found out that my provider (TWC) includes the local broadcasts (and a few more, like TBS) even though I have NO TV service from them, just standard internet. Not sure how much more is there, I only found out when troubleshooting my internet connection.

Re:My provider has a 'broadcast only' option

[EvilJoker]

Most of the major news sites now have an autoplaying video on almost every story. Once they add the playlist, it'll be just like a TV channel, and just as useless.

Revenues != Profits

[Anonymous Coward]

Headline is misleading and lacking in any insight as to how business actually works. Therefore none of remainder of article can be trusted.

HOW I WAS CURED BY A POWERFUL MAN

[BeatriceMark]

Am Beatrice mark.I was HIV/AIDS positive for 3 years and i have been contacting fake Doctors who ran away with my hard earn money i felt hopeless, until i saw a testimony of how the lord spiritual has been healing people suffering from HIV and other diseases,i decided to give him a try by contacting him and today am free.i want to express a heart felt appreciation to the LORD SPIRITUAL for healing me. I have directed people with Cancer, Barren women, and those with different problem to him and he favored them differently.I have not seen any one as powerful as the lord spiritual. Just put him to test and see what he can do. (Seen is believing).for more information contact me on beatricemark0032@gmail.com. I vowed to testify of what he has done. For any problem just contact or email him on LORDSPIRITUAL@OUTLOOK.COM