Slashdot Mirror
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.
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:
)
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.
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.