Senators Threaten To Rescind NFL Antitrust Exemption

An anonymous reader writes In response to the FCC's discontinuation of rules that support the NFL's blackout policies, the NFL issued a statement indicating that it would nevertheless continue to enforce its blackout policies through its private contract negotiations with local networks. On Wednesday, however, Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) announced a bill that would rescind the antitrust exemption that enables the NFL to demand blackouts in the first place and formally warned the NFL to abandon blackouts altogether. The antitrust exemption gives sports leagues "legal permission to conduct television-broadcast negotiations in a way that otherwise would have been price collusion" and further allowed the formation of the NFL from two separate leagues. Meanwhile, the NFL enjoys a specialized tax status and direct monetary support from taxpayers to build arenas and stadiums.

Comments

I wish McCain would retire

[the_skywise]

This is obviously a payback to Comcast...

The point of having the blackouts to begin with is AGREED upon by the very cities that McCain is claiming to "protect". It brings foot traffic into the cities and increases sales to nearby restaurants and bars and let's not even go into ensuring that the stadium (which shares profits with the towns) is as near capacity as possible.

Now, if we want to completely privatize the stadiums I'm all for letting the free market do its thang. But, as McCain oddly points out, these are NOT private entities but basically defacto public partnerships.

Re:I wish McCain would retire

[rahvin112]

Stadium revenue isn't even 5% of the teams earnings anymore. It's so ridiculously small in fact that it's the entire reason cited by the FCC for abolishing the blackout restriction. They could literally give the tickets away and it wouldn't impact earnings in any significant manner.

The reason they don't cheapen the tickets is that by keeping prices high the owners can use the tickets like money. Court-side tickets are so expensive when they hand the mayor a season's worth of tickets he's bound to whatever the owner wants because they've given him the equivalent of $100K. But because they set the pricing on the seats they can declare the tickets worth less than $5. Those high priced tickets are essentially their own untraceable money that they can print at will.

Pro sports are absurd.

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't stand professional sports, the dollars involved, the fact that even though i can't stand watching sports i'm indirectly paying for them with taxes. I have over 300 fucking sports channels that are bundled that i want nothing to do with. And god forbid you live in an area where a new staduim is being built, you'll spend years living with construction noise, never again see parking near your home, and the best part waves of drunk loud assholes who get genuinely agressive for no reason other than you don't give a fuck about the ridiculous games they endorse.

everything about professional sports disgusts me.

Let's train children to idolize men who have accomplished nothing other than mastery of childrens games.

NFL is the worst of the bunch but they're all deplorable.

Re:Live by the sword, die by the sword

[mysidia]

Something tells me this Sports Blackout rule change thing is rather sudden and a distraction related to an upcoming election day.....

Yes, I agree blackouts suck, but at the end of the day NFL/etc have the right to control distribution of their content.

There are REAL issues our legislators need to address, such as getting rid of software patents, lowering taxes, and cutting spending, that would make me happy.

After the NLF, how about Wall Street?

[Required Snark]

If someone in Congress is willing to stand up to corrupt publicly subsidized major league sports, what about doing something about corrupt publicly subsidized financial institutions that have no actual oversight?

First, the public subsidy.

Fed funds, the U.S. overnight inter-bank lending rate, opened 0.08 percent, within the Federal Reserve’s target of zero to 0.25 percent, ICAP Plc, the world’s largest inter-dealer broker, said in an e-mailed statement.

Fed funds traded from 0.06 percent to 0.3125 percent yesterday, according to data posted on the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s website. The fed effective, or a volume-weighted average of rates on trades arranged by major brokers, was 0.09 percent.

This this is on Oct. 2 2014: 0.09% is free money. Who gets this free money: the big banks, B of A, Citi, Chase. Also the top four investment firms which are also banks: #1 Goldman Sachs, #2 Morgan Stanley, #3 JPMorgan Chase, #4 Bank of America Merrill Lynch. Note the overlap, there is no meaningful difference between banks and brokerage firms.

So what is the result? Why the Fed's Zero Interest Rate Policy Isn't Working.

But, the Fed’s problem – like Japan a decade ago – is as the International Monetary Fund puts it in its latest financial stability report, the economy is “bifurcated”. Many large American companies, particularly those with global operations, are highly profitable and liquid. Unsurprisingly, for them “bank lending conditions and capital market financing remain easy”, the IMF notes.

But many small and medium-sized companies – or the entities that typically create jobs inside America, not overseas – find it hard to raise funds. A survey conducted by the International Franchise Association in Washington, for example, notes that whereas in March half of its members expected credit conditions to improve soon, now less than a quarter expect any easing; even as Treasury yields fall.

And the lack of any effective oversight: Bank of America fined $7.65M over accounting blunder.

The Wall Street Journal reports the SEC charged BofA with breaking securities laws pertaining to record-keeping and internal controls after the bank disclosed in April that it had discovered a nearly $4 billion accounting error.

So 7,650,000 divided by 4,000,000,000 = 0.019125 or 1.9125%. Note that this error existed for years, and it meant that BofA saved a huge amount of money by having $4 billion less in capital reserves then was required.

But to understand what the fine really means it should be compared to the market capitation (total worth on the stock market), which on Oct 2 2014 was $177 billion. So 7,650,000 divided by 117,000,000,000 = 4.32203e-05 = .0000432203 = 0.00432203%. Ohh, that must have really really hurt.

No one was held accountable. No one lost their job, was demoted, got a bad mark on their permanent record. The stock holders end up paying the fine. That's what it means to have no effective oversight.

So the NFL is in trouble and B of A gets a fine valued at 0.00432203% of their current net worth. That is why my brain hurts.

Re:Live by the sword, die by the sword

[oh_my_080980980]

Hello ass hat who doesn't understand that football games are subsidized by tax payer money. The argument is that airing a game that does not sell out ticket sales cuts into their profits. The irony is the NFL makes most of it's money through TV contracts making that argument bogus - which is what the FCC found.