Slashdot Mirror
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.
The NFL obviously paid off some group of politicians to achieve their non-profit status. Now a new set of politicians have their hand out for another sweaty envelope filled with cash.
that being able to watch football is one of the only issues that's easy to get bipartisan support on
The NFL also gets nonprofit status on top of this. Could we do more to support them?
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
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.
1 - Startup
2 - Cash in
3 - Sell out
4 - Bro down
Comcast will need to due a lot of work if they want NFL Sunday ticket. There system right now does not have the room for it.
You charge too much for tickets/parking/hot dogs/beer, people don't go see your games. Threatening to not allow fans who won't bend over and lube up see the game is IMHO seriously bad business practice. Want to entice fans to games? Don't charge $500 per game for a family to go.
// prefer watching it on TV
/// except for the damned commercials
//// then again, when I went to the game they had "commercial timeouts".
/ haven't been to a game in 15 years
Congress actually threatening to do something good for a change?
...since "Redskins" is so harmful and offensive, how about we also ban the word 'nigger' from use in media? Or rescind copyright protection for anything that includes that offensive term.
I mean, this is all about protecting the feelings of oppressed minorities, right?
-Styopa
The linked legislation was initially introduced AND referred to Judiciary Committee in 2013 (18-Nov-2013). What am I missing?
https://www.congress.gov/bill/...
Stop, you are killing me!
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Last blackout for notable teams:
NY Giants: 1975
SF 49ers 1981
Dallas Cowboys 1990
Chicago Bears 1984
NE Patriots 1993
Washington Redskins 1965
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
The problem is not with the founding fathers, the problem is that all of our candidates are being bought and paid for by the same sponsors. The founding fathers did very well in designing what Socrates envisioned as a perfect Government 2,600 years ago. Put the blame in the right spot and things can actually get better. Of course petitioning your own candidates onto the ballot is hard, so you will most likely not do anything.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Glad I didn't catch the sport virus. When the cableco put a $6 per month charge (or $72.00 per year) on my bill for "sports programming" I checked my antenna and cut out all TV programming. Stream the rest. Worked for me. I enjoy going to games but not being forced to pay for them otherwise.
Well, they never bullied me. And I feel the same way.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
People love it. I know people that it's the only thing they care about. They didn't _have_ to bribe politicians. People cheerfully vote in favor of their stadiums just so they could have a team.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Phuck, what a dumbth country you have now. Damn. "Idiocy? Ha! I'll show you idiocy!"
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
Sports on Slashdot. Is it the end times already?
First, the public subsidy.
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.
And the lack of any effective oversight: Bank of America fined $7.65M over accounting blunder.
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.
Why is Snark Required?
All this huffing and puffing from Congress Critters can be solved by dumping some football tickets into constituent service offices, you know, to invite the staff to come see all the value a football team contributes to the community and see what NFL is all about.
Free of course, no strings attached. Just have some tickets.
And forget you were upset about blackouts and antitrust, okay? Okay!
Sig for hire.
Im all for taking away the NFL exemptions for blackout. But There is no reason whatsoever to try and force the NFL or the washington redskins to change the team name. It really is pathetic that people out there are making such a big deal about it. If you find it offensive, that is your right. but you dont have a right to NOT be offended by something. Your best bet is to A- not buy any of their stuff and B - root for the other team.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
The NFL dick riding by the so called free market loving ass hats. So don't you think it's about time to ween the NFL off the government teet or does the free market not apply to wealthy corporations....
It really is pathetic that people out there are making such a big deal about it.
Umm.. People are making a big deal of it because in 2014 we still have a football team named after a racial epithet. The only reason people DON'T make a big deal of it is that it's faded into the background of the society for so long that people ignore it. But redskin is still a racial epithet.
You're right people don't have a right to be not offended. Rooting for "the other team" would be conter-productive as it obviously still supports the bottom line and contributes to NFL rivalry, which is how they make money. Obviously that doesn't effect the bottom line of the team. Your best bet would be to pressure goverment to end the monopoly status for the NFL, end funding of stadiums for the NFL, and tax the living shit out of them. I'd vote for all of that.
The NFL has the right to call their teams whatever they want. They could start up a new team called the Texas Niggers, or the New York Kike's, and there's nothing anyone could legally stop them with. That doesn't mean however that the NFL deserves special treatment.
AccountKiller
taking their trademark away is not "special treatment" its political targeting. Threatening to take away their non profit status or threatening to do X. If PEOPLE want to boycott, i support that. If people want to force the GOVERNMENT to take action. Thats where I have a problem.
I am of native descent. I do not find the name offensive in the slightest. There are over 1000 teams named after natives, in the hs - college- majors. the name is not offensive (I would argue chief wahoo from the cleveland indians as a mascot is a little offensive however)
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
The stadiums are built and owned by the teams and/or the communities in which they play.
The NFL is a league made up of teams, and does not own the teams or the assets of the teams. Think of it as a trade group for professional football teams.
It sounds like he was there first. The stadium should move.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Which billion-dollar business is using that name? Bueller? Bueller?
The NFL, "non-profit"? Then so is Walmart.
mark, whose interest in sports approaches 0 as a limit, with the exception of two "sports", one of the American football,
where it's in negative numbers
--
Shame about that kid who died playing the so-called sport
What I find interesting is NFL cheerleaders are quite accomplished dancers of skills as demanding like for professional dancers on Broadway shows. Those I've met and read about have extensive dance training from ballet to modern, all needing to be in top physical shape. It's more than just looking good, you have to be ***good***. Auditions are demanding. Those who fail, cry. Those who get accepted, cry (all those years of training finally paid off). Once they are accepted, it doesn't get easier. Rehearsals and choreography is demanding, some candidates get washed out because they cannot project that "show presentation" (they either have "it" or they don't). Choreographers know what "it" is when they see it but cannot describe it.
Unlike NFL football players, cheerleaders don't make the big bucks. I read they have to be employed or a student in college. Raising a child is equivalent to being employed. They get some compensation per game. I guess those that pursue this occupation do it for the experience.
mfwright@batnet.com
I wonder who the NFL forgot to bribe this season?
...a second time after first paying for the stadium that the billion-dollar business is playing in. Fuck that. Taxpayers should be getting into the arena they paid for for free, much less not have to deal with blackouts.
Cry me a river. This is exactly the same sort of nonsense that right wing christofascist pastors engage in when they complain that they can't tell people who to vote for from the pulpit. Go ahead and do it, Sparky, just start filing your taxes.
Doubt it. If you are, it's as embarrassing as a privileged person of african descent saying that Jim Crow was no big deal.
There were a good number of founding fathers who were against slavery and fought pretty hard to make it illegal. Of course those people harm your biased opinion so you ignored them and made a false generalization.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
There are over 1000 teams named after natives, in the hs - college- majors.
The vast majority of those names are descriptive though, not offensive. For example, Seminoles - (anglicized) name of a tribe; Blackhwaks - name of a chief; Indians, Braves, Chiefs - just describing an entire group or class (although "Indian" is a pretty stupid way to refer to them). A lot of high school or college teams use the names of tribes from the area (Chippewas, Choctaws, Apaches, Cherokees, Mohawks, etc). I don't think any of those are offensive. "Redskins" is completely different. If you think that term is not offensive, walk into a meeting of the National Congress of Native Americans and say "hey, how are you all you redskins doing today?" See how they react. It doesn't really matter if *you* find the name offensive or not. I wouldn't be offended if someone called me a redskin either, I would just sort of look at them kind of funny. It's clearly offensive to a large group of people, and they should change the name. Most colleges and high schools I think are fine using tribal names for their schools.
Although, maybe the Agawam High School Brownies might consider a name change. And the Aniak High School Halfbreeds might think about it also.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
I am of native descent. I do not find the name offensive in the slightest.
That's fine. There are some black people who call each other "nigger" too, but they'd certainly be up in arms if a white guy renamed his team the Philadelphia Niggers.
Also, I love the comment someone left on the Washington Redskins page on the brilliant "Why your team sucks" blog.
Alton wrote:
Did you know that the DC metro area, especially the garbage heaps known as Prince George's County, MD and Prince William County, VA, is home to the highest concentration of people with Native American heritage in the country!? It's true! Just listen to 106.7 The Fan any afternoon to hear their proud proclamations of "HEY WHADDUP LEVAR YOU THE MAN I JUS WANNA SAY I'M 1/32 CHEROKEE OR CHOCTAW OR SOMETHIN AND I AINT OFFENDED BY THAT NAME! IT'S JUST ALL ABOUT PRIDE, MAN, AND IF YOU CAN'T SEE THAT, THEN, UH...YOU'RE THE RACIST."
It's like the fanbase is 90% Fake Chiefs. The other 10% are dead-ender white military contractor and lawyer jackasses like the asshole that started a Redskins Pride Caucus in the Virginia legislature (during the middle of intense debate over MEDICAID they did this!).
can you reform your statement in english? when you try and put 10 different derogatory words into a single word it doesnt really work to well
also the irony of being upset with them for being insulting...while at the same time insulting me and about 1/2 the country
I will go cry a river, because its sad how stupid so many people in my country are at times.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Can you not be willfully obtuse? Point was perfectly clear the first time: go ahead and be an asshole organization, just don't expect the rest of society to keep giving you special status a la tax-exemption.
Get a dictionary.
Can you not be willfully stupid? If racial smears were being used to attack other racial smears, you might have a point. But they weren't, so you don't.
None of which does anything to change the fact that slavery was written into the Constitution, or that you're blatantly ignoring everything else I mentioned: protection of business interests outside slavery and making sure the common people had no say in their governance. Right after starting a war with the slogan "no taxation without representation".
Physician, heal thy biased elitist self.
Let's not forget the vintage 1945 McCarran-Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C. 1011-1015, and its exemption from federal anti-trust laws of insurance companies. Why? Because "the continued regulation and taxation by the several States of the business of insurance is in the public interest . . . ." Not sure about your state, but mine could not stop the price fixers in 2007. Companies were still too stupid to do the math, so we bail out AIG. Think they love you because of the tv commercials? Right. Those premiums are based on value, not collusion to jack 'em up across the board and divide the market. Right.
If people want to force the GOVERNMENT to take action. Thats where I have a problem.
Well that's where we disagree. The NFL gets special status for political reasons. Voters like them some football. So what's wrong with the opposite? I hate me some football, and I find redskins offensive. It's already a polical fight, and has been forever. We pay for their goddamn stadiums, so they opened the door to government intervention in their business. Since they've acted like asses for.. well forever with regard to the Redskins, and people are finally calling them on it, why shouldn't they take some political heat for it?
So if the NFL would like to pay back the various states and municipalities for all the stadiums that we've paid for for the last 50+ years, I'd be happy to let them do whatever they want. But since they've got in bed with the state, they're open to getting attacked by politics.
AccountKiller
Why isn't the NFL taxed like any other big business? These teams can afford to pay players millions of dollars yet they are tax exempt. What the Fuck is going on here?
the "nfl"" has no reason to "pay back" anything for stadium construction. Thats something to take up with the individual teams. Not all team lobby for tax breaks or assistance in stadium construction. your issue is with the teams, not the "nfl"
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
You've mistaken a franchise for the business. The NFL is the real business, the franchises are just individual owners. You think the NFL doesn't operate like a single business? Of course they do. They have contract negotiation, It's even far more integrated as a single business than a Mcdonalds. The NFL requires mutiple teams to even exist. You don't need multiple mcdonalds restaurants to operate. It's the NFL that would pressure the Redskins to change their name.
Oh, and BTW The Redskins play in RFK Stadium, a stadium constructed with Federal dollars. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
Check and mate.
AccountKiller