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.
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.
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
...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
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 same could be said about pretty much everything. The things you like are incredibly boring and stupid to a lot of people.
Yes, but I'm sure that no one spends huge amounts of their tax dollars supporting his boring recreational activities...
I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
Football is *REALLY* *REALLY* stupid. I can't get my head around the overwhelming exuberance that people feel over this brief period of watching people chase a ball around a field.
Tell me, is it more or less stupid than watching a bunch of people dress up in spandex and pretend to fly a spaceship?
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
The same could be said about pretty much everything. The things you like are incredibly boring and stupid to a lot of people.
Yes, but I'm sure that no one spends huge amounts of their tax dollars supporting his boring recreational activities...
National parks, PBS, National Endowment for the Arts, etc. There are plenty of was the government funds recreational activities.
According to Grantmakers in the Arts, public funding in the arts comes to about $1.14 billion per year. With the NFL receiving $146 million per year, the NFL is still getting a sizeable amount of money in comparison. But with about 1 in 3 Americans watching at least some football each year, football probably entertains at least as many people as the entire NEA funding does, so perhaps it is money well spent.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
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?
Tell me, is it more or less stupid than watching a bunch of people dress up in spandex and pretend to fly a spaceship?
It's more stupid, because if people got off of their lazy fat asses and stopped sucking down cheese curds they could play football (or perhaps some sport not designed to cause concussions) themselves. But I can't nip down to the auto dealer and pick up a new Constellation-class.
I get why someone would be interested in sports, but not how they could be as interested as people get. Especially when they feel like part of the team. Nope, just a customer. Keep buying those Jerseys! The team's lawyers really appreciate it.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The founding fathers did very well in designing what Socrates envisioned as a perfect Government 2,600 years ago.
Not really. They were well into the modern age of law, lawyers and lies, yet they still wrote in open-ended language like the ICC. That's a completely open back door, they weren't dumb enough not to know it.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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
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
I wonder who the NFL forgot to bribe this season?