Chiefs With Lynn Swann as pitchman, NFL seeks support of 40-year-old blackout rule - Page 5

Deberg_1990 · 06-28-2014, 08:25 PM

Do you still support the blackout rule?

The NFL is worried, and Lynn Swann is here on behalf of that worry.

This is a strange place for the NFL to be. The NFL is not used to worrying. The NFL is used to victory. The NFL is used to gobs and gobs of cash, incredible television ratings and the ease of selling a product so popular that more Americans watched this year’s draft than any World Series, NBA Finals or World Cup game so far.

The NFL does not like to worry. So Swann is here, in a conference room at The Star, trying to convince us that a rule that essentially forces sponsors and fans to buy increasingly expensive tickets they don’t want is good for fans.

“Everybody benefits from this rule,” he says.

The Hall of Fame receiver is talking about the sports blackout rule put into place in 1975 — the same rule that is currently being reconsidered by the FCC, which is seeking public comment on whether blackouts should still be allowed. As of now, the rule is that NFL teams must have a sellout 72 hours before kickoff for games to be shown on local TV.

The logic Swann uses in backing government-imposed blackouts on behalf of the NFL is presumptive at best and insulting at worst.

Swann and the NFL ignore that the league could always choose to put games on free broadcast TV and that the primary reason the games are shown on networks is because they are so popular (and lucrative for the league and networks alike).

They also ignore that the commissioners of Major League Baseball and the NHL have stated in sworn depositions in federal court that blackouts don’t help their attendance, and may actually harm ticket sales, a case long made by various economists.

Having games on TV is the best kind of promotion leagues can have, and why they continually push to get more and more games broadcast. Baseball, for instance, has never had more games on TV and never had better attendance than in the last decade. That wouldn’t be the case if baseball blacked out games locally.

The difference with the NFL is that it is now so popular it can leverage the threat of blackouts into maximum ticket sales. The league is basically using its power to make sure no dollar is left behind, even if people who can’t afford cable are blacked out.

Economists would find the idea of a team canceling a broadcast shown to millions (with the supporting advertising revenue) in order to sell a few hundred or thousand more tickets an incredibly dense business decision.

But this is an especially attractive situation for owners because they keep a greater percentage of local ticket sales than their equal share of national broadcast contracts. It’s not as attractive for sponsors and broadcasters who are bullied into buying junk tickets — or fans threatened with blackouts if they don’t buy enough tickets for games at stadiums increasingly funded with public money.

Broadcasters are falling in line with the NFL’s wishes on this, but of course they want to be able to show the games. That’s why they (or sponsors) allow themselves to be on the hook for unsold tickets when teams can’t sell enough seats.

It’s also likely part of why the league loosened its blackout restrictions. The NFL defines a sellout as 100 percent of the non-premium tickets sold, but allows individual teams to drop the threshold as low as 85 percent. Most teams do that, and they are often granted extensions to the 72-hour rule.

So many of the NFL’s approved arguments for this are empty. Among Swann’s company lines is a fear that eliminating the FCC rule would allow cable companies to effectively steal the broadcasts for local pay TV. But this would almost certainly be deemed illegal by existing contractual language and copyright laws.

The NFL will say that full stadiums are good for the local economy, but when it gets bad enough for blackouts to be threatened, those last-minute tickets aren’t being sold to out-of-towners filling up hotel rooms and restaurants.

The NFL also talks about half-empty stadiums providing a lesser viewing experience, but that has nothing to do with blackouts. The Chiefs’ last blackout was in 2009, but during that 2-14 disaster in 2012 they played in front of depressingly sparse crowds at Arrowhead Stadium. The blackout did nothing to fill Arrowhead or improve the experience last year — firing the general manager and improving the team did that.

Swann and two NFL employees spent about an hour at The Star on Friday going over this discussion. At one point, I asked them how much of the fight over the blackout rule was also a fight the NFL and all sports leagues are in — the competition teams have with a constantly improving in-home viewing experience.

Swann contradicted himself here. On the battle with the in-stadium experience, Swann talked of teams and stadiums needing “to compete.” He rightfully talked about improvements many NFL stadiums have made, including better video boards and Wi-Fi, and certain video made available inside the stadium exclusively to the paying customer.

I asked why that’s different from the blackout rule. If teams and stadiums need “to compete,” then why do they need the blackout rule? Especially when their concerns — the league could always impose blackouts without an FCC rule — would be covered by existing contracts and copyright laws?

Swann’s answer here may be a window into the league’s thinking. He used a favorite analogy of his, comparing the issue to a game of Jenga. He knows the league will be fine with or without the federal blackout rule, but he talked of pulling those blocks out of a Jenga tower and “a loss of the integrity of the structure.”

So the league isn’t so worried about this blackout rule specifically. The league is really worried about what removing this block would mean to one of the most successful businesses in American history. If the blackout rule is overturned, maybe people start asking more questions about the NFL’s antitrust exemption, nonprofit status and why they ever thought they could black out games in stadiums largely paid for with tax money in the first place.

The NFL does about $10 billion in annual revenue now, and has a stated goal of $25 billion by 2027. That’s a lofty target, and the league can’t afford too many obstacles. That’s what this is about.

In a free market, when there are unsold tickets, NFL teams would need to improve their product or lower their prices. But the league has created its own ecosystem in which it can depend on sponsors and broadcasters (who already pay a fortune) to buy tickets that the teams otherwise can’t sell.

For the public, that means paying prices artificially propped up by a government law put into place 40 years ago and doing it under the constant threat of not being able to watch the games.

For the league, it means a terrific business model if they can actually convince their paying customers that this is good for them.

The NFL isn’t wrong often. Here’s hoping we’ve found an exception.

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt...#storylink=cpy

cosmo20002 · 06-30-2014, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ

Correct, but that does not matter. So what if I live in the same region as my fav team? What if I buy ST so I can not only ensure that I can watch my team, but also the other teams in my division? Point is, I bought the product and its very title "Sunday Ticket" means I've in essence purchased a ticket for every team in the NFL, even my home team.

The bottom line is that you can't ensure that you can watch your local team's home games. You're only ensured of seeing it if its not blacked out.
Not saying the blackout thing doesn't suck, but I'm sure you're put on notice of that somewhere when you sign up.

**Rausch** · 06-30-2014, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

The bottom line is that you can't ensure that you can watch your local team's home games. You're only ensured of seeing it if its not blacked out.
Not saying the blackout thing doesn't suck, but I'm sure you're put on notice of that somewhere when you sign up.

The fun part was when DTV didn't carry my locals but I was still subject to the blackout...

Tombstone RJ · 06-30-2014, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rausch

The fun part was when DTV didn't carry my locals but I was still subject to the blackout...

Exactly. If you buy ST and live in/around KC you are not going to get to watch the Chiefs on ST. You have to turn on you local CBS affiliate or whatever. However, if you buy ST then if there is a local blackout due to ticket sales, you should still be able to watch the Chiefs on ST because, you have purchased that right, just as you have purchased the right to watch all the other games. Again, why call it "Sunday Ticket" if your ticket doesn't work? There should be an exemption for anyone who has purchased ST, because, you have A TICKET to watch the game, even if that seat is in your living room.

WhiteWhale · 06-30-2014, 02:18 PM

Big surprise.

People in modern society would rather stay at home and watch (insert anything that used to be done IRL) on TV than to get out and experience life. I can't believe people actually prefer sitting on their ass and watching the game on TV than experiencing the game first hand.

I think games are overpriced... but the market is what the market is. I don't think watching games on TV is anything remotely close to being there in person, but it doesn't surprise me that the generation raised by TV sets would overwhelmingly feel this way.

**Bowser** · 06-30-2014, 02:28 PM

If the Chiefs were a perennial winner and post season threat, this wouldn't even be an issue here. I rarely hear Patriots fans bitching about the price of their tickets to the point of not wanting to go to games. I'm sure they DO bitch about it, but to those fans it's worth spending 150 bucks a ticket for nosebleed seats when they know their team is always in the race to win it all.

I would not shame ANY fan of the Chiefs for not wanting to buy fool's gold year after year just to watch them go belly up, yet again. Plus, NFL games aren't just expensive, they're time consuming. Your entire Sunday when you go to a game a accounted for, and even a good chunk of your Saturday if the plan is to get a proper tailgate going. If you hang at home, you don't get the experience, but you get a chunk of your weekend back. But it's cool if the NFL wants to punish the average fan for not wanting to support a sub par team? Yeah, sure.

**BigMeatballDave** · 06-30-2014, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ

Yes but who drafted or brought in that shitty QB? Who built that team?

Well, for the Chiefs, it's easy to see where the blame lies.

For Houston, that was a fluke. Schaub had been pretty good previously.

**Rausch** · 06-30-2014, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bowser

If the Chiefs were a perennial winner and post season threat, this wouldn't even be an issue here. I rarely hear Patriots fans bitching about the price of their tickets to the point of not wanting to go to games.

Well, **** 'em.

I'd gladly trade them "hardships."

**The Franchise** · 06-30-2014, 04:12 PM

I'm still hoping that DirecTV will someday offer team passes to Sunday Ticket. All I want is just the Chiefs games....let me buy just those.

**Rausch** · 06-30-2014, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pestilence

I'm still hoping that DirecTV will someday offer team passes to Sunday Ticket. All I want is just the Chiefs games....let me buy just those.

This would be the preferable option but will never happen.

I'd settle for getting raped on the price as long as I didn't get raped on the B/O's...

**Bearcat** · 06-30-2014, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bowser

If the Chiefs were a perennial winner and post season threat, this wouldn't even be an issue here. I rarely hear Patriots fans bitching about the price of their tickets to the point of not wanting to go to games. I'm sure they DO bitch about it, but to those fans it's worth spending 150 bucks a ticket for nosebleed seats when they know their team is always in the race to win it all.

I would not shame ANY fan of the Chiefs for not wanting to buy fool's gold year after year just to watch them go belly up, yet again. Plus, NFL games aren't just expensive, they're time consuming. Your entire Sunday when you go to a game a accounted for, and even a good chunk of your Saturday if the plan is to get a proper tailgate going. If you hang at home, you don't get the experience, but you get a chunk of your weekend back. But it's cool if the NFL wants to punish the average fan for not wanting to support a sub par team? Yeah, sure.

Yeah, there's really no question whether fans want to sit at home or go to the games, considering how many show up these days after so many years of crap, and how interest & secondary market prices jump at any sign of hope.

I don't want to sit at home and watch every weekend. I'd buy season tickets in a heartbeat if it was worth the time and money.... but, watching at home clearly makes the most sense, especially when the best part of going to Arrowhead is usually tailgating.

**Rausch** · 06-30-2014, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bearcat

I don't want to sit at home and watch every weekend. I'd buy season tickets in a heartbeat if it was worth the time and money.... but, watching at home clearly makes the most sense, especially when the best part of going to Arrowhead is usually tailgating.

I want to go as well.

What I won't do is drive 3 hours (in good weather) plus pay for parking and tickets, take two days off of work (I don't get off until 7:30 AM), all after watching my team completely $#it their pants in both the draft and the offseason and HOPE one of the 6 games they win all year will be the one I go to.

**** that.

That time is over...

**Bugeater** · 06-30-2014, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhiteWhale

Big surprise.

People in modern society would rather stay at home and watch (insert anything that used to be done IRL) on TV than to get out and experience life. I can't believe people actually prefer sitting on their ass and watching the game on TV than experiencing the game first hand.

I think games are overpriced... but the market is what the market is. I don't think watching games on TV is anything remotely close to being there in person, but it doesn't surprise me that the generation raised by TV sets would overwhelmingly feel this way.

Better views of the action/replays, better and cheaper food/beer, a more comfortable chair, being able to flip to another game at commercial breaks, no lines at the bathroom, no drunk belligerent idiots right next to you, if you're a smoker you don't have to hike all the way up the 300 level mezzanine to smoke, at the end of the game you can watch another game instead of fighting traffic...how many more reasons would you like?

**Rausch** · 06-30-2014, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bacon Cheeseburger

Better views of the action/replays, better and cheaper food/beer, a more comfortable chair, being able to flip to another game at commercial breaks, no lines at the bathroom, no drunk belligerent idiots right next to you, if you're a smoker you don't have to hike all the way up the 300 level mezzanine to smoke, at the end of the game you can watch another game instead of fighting traffic...how many more reasons would you like?

I can get a hummer at half time and not get arrested...

**Bearcat** · 06-30-2014, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rausch

I want to go as well.

What I won't do is drive 3 hours (in good weather) plus pay for parking and tickets, take two days off of work (I don't get off until 7:30 AM), all after watching my team completely $#it their pants in both the draft and the offseason and HOPE one of the 6 games they win all year will be the one I go to.

**** that.

That time is over...

Yep... I swore it off after the home opener against Buffalo a few years ago, and can't believe it took that long. And every time I've thought about going to a game since, they've proven that staying home was a good decision, so I probably won't even think twice about it this season.

**Bearcat** · 06-30-2014, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bacon Cheeseburger

Better views of the action/replays, better and cheaper food/beer, a more comfortable chair, being able to flip to another game at commercial breaks, no lines at the bathroom, no drunk belligerent idiots right next to you, if you're a smoker you don't have to hike all the way up the 300 level mezzanine to smoke, at the end of the game you can watch another game instead of fighting traffic...how many more reasons would you like?

Hey, you must be one of those Gen Xers who are obsessed with technology and spend all their time staring at a screen... oh, wait.

06-28-2014, 08:25 PM
Deberg_1990 In Search of a Life Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: San Antonio Tx. Casino cash: $3664454	With Lynn Swann as pitchman, NFL seeks support of 40-year-old blackout rule Do you still support the blackout rule? The NFL is worried, and Lynn Swann is here on behalf of that worry. This is a strange place for the NFL to be. The NFL is not used to worrying. The NFL is used to victory. The NFL is used to gobs and gobs of cash, incredible television ratings and the ease of selling a product so popular that more Americans watched this year’s draft than any World Series, NBA Finals or World Cup game so far. The NFL does not like to worry. So Swann is here, in a conference room at The Star, trying to convince us that a rule that essentially forces sponsors and fans to buy increasingly expensive tickets they don’t want is good for fans. “Everybody benefits from this rule,” he says. The Hall of Fame receiver is talking about the sports blackout rule put into place in 1975 — the same rule that is currently being reconsidered by the FCC, which is seeking public comment on whether blackouts should still be allowed. As of now, the rule is that NFL teams must have a sellout 72 hours before kickoff for games to be shown on local TV. The logic Swann uses in backing government-imposed blackouts on behalf of the NFL is presumptive at best and insulting at worst. Swann and the NFL ignore that the league could always choose to put games on free broadcast TV and that the primary reason the games are shown on networks is because they are so popular (and lucrative for the league and networks alike). They also ignore that the commissioners of Major League Baseball and the NHL have stated in sworn depositions in federal court that blackouts don’t help their attendance, and may actually harm ticket sales, a case long made by various economists. Having games on TV is the best kind of promotion leagues can have, and why they continually push to get more and more games broadcast. Baseball, for instance, has never had more games on TV and never had better attendance than in the last decade. That wouldn’t be the case if baseball blacked out games locally. The difference with the NFL is that it is now so popular it can leverage the threat of blackouts into maximum ticket sales. The league is basically using its power to make sure no dollar is left behind, even if people who can’t afford cable are blacked out. Economists would find the idea of a team canceling a broadcast shown to millions (with the supporting advertising revenue) in order to sell a few hundred or thousand more tickets an incredibly dense business decision. But this is an especially attractive situation for owners because they keep a greater percentage of local ticket sales than their equal share of national broadcast contracts. It’s not as attractive for sponsors and broadcasters who are bullied into buying junk tickets — or fans threatened with blackouts if they don’t buy enough tickets for games at stadiums increasingly funded with public money. Broadcasters are falling in line with the NFL’s wishes on this, but of course they want to be able to show the games. That’s why they (or sponsors) allow themselves to be on the hook for unsold tickets when teams can’t sell enough seats. It’s also likely part of why the league loosened its blackout restrictions. The NFL defines a sellout as 100 percent of the non-premium tickets sold, but allows individual teams to drop the threshold as low as 85 percent. Most teams do that, and they are often granted extensions to the 72-hour rule. So many of the NFL’s approved arguments for this are empty. Among Swann’s company lines is a fear that eliminating the FCC rule would allow cable companies to effectively steal the broadcasts for local pay TV. But this would almost certainly be deemed illegal by existing contractual language and copyright laws. The NFL will say that full stadiums are good for the local economy, but when it gets bad enough for blackouts to be threatened, those last-minute tickets aren’t being sold to out-of-towners filling up hotel rooms and restaurants. The NFL also talks about half-empty stadiums providing a lesser viewing experience, but that has nothing to do with blackouts. The Chiefs’ last blackout was in 2009, but during that 2-14 disaster in 2012 they played in front of depressingly sparse crowds at Arrowhead Stadium. The blackout did nothing to fill Arrowhead or improve the experience last year — firing the general manager and improving the team did that. Swann and two NFL employees spent about an hour at The Star on Friday going over this discussion. At one point, I asked them how much of the fight over the blackout rule was also a fight the NFL and all sports leagues are in — the competition teams have with a constantly improving in-home viewing experience. Swann contradicted himself here. On the battle with the in-stadium experience, Swann talked of teams and stadiums needing “to compete.” He rightfully talked about improvements many NFL stadiums have made, including better video boards and Wi-Fi, and certain video made available inside the stadium exclusively to the paying customer. I asked why that’s different from the blackout rule. If teams and stadiums need “to compete,” then why do they need the blackout rule? Especially when their concerns — the league could always impose blackouts without an FCC rule — would be covered by existing contracts and copyright laws? Swann’s answer here may be a window into the league’s thinking. He used a favorite analogy of his, comparing the issue to a game of Jenga. He knows the league will be fine with or without the federal blackout rule, but he talked of pulling those blocks out of a Jenga tower and “a loss of the integrity of the structure.” So the league isn’t so worried about this blackout rule specifically. The league is really worried about what removing this block would mean to one of the most successful businesses in American history. If the blackout rule is overturned, maybe people start asking more questions about the NFL’s antitrust exemption, nonprofit status and why they ever thought they could black out games in stadiums largely paid for with tax money in the first place. The NFL does about $10 billion in annual revenue now, and has a stated goal of $25 billion by 2027. That’s a lofty target, and the league can’t afford too many obstacles. That’s what this is about. In a free market, when there are unsold tickets, NFL teams would need to improve their product or lower their prices. But the league has created its own ecosystem in which it can depend on sponsors and broadcasters (who already pay a fortune) to buy tickets that the teams otherwise can’t sell. For the public, that means paying prices artificially propped up by a government law put into place 40 years ago and doing it under the constant threat of not being able to watch the games. For the league, it means a terrific business model if they can actually convince their paying customers that this is good for them. The NFL isn’t wrong often. Here’s hoping we’ve found an exception. Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt...#storylink=cpy
Posts: 66,914

06-30-2014, 02:18 PM	#64
WhiteWhale Bring it on Ahab! Join Date: May 2011 Location: Doo-Dah Casino cash: $10015152	Big surprise. People in modern society would rather stay at home and watch (insert anything that used to be done IRL) on TV than to get out and experience life. I can't believe people actually prefer sitting on their ass and watching the game on TV than experiencing the game first hand. I think games are overpriced... but the market is what the market is. I don't think watching games on TV is anything remotely close to being there in person, but it doesn't surprise me that the generation raised by TV sets would overwhelmingly feel this way.
Posts: 14,861

06-30-2014, 02:28 PM	#65
Bowser sorta mod-ish Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: KC North Casino cash: $3131616	If the Chiefs were a perennial winner and post season threat, this wouldn't even be an issue here. I rarely hear Patriots fans bitching about the price of their tickets to the point of not wanting to go to games. I'm sure they DO bitch about it, but to those fans it's worth spending 150 bucks a ticket for nosebleed seats when they know their team is always in the race to win it all. I would not shame ANY fan of the Chiefs for not wanting to buy fool's gold year after year just to watch them go belly up, yet again. Plus, NFL games aren't just expensive, they're time consuming. Your entire Sunday when you go to a game a accounted for, and even a good chunk of your Saturday if the plan is to get a proper tailgate going. If you hang at home, you don't get the experience, but you get a chunk of your weekend back. But it's cool if the NFL wants to punish the average fan for not wanting to support a sub par team? Yeah, sure.
Posts: 101,139

06-30-2014, 04:12 PM	#68
The Franchise Most Valuable Villain Join Date: Dec 2006 Casino cash: $2755047	I'm still hoping that DirecTV will someday offer team passes to Sunday Ticket. All I want is just the Chiefs games....let me buy just those.
Posts: 92,300