FCC Could End Blackout Rule by Fall

[Bolt-O]

I saw there were 3000 tickets left, yesterday.

[richpjr]

The NFL needs to tread lightly, because it is certainly not in their best interest to piss off the government and lose their anti-trust exemption if they go heavy handed.

[sandiego17]

The NFL needs to tread lightly, because it is certainly not in their best interest to piss off the government and lose their anti-trust exemption if they go heavy handed.

Did any games get blacked out this week? Would be interesting if it did happen, the backlash after the FCC vote would have kept this in the news longer than the NFL wants. In fact, any blackouts will invite some backlash the NFL and Goodell don't want these days.

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/oct/02/chargers-avoid-blackout-jets/

[Beerman]

Game being televised.

We should be free from blackouts the rest of the year.

[Mister Hoarse]

Time to be free from the tyranny of this blackouts

[Wheels]

But those TV contracts are not an annually reviewed and negotiated, so they (the leagues) would have to wait until re-negotiation time to install blackout rules. On the flip side those blackout rules could be re-negotiated and tweeked every few years, and I doubt they would be in the consumers favor. IE. areas subject to blackout could increase.

I don't think they have the financial incentive to expand the blackout areas. It already probably has a negative impact on their bottom line, because blacking out the local market keeps the local viewers from seeing the game + commercials. It would seem to be a punitive measure if they expanded the blackout zone.

[BlazingBolt]

Senators: Blackout rule unfair to fans

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11979451/senators-warn-nfl-drop-tv-blackout-rule-risk-losing-antitrust-exemption

WASHINGTON -- Senators from both parties warned the National Football League on Thursday to get rid of a four-decade-old TV "blackout'' rule or risk congressional action to restrict the league's lucrative antitrust exemption, which allows NFL teams to negotiate radio and television broadcast rights together.

The blackout rule, which bars home games from being televised in a local market if they have not sold out, is unfair to fans who have helped the league reap billions of dollars in revenue from broadcast rights to games that are among the most-watched programs on TV, lawmakers said.

In return for their loyalty, "fans in the public are often treated like a fumbled football,'' said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn. "When places like Buffalo, New York, fail to sell out its 74,000-person stadium, the Bills game is blacked out for local fans.''


The Federal Communications Commission voted this fall to stop enforcing the NFL's blackout policy, but the action did not end blackouts, which are written into the NFL's private contracts with broadcast and cable companies.

Blumenthal and other lawmakers at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing said Thursday the blackout rule has long outlived its usefulness. The rule was adopted in the 1970s to encourage ticket sales at NFL games, which now routinely sell out at stadiums across the country.

"The simple fact is that these rules only serve to benefit sports leagues and their member teams at the expense of the hardworking fans who support them so loyally through their money, time and passion,'' said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

During last year's NFL playoffs, fans of the Cincinnati Bengals, Indianapolis Colts and Green Bay Packers came close to experiencing blackouts when those games had not sold out just days before kickoff, McCain said. The blackouts were averted when local businesses bought tickets to bring the total above the NFL's required threshold.

A bill co-sponsored by Blumenthal and McCain would revoke the league's antitrust exemption unless it removes the blackout rule.

The senators made it clear at Thursday's hearing that they would prefer not to enact a bill. Blumenthal and other lawmakers urged the NFL to act on its own.

"I think they'd become heroes rather than the opposite, which they are now,'' Blumenthal said.

Gerard Waldron, a lawyer who represents the NFL, said the proposed bill would harm the people it intends to help -- the fans -- by undermining "the complex business and legal structure that allows the NFL to be the only professional sports league that offers all of its regular-season game to viewers at no charge'' through over-the-air broadcasts.

Without the certainty of paid attendance provided by a blackout rule, NFL games are likely to migrate from free broadcast TV to pay TV such as cable and satellite, Waldron said.

The bill also aims fix a problem that largely does not exist, Waldron said, noting that no NFL games have been blacked out this season and only two games were blacked out in 2013. Without threats of a blackout, advertisers may not be willing to spend as much money to sponsor NFL games, he said.

"The key factor that distinguishes the NFL from other types of programming is its ability consistently to deliver a mass audience at a fixed time,'' he said.

But David Goodfriend, chairman of the Sports Fans Coalition, an advocacy group, said the government should not support "anti-fan activities'' by professional sports leagues such as the NFL.

"When a sports league receives a public benefit'' such as the antitrust exemption and other subsidies, "the fans should get a fair return or the subsidy should go away,'' Goodfriend said.

Lawmakers at the Thursday's hearing appeared generally sympathetic to Goodfriend's argument, but two Minnesota senators told him should have done a better job researching his audience. A Green Bay Packers fan, Goodfriend wore a Packers tie to the hearing -- which was noted by Democratic Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken of Minnesota.

"It might not have been your smartest move, given that half of the senators here are from Minnesota,'' Klobuchar told Goodfriend.

[BlazingBolt]

Without threats of a blackout, advertisers may not be willing to spend as much money to sponsor NFL games, he said.

This is retarded and untrue. What sponsor would spend less if there was no black out threat and why? Is attendance going to go down? That is the ridiculous unfounded fear the leage has......people do not go to games because they fear it is going to be blacked out. Maybe a few hundred seats might get sold if a game looks like it might get blacked out but sponsors always step up and pay money to avoid black outs. So if sponsors pay extra money to avoid blackouts why would the NFL think they might spend less if the blackouts they fear hate and try to avoid went away?

[Panama]

This is retarded and untrue. What sponsor would spend less if there was no black out threat and why? Is attendance going to go down? That is the ridiculous unfounded fear the leage has......people do not go to games because they fear it is going to be blacked out. Maybe a few hundred seats might get sold if a game looks like it might get blacked out but sponsors always step up and pay money to avoid black outs. So if sponsors pay extra money to avoid blackouts why would the NFL think they might spend less if the blackouts they fear hate and try to avoid went away?

Anyway, a blackout is so easy to get around, their argument holds no water.

[Formula 21]

That's some funny stuff. Congress work together and pass a bill? Lol.

[Bolt-O]

That's some funny stuff. Congress work together and pass a bill? Lol.

The same party will control both chambers next year. Not sure if the Executive will agree with Congress.

[Panama]

The same party will control both chambers next year. Not sure if the Executive will agree with Congress.

But which part of the party, the moderates or the, what do they call themselves? Tea cups? Tea cosies? Tea baggers?