So you say. Yet the only time I can find mention of the practice is the Bucs in '09, and it's not treated like a common occurrence at all. Meanwhile, I've found numerous references to local businessmen, TV stations, and Chad Ochocinco buying out blocks of tickets to avoid blackouts.
Just because you are ignorant of how teams deal with avoiding blackouts doesn't mean they do it. If it is not a big number they do it because they can buy them back at a low rate. If it is too big
You do point out another thing that owners do, they do approach local businesses, charities, etc. to buy large blocks at a deep discount to avoid the lockout. This will mean loss in revenues, but it at least gets them to be on TV. You don't think these people pay face value in these situations do you? Even then, teams sometimes can't find someone to buy the tickets.
Whether teams buy them themselves or sell them to a third party at a deep discount, it equals a loss in revenue.
If it's been happening for decades, it should be pretty easy for you to find me something to read about it, though, right?
Yeah, pretty easy because teams love to publicize that they have to buy back tickets. Most of this is done under the radar because teams don't want to publicize this.
Time also mentions that "few teams" ever do buy back tickets, even for 34% of face value. So far, I've found mention of the Bucs. And that's it.
First, that means some do which goes against your argument. You make it sound like the Bucs were the only ones to ever do it.
Second, I never said they paid face value, but they still have to pay for them. Third, they said the Chargers didn't want to do it because it would have cost them $238k to do so.
If it's simply a matter of the effects of the recession, than ticket sales should gradually rebound along with the economy.
Of course, as Deus Irae has been arguing, there's plenty of evidence to suggest that the changing patterns in NFL attendance have been part of a long-term process. We've clearly reached a point where the TV broadcast has overtaken going to the stadium in terms of seeing and following the game. Most NFL franchises have adapted by reducing the centrality of the game as part of the whole of the entertainment package
Deus has been throwing up red herrings to avoid the facts. Funny, so are you. I see you didn't respond to my post that Tampa sold 130k fewer tickets in 2010 than 2006, St. Louis sold 100k less, and KC sold 80k less. Even Deus' own data showed that the Chargers last year had a near record low attendance.
Also, many experts think the thing playing in a major factor in causing the startling decline in attendance is the invention and adoption of HDTV. Many people feel it more pleasurable to sit with friends in front of an 60 inch plasma than paying to go to the game. HDTV has hurt a lot entertainment businesses like the movie industry (that is why they are shooting everything in 3D so they can charge $5 more a ticket). There is evidence to support this since they are getting record high ratings for select games on TV and near record low attendance in some stadiums. You kinda argued this too, but this has nothing to do with the economy.
Also, teams who are offering entertainment packages are doing so in desperation to get people to come to the game.
By focusing as much on a host of side attraction, stadiums are less about catering to the die-hard football fans, and more about attracting families and football 'tourists' looking to make an outing out of their day at the game. Whereas diehard fans tailgate and eat their own food and drink their own beer, the new type of stadium attendee goes and participates in all of the other side attractions and eat the overpriced clam chowder, etc, enabling the teams to make more money off each attendee.
BS! Nothing has significantly changed in terms of what teams offer from 2006 to today. Virtually every family friendly and/or overpriced concession they are offering today were being offered in 2006.
So diminishing attendance doesn't necessarily mean reduced revenue from concessions, parking, etc.. First of all, I think only the Patriots do their concessions in-house. The vast majority of teams make money by selling the rights to the proceeds to various providers, like Aramark. It's these companies that are going to take the initial hit on sales from reduced attendance, and it's not like they're likely to risk their contract trying to pass it on to the team. Second of all, if the vendors are able to increase the sales of 'affordable luxury' concessions to the new breed of game attendee, they could be actually making more money off the smaller crowds.
You are going to tell me that with 130k fewer tickets sold in 2010 than in 2006, the Bucs still had the same parking and concessions revenue? Come on get real.
As for luxury concessions, again there hasn't been a significant change in these things from 2006 til today.
Also, you don't understand how retail/concession leases work. I have direct experience in my family owning and renting retail/restarant property. The property owner gets more or less rent based on the revenues of the rentees. Even if an owner contracts out to Aramark, they get bonuses for Aramark's revenue overages and may have guaranteed Aramark a certain level of business or they get a break in their fees. Of course it hurts their money. Typically percentage rents are very common when it involved in leasing to a company expected to do signficant business in a location. Most malls no matter the size operate this way. I'm sure most concession leases are the same.
Finally, focusing on attendance to the exclusion of the big picture is pointless. From '06-'10, while the Buccanneers' attendance dropped, their revenues rose from $205 million to $246 million. Obviously, they've been able to develop other revenue streams to make up for whatever losses in terms of ticket sales.
Again, you are missing my point. The owners aren't arguing that revenues are declining. They are arguing that revenues are not growing at the rate they expected because of the economy. I don't think the new TV contracts signed since 2006 have kicked in yet. All the TV revenue they have been getting is expected. They probably even knew around what they were going to get with the new TVs when they signed the CBA in 2006. Although the TV revenues are growing at a rapid rate, it is growing at an expected rate. What they didn't expect was the startling drop in attendance for many teams that has happened.
At this rate most expert expect the economy to be in the toilet for a while. It is going to be a very slow recovery. What can happen in a long recession is the population change their habits. If you have any grandparents from the Depression era, they most likely are very frugal and saved a lot. While many baby boomers tend to spend more and save less. A very long recession could mean that a lot of people stop going to the games especially with the home viewing experience being far better than it was 10 years ago.
One thing not spoken about with this decline in ticket sales is that if it lasts long enough, it could have a negative effect on TV revenue. If the local team gets blacked out week after week, it could turn this sport into a regionalized game like MLB has become. MLB has seen a sharp decline in popularity and TV ratings because of it.
Also, the NFL negoatiates the CBA on a 4-6 year term. So the current state of the economy is very relevant of how to negotiate. Since this is expected to be a long recovery, the ticket sales will probably not rebound (assuming this drop in ticket sales is based solely on the economy) until after the new CBA expires or at least through most of the life of the new CBA. If by the time the new CBA negotiations come around the ticket sales rebound, the players will have more leverage to get a better deal in the next CBA.
It is funny that you chose to not respond to my post with startling facts of several teams rapid decline in ticket sales.