Senators threaten NFL - Yes!

[mgcolby]

I don't get every Red Sox, Celtics or Bruins games without buying a package through DTV. Are they going to take away their anti-trust exemptions?

 

[Water Boy]

If we want to be a free market then ABSOLUTELY TAKE AWAY their anti-trust exemption. WHY SHOULD they have one.

Compete without it.

You're right that the NFL's current anti-trust exemption is not "free market".

However, this is a good article on the possible ramifications of doing away w/ the NFL's exemption

http://www.nysun.com/article/45101?page_no=1

"Specter may be unafraid of taking on the NFL and its highly politically connected owners, but he is absolutely wrong when he contends that football fans of America are being "gouged." The real gouging would come after the antitrust exemption is lifted.

Pennsylvania's senior senator apparently does not know how sports owners operate today — as opposed to 1960 — where television is concerned. Most of the NFL's regular season — and all of its playoff games — are on over-the-air TV. That's an anomaly in sports. Take a look at New York's professional teams: the Knicks, Rangers, Nets, Devils, and Islanders are not on "free" television. Save for a few network TV games, the teams work strictly with cable programming. The Yankees and Mets have a handful of games on over-the-air television (the Boston Red Sox will not be on over-the-air television in 2007)

Specter needs to understand that sports owners have taken their properties from terrestrial TV to cable because that's where the money is. The Giants, Jets, Chicago, Philadelphia, New England (Boston), or Dallas would likely have no problem putting together a lucrative TV network because of their big city locations. Green Bay, Buffalo, New Orleans, Tennessee (Nashville), Jacksonville, Kansas City, or Cincinnati, on the other hand, would have major difficulties getting big money agreements.

Specter should realize that football also will migrate to cable television, where regional sports cable networks — who collect revenue from both subscribers and advertisers — have deeper pockets and so, more money to offer than local TV stations. This is not good news for cable TV subscribers since NFL programming is very expensive; it almost certainly means cable rates will go up for everyone, not just football fans.

NFL owners already are locked in a battle over shared revenue, with New York Senator Schumer looking over their shoulders to ensure the Buffalo Bills and other small market teams can line up with big market players like New York and Chicago. Can you imagine what would happen within the league if Specter's bill becomes law?

The bill would end not only the NFL's view of football economic socialism — which basically allows Green Bay to compete on a nearly even financial footing with New York in signing free agent players and offering bonuses to draft picks — but more important, would be costly for cable TV consumers. Which is why Specter's proposed legislation is pure folly and will more than likely never come out of committee."

 

[Charlotte Pats Fan]

I don't get every Red Sox, Celtics or Bruins games without buying a package through DTV. Are they going to take away their anti-trust exemptions?

Only if they are undefeated going into the last game

 

[frankiesfly]

You don't have a God given right to watch the Pats!! Get of the wallet and bye a dish! Everything the Gov touches gets effed up.

I had a dish and watched 5 channels on it so I didn't need it. By the way are you one of the new bandwagon Pats fans that just decided to come here and become a fan because your sorry ass Panthers are the worst team in the NFL. You have no right to even be on this board or even talk about the Pats living in Charlotte. You sorry ass. Bandwagon lost soul.

 

[mgcolby]

Only if they are undefeated going into the last game

Whoops I fogot to add the Pats to that. I have to buy Sunday ticket to guarantee that I can watch the Pats each week.

I don't have to worry about week 16 because DTV has it as part of its base package.

People whine and take to much for granted these days. :bricks:

Whaaa I Can't watch a single football game (based on my own choices) Mr Senator please get involved.

 

[Charlotte Pats Fan]

I had a dish and watched 5 channels on it so I didn't need it. By the way are you one of the new bandwagon Pats fans that just decided to come here and become a fan because your sorry ass Panthers are the worst team in the NFL. You have no right to even be on this board or even talk about the Pats living in Charlotte. You sorry ass. Bandwagon lost soul.

Yeah, I guess living in Central Mass from 1958-1991 makes me a bandwagoner. Your a fool.

 

[BelichickFan]

I had a dish and watched 5 channels on it so I didn't need it.

Well that's your choice. I would like to go to cable in many (or several, anyway) ways but I stick with DirecTV for the Sunday Ticket. My choice. Your choice.

 

[CTPatsFan]

Since I already have NFLN, I personally don't care one way or the other. But anytime our politicians are distracted and concentrating on relatively trivial matters it pleases me. It keeps them from screwing up meaningful legislation.

Gridlock and attention to trivial matters by the House and Senate makes me happy.

 

[Truck]

Awesome. So these Senators want to force the NFL to offer its NFL Network games on Comcast; the great medium where I have to pay atleast $70/month (excluding deals) for HDTV

 

[mgteich]

Perhaps every household should be taxed $10 a month and everyone should be forced to ahve cable that will be required to show all NFL games without additional charge. No that isn't fair. The states should be forced to run a cable company to provide everyone with all the games at no charge. This Vermont speaking folks. As I said before, socialism is its favortie system.

The anti-trust exemption does do a lot of good. That si a different subject. I suppose many would like to see four or five competing leagues, and no draft or cap.

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

Looks like the carefully orchestrated dog and pony show of the NFL ownership has had unforseen reprecussions.

The NFL figured that they would piss off the entire country by showing the Cowboys on the NFL Network and then turn around and sue cable providers so they could further line their pockets with gold at the expense of the fans and the teams (with stupid scheduling hardships). Well, they did manage to piss people off so they could try to put the heat on the cable companies and tell the cable companies how to run their business.

But apparently the NFL owners want to tell the cable companies what to do, but don't want to be told what to do by the government.

Sucks to be a rich NFL owner, don't it?

 

[mgcolby]

Looks like the carefully orchestrated dog and pony show of the NFL ownership has had unforseen reprecussions.

The NFL figured that they would piss off the entire country by showing the Cowboys on the NFL Network and then turn around and sue cable providers so they could further line their pockets with gold at the expense of the fans and the teams (with stupid scheduling hardships). Well, they did manage to piss people off so they could try to put the heat on the cable companies and tell the cable companies how to run their business.

But apparently the NFL owners want to tell the cable companies what to do, but don't want to be told what to do by the government.

Sucks to be a rich NFL owner, don't it?

You should really go back and read up on the situation. Both parties are equally at fault. By the way Comcast offers it in a "sports" tier for an extra 5 bucks a month. So the majority of the people in the country between Directv, Comcast, DishNetwork and a bunch of smaller cable companies have access to the channel. The NFL wants it to be a part of the cable companies base package at a $1.?? per customer. The Cable companies, mainly Time Warner and Comcast (already has), want to add it to a tier package that the customer has to subscribe to. Both are out to make as much money off of it as possible. To paint the NFL owners solely as the bad guys is short sighted.

I understand both parties point and the Cable company would have a more valid argument, if they didn't clutter up the basic package with a bunch of crap channels that they don't mind having every customer pay for, regardless of the overall viewership numbers.

 

[Charlotte Pats Fan]

Looks like the carefully orchestrated dog and pony show of the NFL ownership has had unforseen reprecussions.

The NFL figured that they would piss off the entire country by showing the Cowboys on the NFL Network and then turn around and sue cable providers so they could further line their pockets with gold at the expense of the fans and the teams (with stupid scheduling hardships). Well, they did manage to piss people off so they could try to put the heat on the cable companies and tell the cable companies how to run their business.

But apparently the NFL owners want to tell the cable companies what to do, but don't want to be told what to do by the government.

Sucks to be a rich NFL owner, don't it?[/QUOTE]

Why?

 

[Phokus]

When the federal gov't broke up the AT&T monopoly, the consumers benefited greatly. I'm not so sure about this situation, but when there's a big monopolistics/oligopoly, it can be beneficial for everyone for gov't to get involved.

 

[Charlotte Pats Fan]

When the federal gov't broke up the AT&T monopoly, the consumers benefited greatly. I'm not so sure about this situation, but when there's a big monopolistics/oligopoly, it can be beneficial for everyone for gov't to get involved.

Which one is the monopoly/oligopoly? The NFL or the Cable Companies?

 

[BelichickFan]

You guys celebrating this better be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Taking away the anti trust exemption would throw a lot of things into flux for the NFL which is operating pretty smoothly right now. With basic cable you get games all day Sunday plus Monday night and, late in the season/playoffs some Saturday too. Do you really want to risk throwing the NFL into a sea of uncertainty over Thursday games that you can see by 1) getting one of several dish options, 2) going to a sports bar, 3) watching on local TV if you live in the area ?

Just relax, figure out what you want to do for the NE-NYG game and be thankful the NFL isn't nutty like baseball where Kyle Lohse is said to be getting 4 years/$44M from the Mets.

 

[primetime]

Threatening the anti-trust exemption is the wrong way to do this. Not for any overarching political reasons for which I care very little, but because, like BelichickFan said, it will hurt the league more than it will help it... and this is coming from someone who doesn't get the games either (though I will be at the NYG-NE game).

To be honest, if you really want to see it, go to a sports bar. I personally think NFLN should be on regular cable, let alone digital, because God knows it'll draw more viewers than, say, C-SPAN 2 or CourtTV... but yeah.

 

[ClevTrev]

Funny, the cable companies seem to have flown under the radar on this. They want to charge viewers extra for the NFL Network, and the NFL wants to force them to include it in their basic cable for no additional charge. It's much simpler to do one of the following:
a) Get DirecTV
b) Write to your Cable Provider and tell them you're canceling and not renewing until they add NFL Network to the basic channels
c) Go to a sports bar
d) Become an orienteering fan

 

[jays52]

"Giving power to the government is like giving whiskey and car keys to a teenage boy"- PJ O'Rourke

 

[xmarkd400x]

Where do you watch your Red Sox games? NESN. Where do you watch your Yankees games? YES Network. Where do you watch your NFL games? Free over the air television.

The NFL is just trying to get it's piece of the pie, just like other sports networks already have. However, I do not know all of the facts and whether or not the NFL's piece of the pie is deserved. For example, the Red Sox and Yankees own their own TV networks, not MLB. Could the Patriots own their own network? Not currently. I'm just rambling... anyways...