(Speculation) NFL making the Super Bowl a PPV event?

[PATSYLICIOUS]

Id just stream them unless the pats are in it

 

[The Boston Patriot]

I'm not going to worry about this. I've got enough crap on my plate already and this doesn't even come close to making my GAF list. ZFG. Personally I think if they do this, it would be a disaster for the NFL. The only ones watching would be the gamblers unless your team was playing in it.

 

[MrTibbs]

I would absolutely be done as a NFL fan. Wasn't it Mark Cuban that stated the NFL's greed will eventually be it's downfall?

 

[RobertWeathers]

Really depends on PPV means.

If it's already part of a streaming subscription package then whatever.

If it's pay $29.95 on top of network and streaming services then all set thanks.

 

[JarOfMayo51]

oof... nearly 50 million households watched the super bowl this year... spitballin' here... if they nfl charged a modest $50 for it... that 2.5 billion dollars... lose half of that to taxes and fixed costs... so they net 1.25 billion... that's a lot of money... (i dont actually believe 50 million households will pay $50 for the game though)

but...

I think the TV stations that pay for the rights to broadcast the NFL might object to something like this... Right now its equitable, with the game rotating between the rights holders... They make huge money on ads... something like 6m or 7m for a 30 second spot... so hows that gonna go over with them? in total (pregame, game, post game) Fox made 636 million from super bowl ads... last year nbc made 578 million...

so does the nfl make their broadcast partners whole? If im paying ppv for the superbowl, i ain't watching ads... so 1.25 billion minus 650 million (a very conservative number) for fox/nbc/whoever... leaves $600,000,000 for the league... the players will get half... so $300,000,000 for the owners... $18,750,000 per team... thats a pretty penny... But is that pretty penny worth the severe negative backlash they will face over a move like this?

not in my book

the rights fees the broadcasters pay now already include the right to broadcast the super bowl... those rights become less valuable if thats not included... so how does that affect the most reliable income stream that the league has? Does going to the ppv model upset their limited anti-monopoly benefits? that could, theoretically at least, profoundly impact the league as a whole...

while i think the nfl could generate a lot of money going the ppv route, it would require a huge leap of faith that people would be willing to carry that additional cost...


If they do do this - i will be the first in line at Piracy-R-Us learning how to set up a mirror site to make bank off of them... those streams will make big bucks...

they would also lose the security of their guaranteed contracts with the networks in the event of a union lockout for example... one of the huge advantages owners had in a lockout was that they would continue to get their money from the major network contracts and the players would more than likely not adjust their lifestyles and cave to maintain them

 

[Pape]

they would also lose the security of their guaranteed contracts with the networks in the event of a union lockout for example... one of the huge advantages owners had in a lockout was that they would continue to get their money from the major network contracts and the players would more than likely not adjust their lifestyles and cave to maintain them

Excellent point I did not even remotely consider

 

[Tunescribe]

I can see neutral site championship games coming. I do not see a PPV Super Bowl.

If the NFL is stupid and greedy enough to move to neutral sites for conference title games, I will seriously reevaluate being a fan. There would be no justification for taking that experience away from a home crowd.

 

[FCB02062]

if the owners can line their pockets even more, yes, it'll happen

 

[TheRainMaker]

I would absolutely be done as a NFL fan. Wasn't it Mark Cuban that stated the NFL's greed will eventually be it's downfall?

He did. The NFL product has gotten worse every year and every team looks the same. Too many networks and primetime games which waters down the excitement of these games. The playoff format is terrible - there was waaay too many playoff games.

 

[MrTibbs]

The NFL is getting a 18th game well before a PPV Super Bowl or neutral site Conference Championship games. I'd bet on that.

ABSOLUTE GREED BABY!

 

[203Pat]

I would be out on the NFL as a whole, including the Patriots.

Agreed. That would be the last straw for me.

 

[KDPPatsfan85]

Thank god for illegal streams

 

[XLIX]

It will never happen and I cannot believe the amount of play this story is getting. The guy who made the statement, John Skipper, is nothing more than a former TV exec. He doesn't work for or represent the NFL in any way. His opinion does not merit discussion.

 

[Huckleberry1]

I’m pretty certain their anti trust exemption would be challenged if they did this.

 

[Brick27]

Super Bowl relies on the non-fan and casual fan way too much for that to make any sense.

 

[Jlaff]

I'm not going to worry about this. I've got enough crap on my plate already and this doesn't even come close to making my GAF list. ZFG. Personally I think if they do this, it would be a disaster for the NFL. The only ones watching would be the gamblers unless your team was playing in it.

Yeah, not a chance I pay to watch a Chiefs/Eagles Superbowl.

 

[mgcolby]

This is how NFL gets its way: presents a ****ty idea, then presents an even ****tier idea, making you think the first ****ty idea isn't as bad as the second even ****tier idea.

Or presents a very ****ty idea (18 game season), lets everyone lose their **** over that idea, waits for things to calm down, then presents a less ****ty idea (17 game season) which everyone accepts as inevitable.

Stated absolutely perfect.