F
FredLeonard
Guest
If you hate football, this should make you mad. If you love football, it should really make you mad.
theatlantic.com said:
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
F
FredLeonard
Guest
There's the NCAA, which is just as greedy and corrupt, and just as much a monopoly.
MLB, NBA, etc. It's the way we do business in this country.
F
FredLeonard
Guest
What you mean "we," Kemo Sabe?
Get exempt from anti-trust laws. Get exempt from state, local and federal taxes (yes, federal, the NFL is a non-profit). Get the government (i.e, those of us who do pay taxes) to build stadia and let you keep all the proceeds. Threaten to move if you don't get your way - including whatever corporate welfare you want.
At least the NFL pays talent. The NCAA doesn't even do that - yet.
Only sports does business that way.
Here's how to deal with these sports monopolies. The FCC rules that ballgames are public events, held in public facilities. That makes them bona fide news. No one can restrict broadcasters from covering or broadcasting these public events, or charge them.
And if any team moves to leave town, local governments confiscate the franchise and all its equipment and facilities under eminent domain.
Get exempt from anti-trust laws. Get exempt from state, local and federal taxes (yes, federal, the NFL is a non-profit). Get the government (i.e, those of us who do pay taxes) to build stadia and let you keep all the proceeds. Threaten to move if you don't get your way - including whatever corporate welfare you want.
At least the NFL pays talent. The NCAA doesn't even do that - yet.
Only sports does business that way.
Here's how to deal with these sports monopolies. The FCC rules that ballgames are public events, held in public facilities. That makes them bona fide news. No one can restrict broadcasters from covering or broadcasting these public events, or charge them.
And if any team moves to leave town, local governments confiscate the franchise and all its equipment and facilities under eminent domain.
Last edited:
First of all, broadcasters aren't restricted from covering these things. I've covered hundreds of NFL, MLB, NCAA, and NHL games, had access to players, and that material was broadcast. If they give me a credential, I have permission to use it. I didn't even have to sign anything. Some events, like Grammy Awards, require the reporter to sign a form stating how and when the material will be used.
Second, it's really out of the FCC jurisdiction. The FCC can tell broadcasters what to do, but they can't tell local communities how to run their venues. Concerts use many of the same venues, and they operate with the same restrictions. These public facilities profit from these private events, and that money goes to the communities.
F
FredLeonard
Guest
No, they don't. Money goes to the teams. That's the deal they make. And "communities" get no economic benefit from sports teams.
Actually it depends on the venue. Some of the venues are privately owned, and so none of the team money goes to the communities. But in the case of community-owned venues, where bonds were floated or tax revenue used, they charge fees to the team, they get a percentage of the concessions, there's often a ticket tax, so they get a percentage of the ticket price, and some of the ad revenue from signage. But it depends on the deal.
Most communities compete very hard to get sports teams, and it's all about economic benefits. They have revenues clearly planned, and they also have residual benefits from bars, restaurants, and hotels near the venue.
F
FredLeonard
Guest
The line politicians and team owners put out. Various studies have shown promised economic benefits do not occur. Some localities make better deals and get an OK piece of the action but many localities have not and the team gets all or most of the cash.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business...he-risky-economics-of-sports-stadiums/260900/
http://www.theatlantic.com/business...he-risky-economics-of-sports-stadiums/260900/
So you reference an article about a hockey team in Arizona as proof of something? Why not build a beach resort in Anchorage? That'll fail too.
The reality is that teams have discovered it's better to own the venue than depend on public financing. That's why both the new Yankee Stadium and Citi Field in NYC were built privately. The new football stadium in Southern California is being built with private money. Obviously they wouldn't do it if they didn't think there was money in owning the venue. There is.
And as I said, if it's done right, with a sport that people WANT to see, the town benefits from the ticket tax and other revenue.
But that's not what you were talking about. You want the FCC to force teams do broadcast their games for free. That's not the FCC's job. If they made such a rule, they'd get slapped by Congress, just as they were a couple days ago over net neutrality.
Last edited:
F
FredLeonard
Guest
Fine. Pick out any one of the other articles a Google search generates. And the article did not just deal with Phoenix. But it's not what corporate sycophants like you want to hear in your slavish desire to pander to rich people. Sorry, you're not one of them. But it makes you feel better than anyone beneath you on the economic ladder. Keep saying "mega dittos."
Yes, in all likelihood the leagues have members of congress bought and paid for. Just as the cable, wireless and broadcasting industries have bought off the FCC, or even stacked it with their own people.
Huh? How did this turn into a personal attack on me?
You came up with a completely wrong proposal, I called you on it, and now you're embarrassed and upset. Sorry. But your charges about me are way off base.
There is nothing in the FCC Rules & Regulations or any of their other documentation that give them the authority you say they have. It has nothing to do with bribes or payoffs. It has to do with the law. And as I also said, one doesn't have to pay for broadcast rights to cover any athletic or entertainment event.
This is not to say there aren't appropriate ways to deal with the sports monopoly. But the FCC isn't the federal agency I'd suggest.
Last edited:
A
Avid Listener
Guest
I'm sorry, but a AAA minor league is no substitute for a major league.
However, the NFL is, strictly speaking, not a true monopoly. They are simply one participant in the professional spectator sports industry. The precise term is monopolistic competition. The NFL's "brand" is football. MLB's "brand" is baseball. The NBA's "brand" is hockey. And so on for all the other spectator sports.
It's like the restaurant industry. McDonalds competes with Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, KFC, Burger King, and all the other franchises. They have a monopoly on the "Big Mac", but they still face competition from other companies selling other fast food products. If you just want a generic hamburger, you can get it from any fast food place. But if you want a Big Mac, then you can only get it at the Golden Arches.
Likewise, if you want to see some sports, there are plenty of spectator sports leagues to pick from, each with its own particular branded product.
Last edited:
Your vision must be so much better than mine. I have read and re-read the quoted article and see nothing whatever about a failing hockey team in AZ. But as long as you brought it up let me provide some knowledge that may have skipped by your lofty perch:
Hockey in AZ is alive and well. The professional Coyotes draw pretty well having made a series of serious blunders when moving here:
1. They built their arena in Glendale which is in the far west Valley and an hours drive from the majority of hockey fans homes. Almost impossible to get from here to there during rush hour when their games are scheduled. Fans will travel to the games but, unlike football which plays across the street, there are 40 home games per year versus 7 for football (and those are on Sundays when there is no rush hour and some are even in the afternoon). Taking your kids to the game is a challenge on school nights when most games are played.
2. Their second and third seasons, although successful on the ice, resulted in management trading away the marquee players who originally came here with the team with the result they went into a several seasons slump from which they are now just recovering.
3. The team owner(s) appointed His Royal Canadian Majesty Wayne Gretzky as head coach and he quickly became a figurehead who didn't even maintain a home in the Valley. His role as part owner also seems to have been a conflict of interest as almost nothing was heard or seen from him until his disappearance without fanfare several years later.
4. The Coyotes have a fanatic fan following but have very little to show for it from the media and even from the team itself. There is almost no media coverage and their games, if broadcast at all, are on an AM station which does not cover the metro area. The local sports media covers the Coyotes on an "if available" time basis sucking hind teats behind even the loser Suns and ASU. The Diamondbacks get first dibs on media coverage in this city despite not having done much of anything since their one World Series win. And the Cards have been a joke most years since their arrival yet their image and players can be seen everywhere. I doubt any local resident could name any Coyote except Sean Doan since the team doesn't believe in stable rosters and only a minimum of players have lasted more than one season or two.
In addition to all the above consider the Coyotes play in an arena that has been threatened with closure (with the team be relocated) for the past 7-8 years. The city of Glendale made some pretty poor financial agreements in order to land the team and has been having buyers remorse. For several years it was almost a daily story on the local news that the city would close the arena (which they paid for) forcing the team elsewhere. What kind of following is going to commit to supporting a team that is constantly saying it is only a temporary team?
Now, finally, a new buyer for the team was found and ownership is in transition. The team is successful if not yet Stanley Cup quality. They draw good crowds despite being forced to play mainly on weeknights when it is a pain to get to their games from most of the Valley. Should they ever get hot and start winning you will see the arena packed but no one likes paying the big bucks to see a losing team (reference the Noo Yawk Isles). We have a first class facility and the basis for a good team and it will prosper as soon as we get a competent management team.
Something else to consider......There are five ice rinks in the Phoenix metro area all but one of which have multiple ice surfaces. If you wanted to play adult hockey in a league you would have a substantial number of your games very late at night because they are filled with skaters, both figure and hockey. Thousands of kids are playing organized hockey in the Valley now and ice time is at a premium. This is not the story of a losing program. Although we had successful minor league hockey in Phoenix since the 60's (Roadrunners) and several ice rinks the addition of the Coyotes have attracted even more players to the game. We even have high school leagues now which is amazing considering the history and ethnic makeup of Phoenix.
So, before you criticize the Coyotes please consider the conditions under which they have played.
Point taken. I think the key line in your post is "The city of Glendale made some pretty poor financial agreements in order to land the team." As I said, it depends on the deal. Some communities have made great venue deals with their sports teams. Some haven't. But that doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater, or paint all city-owned venues as failures.
In the meantime, how does any of this justify an agency of the federal government to come in and require a local sports team to allow its games to be broadcast for free? If anyone should be making demands, it's the local sports authority. But then again, they're the ones who wrote the bad deal to begin with.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
Since when does the Federal government need any sort of justification for what it wants to do? It just makes something up out of thin air, or has a battalion of lawyers come up with convincing sounding arguments that may or may not be true.
Have you ever heard the one about the 500 pound gorilla? The Federal Government is a 50,000 pound gorilla! It does what it wants, when it wants, how it wants.
I said an AGENCY of the federal government. It's one thing if the government itself does something. But the proposal here is for the FCC. It's not in their jurisdiction.
The Department of Justice is more likely. Except they already gave the NFL a waiver.
I may be operating under the proverbial lilly pad so correct me if I am wrong but I thought the gubmint mandated "stuff" (more than just broadcast rights) were affected by the amount of taxpayer money involved in the team's assets. I think I remember a big argument that if taxpayer money was used in building the team's stadium they then had to make some financial concessions that would normally be reserved for private investors. Not sure if broadcast considerations were part of this or not but it does make a certain amount of sense to me.
The only glaring gubmint foible as I see it is the declaration of the NFL as a tax-exempt corporation. That is absolutely ludicrous.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
It's called a "typographical error". Get over it and move on.
- Status