NFL blackout rule might come to an end thanks to Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown

[1776Forever]

http://www.sportsrageous.com/nfl-blackout-rule-might-come-to-an-end-01-14-2012

NFL blackout rule might come to an end
By Poeticsoul
January 14, 2012

There might be an end to NFL blackouts in sight. This will cause some to rejoice, and others to ask what you’re talking about. Simply put, the NFL blackout rule that prevents undersold home games from being broadcast in their local market might be at an end after 35 years of tyranny.

Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio has made an effort to end the blackouts since only one of the Cleveland Browns home games managed to make it on the air in the area. Now, the FCC announced Thursday that it will consider ending the rule instated in 1973.

The NFL stands by their rule, saying that it is crucial in maintaining appropriate ticket sales and revenue. But critics tear this argument to shreds. How many people buy tickets to games in order to help meet a quota? There are many fans in certain areas who aren’t even aware of the rule. Fans buy tickets because they want to be at the game, not because they have no other way to see the game.

(more at link)

...........

Thanks for my Great U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown!

[The Straight Story]

1. OSU buckeyes sell out every game and you can watch them on TV

Not sure the blackout rule aids ticket sales at all.

[woolldog]

2. There's no blackout rule for college.

[The Straight Story]

4. I know that. And things work just fine for college without one, thus, no need for pros to either (nt

[woolldog]

7. yup

the rule never made sense to me. I prefer college football over the NFL anyway so I didn't much care whether games were blacked out or not. Plus if you really want to see a game these days they're all online.

[JVS]

3. I view the blackout rule as a good way to notify unsupportive fanbases...

that they need to actually get off their asses and go to some games.

[Logical]

5. I agree. I understand why the rule is there. It should stay in place.

[proud2BlibKansan]

23. And when fans can't afford a ticket, they're out of luck?

Taxpayers are paying for the stadiums. Many can't afford to attend the games. Here in KC, parking alone is $30.

NFL owners are crooks. Why should they be allowed to decide which games are televised in which areas?

[sunwyn]

6. I'm with my Sen on this

It is really aggravating for a lot of fans as taxpayers build the stadiums.

[dkf]

8. Good. Blacking out games only makes people apathetic to their teams anyway.

[baldguy]

9. The rule made sense when NFL tickets were something the average person could afford.

[Ruby the Liberal]

11. Bingo.

Back when you didn't have to take out a second mortgage to treat a family of 4 to a snack and a game.

[JVS]

13. By keeping the blackout law, you'd be forcing the owners to offer cheaper seats.

No team is going to survive constant blackouts. The owners need the TV revenue.

[baldguy]

15. Have you purchased a ticket to a pro football game recently?

They have outrageously expensive seats, and then they have somewhat less outrageously expensive seats seats. None of them could be considered "cheap".

The owners don't really care about the blackout. They get most of their revenue from nationwide broadcasts and merchandising, not ticket sales or local broadcasts. Keeping the ticket prices high just keeps the riff-raff out.

[JVS]

20. I can't purchase a ticket to a pro football game. My team is always sold out.

But if Cinci would lower their prices, I might be tempted to go to road games for my team and help them beat the blackout. Same with Cleveland.

[proud2BlibKansan]

24. Baloney. The teams meet their budgets with the TV revenues alone.

Everything is else is sheer profit, INCLUDING ticket sales.

Taxpayers paid for the stadiums. The games should NOT be blacked out.

If the owners don't like it, they can pay for their own stadiums.

[JVS]

25. How can they collect TV revenues if they're blacked out?

[proud2BlibKansan]

26. Every game isn't blacked out.

We did a lot of research the last time our owners asked the taxpayers to remodel their stadiums. Before they even play the first pre-season game, their budget is in the black. They've met their payroll and ALL expenses from the TV revenues alone. So blacking out games is essentially robbing the taxpayers.

It's an unbelievably corrupt racket. These owners are greedy bastards. They are a powerful lobby in both state capitals and in DC.

I wouldn't give them a dime of my money now. They get my tax dollars - that's enough.

[obamanut2012]

10. Who can afford the tickets?

And parking, and food and drink )since they don't let you bring in your own)? And, all on this on the taxpayers' backs, the taxpayers who paid for the damned stadium and roads leading to the stadium and the parking lots in the first place.

[Ruby the Liberal]

12. Good for Senator Brown

Local taxpayers subsidize their stadiums (and a host of other tax breaks), and you still have nonsense like this a few days ago:

Not only was the hire of coach Mike Mularkey panned by critics Wednesday, Jaguars owner Shahid Khan is in serious damage control mode after his comments about what makes a fan of his team.

Khan explained just what it takes to be a Jaguars fan, in his opinion: "I think I can clarify at this point for me a fan is somebody who is a season ticket holder fan for the Jaguars," said the new owner. "We want to hear from people, we want a huge amount of constructive feedback. We need input, but we need that from fans who are season ticket holders."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12044107

[onenote]

14. this story is filled with misinformation

probably not intentional, since its a complicated issue and set of rules.

First, the blackout of local telecasts of NFL games that aren't sold out is not required by any rule. Rather, it is permitted by an act of Congress that was enacted to give the NFL a limited exemption from the antitrust laws (thus allowing the merger of the old AFL and NFL). For a number of years, the legislation included a limitation that prevented the NFL from requiring the blackout of local broadcasts of home games that were sold out 72 hours before game time. That provision expired a number of years ago, but the NFL has voluntarily continued to abide by it. Otherwise, they could contractually bar the broadcast of a home game even if it was sold out.

Second, the FCC rule in question addresses a different, but related practice. Under the copyright law, cable systems and satellite companies are permitted to "import" a station from a different market, subject to various limitations. One of the limitations, found in an FCC rule, is that a cable operator or satellite company can be forced to blackout an out of market signal if its being imported into a market where a game is subject to a local blackout. For example, if the Washington Nationals are playing at home against the visiting Chicago Cubs and the game is not sold out,the cable system serving Washington DC carries WGN from Chicago, the system can be instructed by the Nationals to blackout WGN's telecast of the game. If the game is being broadcast locally (even if its not sold out), then the Nationals cannot force the system to blackout WGN.

This rule is virtually never invoked. Among other things, there just aren't that many instances of distant signals carriage into the major markets where sports franchises are located. As such, the repeal of the rule will be mostly an empty gesture. It won't impact the Congressional provision allowing the NFL to blackout a local telecast of games that aren't sold out and while cable and DBS will theoretically have the freedom to import a distant signal from the visiting team's market on which the game is broadcast, various other rules (and the requirement to pay substantial copyright royalties) effectively deter that practice.

But I suppose it makes folks feel better to pretend that they've accomplished something.

[1776Forever]

17. This article says "Rule under the most significant attack to date".....

NFL Blackout Rule Under Review By FCC
By David Fucillo
Jan 13, 2012

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2012/1/13/2704175/nfl-blackout-rule-tv-fcc-ruling

...The rule is now under its most significant attack to date and may not be long for this world. The FCC has officially begun the process of considering a new rule that would rescind the television blackout rule. In November 2011, five public interest groups submitted to the FCC a petition for rulemaking that would eliminate the sports blackout rule (PDF). On Thursday, the FCC submitted a public notice calling for comments about the petition (PDF). These are the first two steps in a lengthy process.

The FCC will consider new rules either through statutory mandate, agency identification of a problem, or a public petition. In this case, five groups submitted a public petition. The groups include Sports Fans Coalition, Inc., Public Knowledge, National Consumers League, League of Fans and Media Access Project.

The FCC has reviewed the petition and is now providing an opportunity for interested parties to submit comments on the matter. The FCC will accept responses to the petition until February 13, 2012. Replies to those responses will be allowed until February 28, 2012. This potential change in rules will receive comments from across the sports world, and not just from the NFL. Although the rule-change is aimed at the NFL, this has the possibility of impacting all four major sports.

(more at link)

[onenote]

18. The FCC rule isn't the rule that prevents local stations from broadcasting unsold out games

So the FCC proceeding is not any sort of attack on that rule. And the rule that allows the NFL to black out local broadcasts is embodied in a statute that the FCC lacks any power to change.
Also, it should be pointed out that the FCC is merely asking for comment on a petition asking it to start a proceeding to repeal its current "blackout" rule -- if the FCC decides to proceed, it would have to conduct a separate proceeding to actually repeal the rule. Finally, as the FCC public notice soliciting comment on the petition indicates, even the petitioners who want the FCC rule repealed admit that argue that sports leagues could privately negotiate the same results that the rule affords.

I've checked and to the best I can determine, Senator Brown hasn't introduced legislation to repeal the provision of the antitrust laws that allows the NFL to impose a blackout restriction on local broadcasters. If he was serious about forcing the NFL to change its policies, that's what you would expect to see.

[99Forever]

16. Well...

... even as this is going on, the local NFL team here is doing the "hat in hand" shuffle, demanding "a new stadium or else we're gonna move" and of course, a the billionaire owner thinks it's up to the locals to finance a large part of the costs...


Meh.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

21. Yep. Like the Tea-bagger Cubs basball owners demanding a bond be floated to remodel their stadium.

[itsrobert]

19. It will be known as the The Bengals Rule

n/t

[proud2BlibKansan]

22. When taxpayers finance these stadiums,

the games should never be blacked out.

A state rep in MO proposed legislation last year but I don't think it went anywhere.

[Recovered Repug]

27. I've seen the Browns play.

The people of Cleveland should consider themselves lucky that they were blacked out.

[leftyohiolib]

28. yep the city stuck us with a couple of stadiums

each team had to have their own stadium and oh the jobs they were gonna produce. it was all such a load. but they got it thanks to the sports fans, most of whom dont live in the city. too much emphasis on the teams anyway- too many resources wasted on sports. cleveland schools are not getting the attention they need but there's always money for sports. let them charge as much asthey want sports fans will find a way to pony up. so pony up suckers