3 ms·
Probably the thing that annoys me most about these deals is how one-sided the tenancy is. For example, an NFL team can play eight games a year in a publicly fin
by redshirtrob 8y ago
Probably the thing that annoys me most about these deals is how one-sided the tenancy is. For example, an NFL team can play eight games a year in a publicly financed stadium, but if a game doesn't "sell out", then the local broadcast is blacked out. AFAIK only the NFL does this, but that's probably a function of the number/timing of games more than anything else.
- ndnxhs 8y agoIts slightly better in South Australia. If the game sells out then the broadcast is live but if it does not it is delayed by adverts in between
- choward 8y agoThat's pretty terrible. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't watch a game when I'm getting alerts on my phone in real time.
- stevehawk 8y agoNFL dropped the blackout rule three years ago. The loss in tv ad revenue outweighed the "gain" of full attendance.
- redshirtrob 8y agoAs I mentioned in another reply, I totally missed that change. I think your assessment is spot on though. They did a cost-benefit analysis and realized it made more sense to lift the blackouts. It's not like they ceded the right to do so. My preference is they should not have that right for publicly financed stadiums. Privately financed (meaning 100% private, don't ask for infra changes or anything else), then they can do what they want. Make it PPV for all I care.
- paulcole 8y agoYou’re incorrect about NFL blackouts. Since 2015 there has been no active blackout policy in the NFL. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Football_League_television_blackout_policies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Football_League_telev...
- redshirtrob 8y agoI missed that change. Probably because I lived outside the market for my preferred team for so long. I don't think this changes my assertion that the agreements are very one-sided in favor of the teams. The very fact that the NFL can make that determination for publicly financed stadiums supports my point. I have no doubt they'd flip the switch again if they thought it was financially beneficial or gave them sufficient leverage, i.e. my main point.