Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 2009
| Subscribe to Newser's RSS feeds RSS | Follow Newser on Twitter Twitter


11

In Recession, NFL Blackout Rule Raises Ire

To fill seats, league holds local TV broadcasts hostage

Share

(Newser) – High ticket prices and the recession are taking their toll on attendance at pro football games. But if you can’t afford the stadium, at least you can watch at home, right? Wrong. The NFL is sticking to its “blackout” policy—no local broadcast if the stadium doesn’t sell out 3 days before a game—designed in 1973 to keep attendance up, Time reports. But if no one can afford the seats, does a blackout make sense?

Twelve of the league’s 32 teams face the possibility of blackouts this season. The NFL says the policy “has served us well for decades,” but fans and other experts don’t agree. To one economist, the idea that a home viewer threatened with a blackout would rush to the box office is preposterous. “Are people really behaving that way? Maybe a few dozen in each city.” If the sport isn’t on TV, people lose interest, he says. “Television is a mass-market promoter of a sport. You don't want to cut that off.”

Shelling out could be the only way to see the game in some markets.
Shelling out could be the only way to see the game in some markets.   (AP Photo)
An Arizona Cardinals fan sits in the stands.
An Arizona Cardinals fan sits in the stands.   (AP Photo)
Gulls outnumber Oakland Raider fans in the upper deck during the fourth quarter of an NFL football game.
Gulls outnumber Oakland Raider fans in the upper deck during the fourth quarter of an NFL football game.   (AP Photo)
« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow

I would like to think they would really, really look at those communities which are hardest hit and have an honest discussion about it, as opposed to saying this is the way we've always done things. - Richard Clark, Jacksonville; the Jaguars could have all 8 home games blacked out

« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow
11 comments
VIEWING:
 
dontlikeyou
Sep 10, 09 3:55 PM CDT
Sports is just a distraction. Let them eat cake. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
justapirate
Sep 10, 09 4:04 PM CDT
I say the athletes deserve a salary-cut. It's simply disgusting they earn so much for playing a game... Granted they do have to keep in shape and be the best, that still doesn't compare to the long hard hours many average Americans work. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
IN RESPONSE:
Robert_Dada
Sep 10, 09 5:42 PM CDT
Keep in shape? If you mean dose up on performance enhancing drugs then yes, I agree with you. Professional sports is a miserable waste of time and resources. Kids games with million dollar salaries. Nothing more.
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
gabo
Sep 10, 09 6:15 PM CDT
Why a salary cut? They are like CEOs in the physical sense. They make money for their companies. People ride their coattails to riches. Many industries, such as clothing, shoes and computer games are generating millions off the backs of the athletes they exploit. Everyone choses their occupation, obviously they chose correctly.
Vote up! Vote down!
+3
IN RESPONSE:
Vyridian
Sep 10, 09 8:18 PM CDT
If you think athletes deserve a salary cut, boycott sports and encourage everyone you know to do so as well. Otherwise, simple economics will ensure they continue to receive their monstrous salaries. As long as Americans spend obscene amounts of money on supporting sports, athletes will get obscene salaries, since they ARE sports. It's those average Americans working long, hard hours that pay for and validate the sports market when they watch NFL or head out to an MLB game to blow off steam and have a good time. I don't see the problem with this. It's not like some politicians came in and passed a partisan law saying athletes must be millionaires.
Vote up! Vote down!
+3
LEAVE A
COMMENT
Comment Policy
Facebook ConnectPost this comment to Facebook?

After connecting you will have the option to post your comment on your Facebook profile.