* This could just be the most important legislation John Kerry has ever had anything to do with.
It's a B*ll Sh*t piece of legislation but John Kerry is a B*ll Sh*t piece of a legislator and other than marrying rich widows this is his crowning glory.
*bert
*
Bat One
· 1 year ago
John Kerry barely has enough clout to get his name in the paper.
The Whistler
· 1 year ago
There's that Kerry making himself almost relevant.
ellinas
· 1 year ago
Geezz you guys why so much vitriol? Does the NFL get special treatment in the US tax code? If yes then maybe congress should repeal whatever it is they are getting. Then we can demand that the polititians stop their medling.
Neiman
· 1 year ago
Why attack Kerry? He is a Leftist, the Leftist Democrat Party does not believe in capitalism or fair market principles, and I see nothing dishonest about his wanting the Super Bowl on public television, maybe Left Wing PBS. or is the Partisan Bull Shit network.
LifeTrek
· 1 year ago
Not to be "pedantic" but the NFL (as were most major sports leagues) were given an exemption to the anti-trust requirements most other businesses have to observe in exchange for direct congressional oversight.
[quote]A day earlier, a letter to the NFL from two powerful members of the Senate Judiciary Committee -- Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa. -- [b]threatened to reconsider the league's antitrust exemption[/b] if it didn't make games on the network available to more viewers. http://www.caller.com/news/2007/dec/21/game-on-...
Thus, in order to avoid competition they answer to congress. This is very good for them.
Being a firm believer in markets I would prefer competition in the television broadcasting of sports, but considering their legally questionable rights statement on their broadcasts (you can barely watch the show with friends - and it may be completely illegal in a bar - without crossing their line) it is doubtful that any competition is going to happen soon.
This same exemption in return for oversight is the same reason Congress is looking into the steroids as much as they are. DKK
Jim
· 1 year ago
Should? Yes. Must? No. Chief Justice Justice Marshall wrote in [i]Gibbons v. Ogden[/i] (1824),
[quote](The commerce clause), like all other power[/quote], is complete in itself, may be exercised t its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations, other then are prescribed in the constitution."
The constitution argument that most or all private property is constitutionally protected does not emanate from the founders but from revisionists of the late 19th century. These activists judges, who invalidated state minimum wage and monopoly laws, were the conservative equivalents of todays left wing activist judges.
I may just be being overly literally, as is typical of me :/.
The Whistler
· 1 year ago
[quote]Not to be "pedantic" but the NFL (as were most major sports leagues) were given an exemption to the anti-trust requirements most other businesses have to observe in exchange for direct congressional oversight.[/quote]
Your link aside I thought that the anti-trust exemption was only granted to baseball.
Furthermore I deny that the NFL, MLB or any other sports franchise is a monopoly. In what way would the be a monopoly. The customer has numerous choices to spend his entertainment dollar from other professional athletics, amateur athletics, motor racing, movies, TV and in some people's cases the infernalnet.
LifeTrek
· 1 year ago
Whistler, you are correct when it applies to the running of the business on a city by city basis, MLB is the only sport with that exemption.
However there is an exemption granted by congress in 1961 for the broadcast of league wide TV events.
[quote] 2. 1961 Sports Broadcasting Act
1. Section 1291 gives antitrust exemption to the four leagues for any league-wide TV deals (so you can't sue the NFL for signing with CBS). 1. This covers only "sponsored telecasting", which is network and public television. 2. Everything else (cable, pay-per-view, satellite, etc.) falls under antitrust scrutiny, probably RoR. 3. This covers only football, basketball, baseball, and hockey. 2. Section 1292 (consistent with U.S. v. NFL) -- games can only be blacked out when the home team is playing at home. 3. Enlarges league-wide revenues and more equitable distribution of funds; passes RoR. 4. Note that ESPN games are not expressly legal, but probably survive RoR b/c pro-competitive. 5. Revenue sharing probably tied into SBA.
Regarding the monopoly issue, if you can find other sports on broadcast television worth watching good luck.
That is what we are talking about, free broadcast on the public airwaves. Since they were granted the exemption Senators are saying they need to reconsider the exemption on broadcast since they aren't making broadcasts available as they were when the law was written. DKK
Rob
· 1 year ago
[quote]Geezz you guys why so much vitriol? Does the NFL get special treatment in the US tax code? If yes then maybe congress should repeal whatever it is they are getting. Then we can demand that the polititians stop their medling.[/quote]
I'm of the opinion that the NFL shouldn't get special treatment, nor should Congress meddle in its affairs.
Rob, I agree 100%, they should be allowed to run their own business.
However, you are incorrect when you state the government has no right to get involved. Congress already meddled by choosing to override the Supreme Court and save the NFL.
Free markets are always best, but they have to have reasonable regulation. DKK
Satellite Stud
· 1 year ago
Reasonable regulation is right, but Sen. Kerrey messing around with hearings is a joke. There are things they SHOULD be doing and then there are the things that BUY votes. And this is buying votes when you spend time on NFL broadcasting fights on taxpayer dollars when you should be solving real problems that face the United States.
LifeTrek
· 1 year ago
Whistler, to clarify; the MLB antitrust exemption you are thinking of is based on a Supreme Court decision that determined since each game is played locally they are not actually interstate commerce and therefore antitrust legislation does not apply. This is considered bad law by most everyone, and as such it has never been applied to the other major sports leagues (and has never been overturned because the courts have recognized the unique role of baseball in America).
The Sports Broadcasting Act, as mentioned above, was a completely different exemption.
Regarding your assertion that no sports franchise (League is the proper term as a franchise is an individual team and is not a monopoly) is a monopoly you have to remember that antitrust laws prevent the forming of cartel or trusts as well. When an entity such as the NFL (an organization combining individual franchisees) combine all of the broadcasts into one contract to be bid upon then the only way to see that sport is to pay what they charge. That is a trust. It doesn't matter what other sports are out there.
When the railroads were formed into trusts it didn't matter that you could ship by sea or horse, it was still a monopoly.
Hope that helps. DKK
Proof
· 1 year ago
Kerry [i]may[/i] have a point! Some of those line backers [i]are[/i] [b][i]reminiscent of Genghis Khan![/i][/b]
Bill Mitchell
· 1 year ago
I have two words for John Kerry:
SPORTS BAR
DG
· 1 year ago
Baseball's exemption is a blanket exemption, the other leagues have less comprehensive exemptions (only lawyers can define degrees of the word exempt).
Though, I tend to think that these exemptions protect them from prosecution in their general conduct of business, where they probably end is when there is an active exercise of monopoly power - such as creating limiting the viewership via non-bid contracts with vertically owned subsidiaries.
Rob
· 1 year ago
life, I'm not saying that Congress can't get involved. I'm saying they shouldn't get involved.
Dustin, if the NFL wants to limit viewership why camt they? A retail srtore can llimit its hours, and. We don, have a right to football.
pparets
· 1 year ago
Rob is right. John Kerry is pandering to his Boston base with his otherwise silly threat to use senate investigatory powers over football. Congress should stay out of this and let the market decide whether the NFL Network is the way to go. People [i]choose[/i] how to spend their money, and that is the vote that really counts.
Rob
· 1 year ago
Right on pparets. Protected status or not, this isn't the job of Congress.
Mickey
· 1 year ago
John Kerry used to watch the NFL play-offs during Christmas from Cambodia. He was in Vietnam you know.
LifeTrek
· 1 year ago
We have the right to fair trade and the protection from robber barons and monopolies. At least that is what our law says.
Personally I believe many of the restrictions placed on businesses would be well served by the markets in today's information society. Just as public awareness has forced companies to pander to the greenies.
However the NFL schedules and telecasts would have been unworkable in the early days, and possibly today, had the findings of the Supreme Court been allowed to stand. It would have meant each and every team negotiating the rights to broadcasts with each network, attempting to schedule the games and broadcasts, and the elimination of revenue sharing for those broadcasts. (Bye Bye (old days) Monday/Sunday Night football, and even many weekend games was a possibility.)
Unfortunately they are beginning to treat the business as the robber barons did in the dawn of the antitrust legislation with the advent of the NFL's own cable/satellite channel and their demands to the cable companies to carry the programming at their price or go without. As indicated above cable is not covered by the exemption legislation, and congress is within it's rights, and based on their granting of the exemption and their historic duty of "trust busting" almost duty bound to examine how the business are conducted.
Dustin, MLB has been determined to not be a monopoly by the Supreme Court (1922 I think), the four major leagues, NFL, MLB, NBA, and NHL were all granted a limited exemption by congress in regard to the broadcasting of their sports (listed above). They have lost cases in other areas where they tried to claim an exemption.
Rob, I am confused then: [quote]Congress getting involved in this matter would be a gross abuse of federal power[/quote]
[quote]life, I'm not saying that Congress can't get involved. I'm saying they shouldn't get involved. [/quote]
Doesn't an abuse of power mean they shouldn't get involved? Or was that hyperbole? DKK
LifeTrek
· 1 year ago
Let me clarify that the NFL is not only attempting to set the price for the NFL channel but is demanding that the cable companies carry it as part of their basic package. Not as an upgrade at the price they demand.
The NFL was determined by the Supreme Court to already be a monopoly and now are acting like one by trying to control how others set their prices and run their businesses. DKK
The Whistler
· 1 year ago
The NFL has no monopoly. If you don't like their product at their price watch college football. Or hockey, or the NBA.
Paul
· 1 year ago
This comment isn't about whether or not Congress should get involved, but being a satellite subscriber and getting the NFL Network, I can confirm the announcers are atrocious! Don't get me wrong, I enjoy watching the games on that channel, but when [b]I[/b] can see the guy didn't get both feet in bounds and therefore the pass is incomplete, and the announcer didn't catch that until he's watched in in slow motion twice, it might be time to get some better announcers.
LifeTrek
· 1 year ago
Whistler, respectfully, the courts don't agree with your opinion. The NFL has already been determined to be a monopoly.
I personally don't care, I don't watch football (since the Bears won the Superbowl in 1985). But I do find the legal ramifications fascinating.
As I said earlier markets in the information age have become a far more powerful and self regulating system then the government ever could be. DKK
DG
· 1 year ago
[quote]We don, have a right to football.[/quote]
Talk like that will get you banned from entire states - such as Wisconsin.
pparets
· 1 year ago
LifeTrek: Wrong! The NFL would only be a monopoly if it owned the AFL. Both leagues own their own product - football - and since football is not a basic necessity like water, electricity or food, it is a little over-the-top to suggest that senate investigations [another over-the-top suggestion by John Kerry] are in order. But then, being over-the-top is what liberalism is all about, Right?
The Whistler
· 1 year ago
[quote]Whistler, respectfully, the courts don't agree with your opinion. The NFL has already been determined to be a monopoly.[/quote]
I'm aware of that bad court case. (DJ Dozier for one, the biggest flop in history had the gall to claim he was hurt by the NFL. It was his crappy attitude) Of course that was football players suing not consumers. Certainly the consumers cannot be harmed materially by actions by the NFL. If you don't like their product then don't buy it. (I don't.)
Eneils Bailey
· 1 year ago
It's been an evolutionary process with me. Not watched an NBA game in over twenty years. If I want to watch gang members with money, I will go to Chicago. Not watched a MLB game in about twelve years(including the World Series.) Their TV sponsors should be the major drug manufacturers. If I want the same sensation I used to feel with the NHL, I will go down to the projects and watch families and gangs feuding after midnight. Professional sports went from being about the accomplishments of a team to the aberrant behavior of individuals. You used to think that a player, on the team was completely commited to the local team and area. Want to to check on how your favorite pro team is doing, check the police records and the local court dockets. To me, the NFL can market and broadcast how ever they want, it's a free country, even with the likes of Johnnie Kerry in the Senate. They market and try to sell, I am the person to decide if I want to buy. Used to be about personal skills and teamwork; now it's about air time and hype. It's getting to the point that maybe they should name Vince McHman commissioner of the NFL.
likwidshoe
· 1 year ago
LifeTrek - Doesn't an abuse of power mean they shouldn't get involved?
"Shouldn't" isn't the same thing as "can't".
Kenny
· 1 year ago
[quote]Whistler, respectfully, the courts don't agree with your opinion. The NFL has already been determined to be a monopoly. [/quote]
That would be more convincing if there weren't things like Arena football, College Football, and Vince McMahon's failed XFL (and probably some others I'm forgetting). The NFL/AFL aren't even the only FOOTBALL choices (let alone sports choices) that you have. They cannot, by definition, be a monopoly.
Eneils Bailey
· 1 year ago
Think I got Vince McMahon's(McHman) name wrong. Sorry.
Eneils Bailey
· 1 year ago
John Kerry, once you get outside the confines of a state that would elect him and Teddie "The Juicer" Kennedy is nothing more than a mere pimple on the ass of Freedom and Liberty.
goon
· 1 year ago
Doesn't the senate have something better to do than regulate football games on TV? What can't kerry afford the NFL channel.
Angry Vertebrate
· 1 year ago
[quote][i]...government of the people, by the people, for the people...[/i] -- Abe[/quote] This is too funny. There can be an opportunity for the govt to actually make your sad little lives better by giving you football to watch, but because of your foolish ideology, you'll shoot yourselves in the foot.
I'm still laughing at you idiots.
(Motor racing is way better than boring-ass football.)
ellinas
· 1 year ago
The NFL has no monopoly. If you don't like their product at their price watch college football. Or hockey, or the NBA.
The Whistler on December 25, 2007 at 08:17 am
Sure they have monopoly. I challenge you, or anyone else to go ahead and get a new NFL team up and running in any of the cities that have a football team. Where is the free enterprise in this instance?
LifeTrek
· 1 year ago
Whistler:[quote]I'm aware of that bad court case. (DJ Dozier for one, the biggest flop in history had the gall to claim he was hurt by the NFL. It was his crappy attitude) Of course that was football players suing not consumers.[/quote] The Dozier case isn't the case that determined that the NFL violated antitrust laws requiring the broadcast exemption. It was United States v. National Football League. Dozier and other cases hit on other antitrust violations. DKK
LifeTrek
· 1 year ago
Merry Christmas!
The NFL is a cartel, just like OPEC. A group of competitors (individually owned teams) joined together for economic benefit. It doesn't matter how many other sports are out there including the AFL. Competition levels are determined on a business by business basis not on a sector basis (railroad business versus transportation sector example above - NFL versus sports or even AFL, different businesses). In the US certain cartel activity is illegal.
From Wiki: [quote]Cartel members may agree on such matters as price fixing, total industry output, market shares, allocation of customers, allocation of territories, bid rigging, establishment of common sales agencies, and the division of profits or combination of these. The aim of such collusion is to increase individual member's profits by reducing competition...[/quote] This is a textbook description of what the NFL does.
The NFL has direct control over how many teams are allowed, where new teams can be located, how they broadcast, how much they charge for broadcasting, how much players are paid (salary caps even eliminate the free market in deciding the worth of the employee), and how many employers these players have to negotiate with.
When teams bid against each other for the services of talented players the process is controlled by league rules regulating contracts, drafts and trades. In the annual college football draft, for instance, pro teams must take turns designating individual college athletes they wish to hire.
All of this allows the NFL to artificially limit the competition in their league by not allowing any new teams in towns that could support them.
[quote]The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 outlawed all contracts, combinations and conspiracies that unreasonably restrain interstate and foreign trade. This includes cartel violations, such as price fixing, bid rigging and customer allocation.[/quote]
The NFL eliminates free market self regulation by eliminating the free market in their cartel.
Bottom line, you may be of the opinion that the NFL is not a monopoly, however the courts, congress (in their rational for the law they recognized the monopoly but determined that the major league sports were a unique business that benefited the public) and the president at the time the SBA was passed all were of the opinion that the NFL was a monopoly. DKK
Kenny
· 1 year ago
[quote]Sure they have monopoly. I challenge you, or anyone else to go ahead and get a new NFL team up and running in any of the cities that have a football team. Where is the free enterprise in this instance? [/quote]
Ellinas,
OK, that means nothing. I can't start up a McDonalds without the ok of McDonalds. It doesn't mean McDonalds has a monopoly. There is Burger King, Hardees, Sonic, Steak and Shake, and other places to get a burger.
Pointing out that the NFL has the final say on NFL related things doesn't mean they have a monopoly. By that definition, every business is a monopoly. Try to open a store in a mall without the mall's ok, or try to open a store and name it Borders, or Hardees, or whatever, so that you have name recognition and share in their advertising. See what happens.
The NFL doesn't have a monopoly on FOOTBALL. There is arena football. There was (for a while) the XFL, there is college football, and in some markets even arena football. Many cities have the equivalent of AA and AAA teams. Since the NFL is not the only football program around, they cannot have a monopoly.
[quote]The NFL has direct control over how many teams are allowed, where new teams can be located, how they broadcast, how much they charge for broadcasting, how much players are paid (salary caps even eliminate the free market in deciding the worth of the employee), and how many employers these players have to negotiate with. [/quote]
LifeTrek,
Again, the NFL can limit who can play in the NFL. They have no say in who can play football. They cannot limit arena football or college ball. And if several new teams want to start up and play outside of the NFL, the NFL is powerless to stop them.
Until the NFL controls all football, they do not have a monopoly. The government can disagree all they want, but they'll still be wrong.
Rob
· 1 year ago
The NFL doesn't have a monopoly on professional football. NBC and WWE started up a pro football league. Granted, it didn't last long, but they weren't prohibited in any way from doing it.
That the XFL failed was inherent to problems with the product (sub-par players, cheesy gimmicks) not to a monopoly.
Rob
· 1 year ago
[quote]The NFL is a cartel, just like OPEC. A group of competitors (individually owned teams) joined together for economic benefit. It doesn't matter how many other sports are out there including the AFL. Competition levels are determined on a business by business basis not on a sector basis (railroad business versus transportation sector example above - NFL versus sports or even AFL, different businesses). In the US certain cartel activity is illegal.[/quote]
I think that's a flawed analysis, mostly because the NFL teams aren't so much competing businesses and inter-dependent businesses.
After all, the Green Bay Packers wouldn't be much of a business without teams like the Chicago Bears to play.
The NFL has no monopoly. Other business can, and have (again, see the XFL) start up competing football leagues. That other businesses don't is a testament to the appeal of the NFL's product.
LifeTrek
· 1 year ago
Rob, you are partially correct that the NFL is not an exact fit and both Judge Alan K. Grim who ruled against the NFL in United States v The National Football League as well as congress recognize that the NFL was a, "unique kind of business," and while the judge determined that in traditional interpretation of antitrust laws the NFL could not blackout home games (which is the case he was hearing) he none the less allowed them to continue doing so based on the league's unique business model.
However at the time of this ruling in 1953 he rejected the idea of the NFL commissioner having sweeping control of broadcasting and warned the commissioner not to interfere with the broadcast rights of individual franchise's television rights.
Prior to the consolidation of power in 1960 the NFL ran it's business model similar to MLB. Other then the post season games and any "special" events (such as all star games) each club negotiates it's own broadcast and sponsorships.
In 1960 the NFL still had two teams with their own broadcast contracts. When the NFL reached an agreement with CBS [i][b](in order to counter the AFL agreement with ABC - keep in mind that at this time the AFL was still a separate league - this is important regarding your insistence that a monopoly cannot exist because there are other football and sports alternatives as at the time of the ruling there were two competing leagues!)[/b][/i] the contract eliminated the two teams rights to negotiate their own broadcast agreements for their privately owned business and gave CBS the power to determine which games aired and where for the term of the contract.
This hampered the privately owned teams ability to control it's own broadcast rights and Judge Grim ruled that this violated his prior decision, which was already bending traditional antitrust interpretation because of the business model of the NFL.
I am sorry if I wasn't able to explain this better yesterday, my schedule was all messed up due to the holiday and I was running on half power. I think this covers most of it, and I think it is as easy to understand as I can make it. DKK
ellinas
· 1 year ago
Splitting hairs arent we? NFL limits competition, by not allowing, let's say the Green Bay Packers set up shop in San Francisco. Your McDonalds analogy is worthless as they are tons of McDonalds every where and only one team per city. Also note the name[b] NATIONAL [/b]Football League. Does the term NATIONAL have any meaning to it? Why do they have a lock on it? "National" has the following definitios:1. of, pertaining to, or maintained by a nation as an organized whole or independent political unit: national affairs. 2. owned, preserved, or maintained by the federal government: a national wildlife refuge. 3. peculiar or common to the whole people of a country: national customs. 4. devoted to one's own nation, its interests, etc.; patriotic: to stir up national pride. 5. nationalist. 6. concerning or encompassing an entire nation: a national radio network. 7. limited to one nation. --noun 8. a citizen or subject of a particular nation who is entitled to its protection: U.S. nationals living abroad. 9. Often, nationals. a national competition, tournament, or the like: We're invited to Minneapolis for the nationals. 10. a national company or organization.
Why is it then they (NFL)is allowed to monopolize the term "[u]National[/u]"Footbal League? Does it trully belong to our Nation? Does it trully cover the whole nation?
ellinas
· 1 year ago
And futhermore the winning team should not be allowed to claim the title "national champions" They should be called The "Football League" champions.
Kenny
· 1 year ago
[quote]Splitting hairs arent we? NFL limits competition, by not allowing, let's say the Green Bay Packers set up shop in San Francisco. Your McDonalds analogy is worthless as they are tons of McDonalds every where and only one team per city. Also note the name NATIONAL Football League. Does the term NATIONAL have any meaning to it? Why do they have a lock on it? [/quote]
And? You're still not getting the point. And it's not a hard point to get.
The number is meaningless. McDonalds sill determines where its stores will be located. Someone can't decide to open a McDonalds right across the street from another McDonalds. The head offices wouldn't allow it. So in the end, it is identical. McDonalds has decided it's in it's best interests to have a store every couple of miles. The NFL has decided that it's in its best interests to only have one team per city.
But at the end of the day, just as McDonalds can't stop Burger King from setting up in their neighborhood, the NFL only has control of...the NFL. The only city that I can think of that has an NFL team that doesn't have a college football team is St. Louis (due to the U of M system not letting UMSL have a team...so as not to compete with Mizzou...sounds ALMOST like the NFL's rules.....hmmm). College teams are nationally televised as well. Many Southern states get more into high school football than pro football. When we look at Arena football, Dallas, Philedelphia, New Orleans, Los Angeles and Kansas City all have teams (those cities also having NFL teams), in addition to Colorado and New York having teams that I don't know what city they're out of. The XFL set up shop in Chicago, Los Angeles, San Fransisco, and a team somewhere in New York. The AF2 has Tennessee and Texas teams, not to mention a Green Bay team.
So, there's Arena Football, their minor leagues, high school and college ball, and for a year or two, the XFL. Since the NFL is not the only football league around, they cannot have a monopoly. I don't care how tightly they regulate their teams. There are other leagues people can watch. You're dead wrong.
Kenny
· 1 year ago
[quote]Why is it then they (NFL)is allowed to monopolize the term "National"Footbal League? Does it trully belong to our Nation? Does it trully cover the whole nation? [/quote]
For the same reason that World Wrestling Entertainment was able to call itself that. Did it truly represent the entire World? Did the world own it? Of course not. It was able to call itself that because it signed up for the name and copyrited it. The name doesn't mean it belongs to the nation, any more than Federal Express, American Gladiators, First National Mortgage, Nations Bank, American Express, US Bank, National Wrestling Alliance, or a variety of other companies are owned by everybody just because of their names.
What a stupid argument.
likwidshoe
· 1 year ago
"Anarchist" Vegetarian - There can be an opportunity for the govt to actually make your sad little lives better by giving you football to watch...
How is the government going to give us football to watch? Are they going to be playing or something?
...but because of your foolish ideology, you'll shoot yourselves in the foot.
I'm still laughing at you idiots.
Must you always be a raving jackass?
robert108
· 1 year ago
[quote]They should be called The "Football League" champions.[/quote]
NFL=National Football League. Duh.
LifeTrek
· 1 year ago
As an update, the NFL caved to pressure and the game will be simulcast on NBC and CBS.
Football is not an industry. Professional sports would be the industry.
Even if there were no other viable football venues aside from the NFL the consumer (and other professional sports businesses) can switch to MLB baseball, or hockey or basketball etc etc etc.
In fact doesn't the NBA compete against the NHL? (And unfortunately quite well).
All Comments
This could just be the most important legislation John Kerry has ever had anything to do with.
It's a B*ll Sh*t piece of legislation but John Kerry is a B*ll Sh*t piece of a legislator and other than marrying rich widows this is his crowning glory.
*bert
*
Does the NFL get special treatment in the US tax code? If yes then maybe congress should repeal whatever it is they are getting. Then we can demand that the polititians stop their medling.
[quote]A day earlier, a letter to the NFL from two powerful members of the Senate Judiciary Committee -- Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa. -- [b]threatened to reconsider the league's antitrust exemption[/b] if it didn't make games on the network available to more viewers.
http://www.caller.com/news/2007/dec/21/game-on-...
Thus, in order to avoid competition they answer to congress. This is very good for them.
Being a firm believer in markets I would prefer competition in the television broadcasting of sports, but considering their legally questionable rights statement on their broadcasts (you can barely watch the show with friends - and it may be completely illegal in a bar - without crossing their line) it is doubtful that any competition is going to happen soon.
This same exemption in return for oversight is the same reason Congress is looking into the steroids as much as they are.
DKK
[quote](The commerce clause), like all other power[/quote], is complete in itself, may be exercised t its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations, other then are prescribed in the constitution."
The constitution argument that most or all private property is constitutionally protected does not emanate from the founders but from revisionists of the late 19th century. These activists judges, who invalidated state minimum wage and monopoly laws, were the conservative equivalents of todays left wing activist judges.
I may just be being overly literally, as is typical of me :/.
Your link aside I thought that the anti-trust exemption was only granted to baseball.
Furthermore I deny that the NFL, MLB or any other sports franchise is a monopoly. In what way would the be a monopoly. The customer has numerous choices to spend his entertainment dollar from other professional athletics, amateur athletics, motor racing, movies, TV and in some people's cases the infernalnet.
However there is an exemption granted by congress in 1961 for the broadcast of league wide TV events.
[quote] 2. 1961 Sports Broadcasting Act
1. Section 1291 gives antitrust exemption to the four leagues for any league-wide TV deals (so you can't sue the NFL for signing with CBS).
1. This covers only "sponsored telecasting", which is network and public television.
2. Everything else (cable, pay-per-view, satellite, etc.) falls under antitrust scrutiny, probably RoR.
3. This covers only football, basketball, baseball, and hockey.
2. Section 1292 (consistent with U.S. v. NFL) -- games can only be blacked out when the home team is playing at home.
3. Enlarges league-wide revenues and more equitable distribution of funds; passes RoR.
4. Note that ESPN games are not expressly legal, but probably survive RoR b/c pro-competitive.
5. Revenue sharing probably tied into SBA.
(pdf file)
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&c...
Regarding the monopoly issue, if you can find other sports on broadcast television worth watching good luck.
That is what we are talking about, free broadcast on the public airwaves. Since they were granted the exemption Senators are saying they need to reconsider the exemption on broadcast since they aren't making broadcasts available as they were when the law was written.
DKK
Does the NFL get special treatment in the US tax code? If yes then maybe congress should repeal whatever it is they are getting. Then we can demand that the polititians stop their medling.[/quote]
I'm of the opinion that the NFL shouldn't get special treatment, nor should Congress meddle in its affairs.
Here is another:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_Broadcastin...
DKK
However, you are incorrect when you state the government has no right to get involved. Congress already meddled by choosing to override the Supreme Court and save the NFL.
Free markets are always best, but they have to have reasonable regulation.
DKK
The Sports Broadcasting Act, as mentioned above, was a completely different exemption.
Regarding your assertion that no sports franchise (League is the proper term as a franchise is an individual team and is not a monopoly) is a monopoly you have to remember that antitrust laws prevent the forming of cartel or trusts as well. When an entity such as the NFL (an organization combining individual franchisees) combine all of the broadcasts into one contract to be bid upon then the only way to see that sport is to pay what they charge. That is a trust. It doesn't matter what other sports are out there.
When the railroads were formed into trusts it didn't matter that you could ship by sea or horse, it was still a monopoly.
Hope that helps.
DKK
SPORTS BAR
Though, I tend to think that these exemptions protect them from prosecution in their general conduct of business, where they probably end is when there is an active exercise of monopoly power - such as creating limiting the viewership via non-bid contracts with vertically owned subsidiaries.
Dustin, if the NFL wants to limit viewership why camt they? A retail srtore can llimit its hours, and. We don, have a right to football.
Personally I believe many of the restrictions placed on businesses would be well served by the markets in today's information society. Just as public awareness has forced companies to pander to the greenies.
However the NFL schedules and telecasts would have been unworkable in the early days, and possibly today, had the findings of the Supreme Court been allowed to stand. It would have meant each and every team negotiating the rights to broadcasts with each network, attempting to schedule the games and broadcasts, and the elimination of revenue sharing for those broadcasts. (Bye Bye (old days) Monday/Sunday Night football, and even many weekend games was a possibility.)
Unfortunately they are beginning to treat the business as the robber barons did in the dawn of the antitrust legislation with the advent of the NFL's own cable/satellite channel and their demands to the cable companies to carry the programming at their price or go without. As indicated above cable is not covered by the exemption legislation, and congress is within it's rights, and based on their granting of the exemption and their historic duty of "trust busting" almost duty bound to examine how the business are conducted.
Dustin, MLB has been determined to not be a monopoly by the Supreme Court (1922 I think), the four major leagues, NFL, MLB, NBA, and NHL were all granted a limited exemption by congress in regard to the broadcasting of their sports (listed above). They have lost cases in other areas where they tried to claim an exemption.
Rob, I am confused then:
[quote]Congress getting involved in this matter would be a gross abuse of federal power[/quote]
[quote]life, I'm not saying that Congress can't get involved. I'm saying they shouldn't get involved. [/quote]
Doesn't an abuse of power mean they shouldn't get involved? Or was that hyperbole?
DKK
The NFL was determined by the Supreme Court to already be a monopoly and now are acting like one by trying to control how others set their prices and run their businesses.
DKK
I personally don't care, I don't watch football (since the Bears won the Superbowl in 1985). But I do find the legal ramifications fascinating.
As I said earlier markets in the information age have become a far more powerful and self regulating system then the government ever could be.
DKK
Talk like that will get you banned from entire states - such as Wisconsin.
I'm aware of that bad court case. (DJ Dozier for one, the biggest flop in history had the gall to claim he was hurt by the NFL. It was his crappy attitude) Of course that was football players suing not consumers. Certainly the consumers cannot be harmed materially by actions by the NFL. If you don't like their product then don't buy it. (I don't.)
Not watched an NBA game in over twenty years. If I want to watch gang members with money, I will go to Chicago.
Not watched a MLB game in about twelve years(including the World Series.) Their TV sponsors should be the major drug manufacturers.
If I want the same sensation I used to feel with the NHL, I will go down to the projects and watch families and gangs feuding after midnight.
Professional sports went from being about the accomplishments of a team to the aberrant behavior of individuals. You used to think that a player, on the team was completely commited to the local team and area. Want to to check on how your favorite pro team is doing, check the police records and the local court dockets.
To me, the NFL can market and broadcast how ever they want, it's a free country, even with the likes of Johnnie Kerry in the Senate. They market and try to sell, I am the person to decide if I want to buy. Used to be about personal skills and teamwork; now it's about air time and hype.
It's getting to the point that maybe they should name Vince McHman commissioner of the NFL.
"Shouldn't" isn't the same thing as "can't".
That would be more convincing if there weren't things like Arena football, College Football, and Vince McMahon's failed XFL (and probably some others I'm forgetting). The NFL/AFL aren't even the only FOOTBALL choices (let alone sports choices) that you have. They cannot, by definition, be a monopoly.
This is too funny. There can be an opportunity for the govt to actually make your sad little lives better by giving you football to watch, but because of your foolish ideology, you'll shoot yourselves in the foot.
I'm still laughing at you idiots.
(Motor racing is way better than boring-ass football.)
The Whistler on December 25, 2007 at 08:17 am
Sure they have monopoly. I challenge you, or anyone else to go ahead and get a new NFL team up and running in any of the cities that have a football team. Where is the free enterprise in this instance?
The Dozier case isn't the case that determined that the NFL violated antitrust laws requiring the broadcast exemption. It was United States v. National Football League. Dozier and other cases hit on other antitrust violations.
DKK
The NFL is a cartel, just like OPEC. A group of competitors (individually owned teams) joined together for economic benefit. It doesn't matter how many other sports are out there including the AFL. Competition levels are determined on a business by business basis not on a sector basis (railroad business versus transportation sector example above - NFL versus sports or even AFL, different businesses). In the US certain cartel activity is illegal.
From Wiki: [quote]Cartel members may agree on such matters as price fixing, total industry output, market shares, allocation of customers, allocation of territories, bid rigging, establishment of common sales agencies, and the division of profits or combination of these. The aim of such collusion is to increase individual member's profits by reducing competition...[/quote]
This is a textbook description of what the NFL does.
The NFL has direct control over how many teams are allowed, where new teams can be located, how they broadcast, how much they charge for broadcasting, how much players are paid (salary caps even eliminate the free market in deciding the worth of the employee), and how many employers these players have to negotiate with.
When teams bid against each other for the services of talented players the process is controlled by league rules regulating contracts, drafts and trades. In the annual college football draft, for instance, pro teams must take turns designating individual college athletes they wish to hire.
All of this allows the NFL to artificially limit the competition in their league by not allowing any new teams in towns that could support them.
[quote]The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 outlawed all contracts, combinations and conspiracies that unreasonably restrain interstate and foreign trade. This includes cartel violations, such as price fixing, bid rigging and customer allocation.[/quote]
The NFL eliminates free market self regulation by eliminating the free market in their cartel.
Bottom line, you may be of the opinion that the NFL is not a monopoly, however the courts, congress (in their rational for the law they recognized the monopoly but determined that the major league sports were a unique business that benefited the public) and the president at the time the SBA was passed all were of the opinion that the NFL was a monopoly.
DKK
Ellinas,
OK, that means nothing. I can't start up a McDonalds without the ok of McDonalds. It doesn't mean McDonalds has a monopoly. There is Burger King, Hardees, Sonic, Steak and Shake, and other places to get a burger.
Pointing out that the NFL has the final say on NFL related things doesn't mean they have a monopoly. By that definition, every business is a monopoly. Try to open a store in a mall without the mall's ok, or try to open a store and name it Borders, or Hardees, or whatever, so that you have name recognition and share in their advertising. See what happens.
The NFL doesn't have a monopoly on FOOTBALL. There is arena football. There was (for a while) the XFL, there is college football, and in some markets even arena football. Many cities have the equivalent of AA and AAA teams. Since the NFL is not the only football program around, they cannot have a monopoly.
[quote]The NFL has direct control over how many teams are allowed, where new teams can be located, how they broadcast, how much they charge for broadcasting, how much players are paid (salary caps even eliminate the free market in deciding the worth of the employee), and how many employers these players have to negotiate with. [/quote]
LifeTrek,
Again, the NFL can limit who can play in the NFL. They have no say in who can play football. They cannot limit arena football or college ball. And if several new teams want to start up and play outside of the NFL, the NFL is powerless to stop them.
Until the NFL controls all football, they do not have a monopoly. The government can disagree all they want, but they'll still be wrong.
That the XFL failed was inherent to problems with the product (sub-par players, cheesy gimmicks) not to a monopoly.
owned teams) joined together for economic benefit. It doesn't matter how
many other sports are out there including the AFL. Competition levels are
determined on a business by business basis not on a sector basis (railroad
business versus transportation sector example above - NFL versus sports or
even AFL, different businesses). In the US certain cartel activity is
illegal.[/quote]
I think that's a flawed analysis, mostly because the NFL teams aren't so much competing businesses and inter-dependent businesses.
After all, the Green Bay Packers wouldn't be much of a business without teams like the Chicago Bears to play.
The NFL has no monopoly. Other business can, and have (again, see the XFL) start up competing football leagues. That other businesses don't is a testament to the appeal of the NFL's product.
However at the time of this ruling in 1953 he rejected the idea of the NFL commissioner having sweeping control of broadcasting and warned the commissioner not to interfere with the broadcast rights of individual franchise's television rights.
Prior to the consolidation of power in 1960 the NFL ran it's business model similar to MLB. Other then the post season games and any "special" events (such as all star games) each club negotiates it's own broadcast and sponsorships.
In 1960 the NFL still had two teams with their own broadcast contracts. When the NFL reached an agreement with CBS [i][b](in order to counter the AFL agreement with ABC - keep in mind that at this time the AFL was still a separate league - this is important regarding your insistence that a monopoly cannot exist because there are other football and sports alternatives as at the time of the ruling there were two competing leagues!)[/b][/i] the contract eliminated the two teams rights to negotiate their own broadcast agreements for their privately owned business and gave CBS the power to determine which games aired and where for the term of the contract.
This hampered the privately owned teams ability to control it's own broadcast rights and Judge Grim ruled that this violated his prior decision, which was already bending traditional antitrust interpretation because of the business model of the NFL.
I am sorry if I wasn't able to explain this better yesterday, my schedule was all messed up due to the holiday and I was running on half power. I think this covers most of it, and I think it is as easy to understand as I can make it.
DKK
Your McDonalds analogy is worthless as they are tons of McDonalds every where and only one team per city.
Also note the name[b] NATIONAL [/b]Football League.
Does the term NATIONAL have any meaning to it? Why do they have a lock on it?
"National" has the following definitios:1. of, pertaining to, or maintained by a nation as an organized whole or independent political unit: national affairs.
2. owned, preserved, or maintained by the federal government: a national wildlife refuge.
3. peculiar or common to the whole people of a country: national customs.
4. devoted to one's own nation, its interests, etc.; patriotic: to stir up national pride.
5. nationalist.
6. concerning or encompassing an entire nation: a national radio network.
7. limited to one nation.
--noun 8. a citizen or subject of a particular nation who is entitled to its protection: U.S. nationals living abroad.
9. Often, nationals. a national competition, tournament, or the like: We're invited to Minneapolis for the nationals.
10. a national company or organization.
Why is it then they (NFL)is allowed to monopolize the term "[u]National[/u]"Footbal League? Does it trully belong to our Nation? Does it trully cover the whole nation?
They should be called The "Football League" champions.
Your McDonalds analogy is worthless as they are tons of McDonalds every where and only one team per city.
Also note the name NATIONAL Football League.
Does the term NATIONAL have any meaning to it? Why do they have a lock on it?
[/quote]
And? You're still not getting the point. And it's not a hard point to get.
The number is meaningless. McDonalds sill determines where its stores will be located. Someone can't decide to open a McDonalds right across the street from another McDonalds. The head offices wouldn't allow it. So in the end, it is identical. McDonalds has decided it's in it's best interests to have a store every couple of miles. The NFL has decided that it's in its best interests to only have one team per city.
But at the end of the day, just as McDonalds can't stop Burger King from setting up in their neighborhood, the NFL only has control of...the NFL. The only city that I can think of that has an NFL team that doesn't have a college football team is St. Louis (due to the U of M system not letting UMSL have a team...so as not to compete with Mizzou...sounds ALMOST like the NFL's rules.....hmmm). College teams are nationally televised as well. Many Southern states get more into high school football than pro football.
When we look at Arena football, Dallas, Philedelphia, New Orleans, Los Angeles and Kansas City all have teams (those cities also having NFL teams), in addition to Colorado and New York having teams that I don't know what city they're out of.
The XFL set up shop in Chicago, Los Angeles, San Fransisco, and a team somewhere in New York. The AF2 has Tennessee and Texas teams, not to mention a Green Bay team.
So, there's Arena Football, their minor leagues, high school and college ball, and for a year or two, the XFL. Since the NFL is not the only football league around, they cannot have a monopoly. I don't care how tightly they regulate their teams. There are other leagues people can watch. You're dead wrong.
For the same reason that World Wrestling Entertainment was able to call itself that. Did it truly represent the entire World? Did the world own it? Of course not. It was able to call itself that because it signed up for the name and copyrited it. The name doesn't mean it belongs to the nation, any more than Federal Express, American Gladiators, First National Mortgage, Nations Bank, American Express, US Bank, National Wrestling Alliance, or a variety of other companies are owned by everybody just because of their names.
What a stupid argument.
How is the government going to give us football to watch? Are they going to be playing or something?
...but because of your foolish ideology, you'll shoot yourselves in the foot.
I'm still laughing at you idiots.
Must you always be a raving jackass?
NFL=National Football League. Duh.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8TPCRM...
DKK
Even if there were no other viable football venues aside from the NFL the consumer (and other professional sports businesses) can switch to MLB baseball, or hockey or basketball etc etc etc.
In fact doesn't the NBA compete against the NHL? (And unfortunately quite well).