NFL wants pay for play for Super Bowl halftime...

the entertainers play a crappyy 20 minute show and possibly get a boost in popularity. and the NFL gets a big name draw to their halftime show which adds to their eyeballs watching and is part of the reason for the obscene TV ad revenue.

I don't know who the NFL is looking at for future performances, but I assume they'll all laugh when asked to pay to play. I'd bet it never happens. Any band worth anything thinks they're bigger than the game anyway.

to run their business as they see fit.

If they make bad business decisions and lose customers so be it

What if their business model ends up destroying the sport? Are you OK with that solely to be consistent with an ideology?

In comment 11816289 robbieballs2003 said:

Quote:

In comment 11816266 GIANTSr01 said: Quote: a significant spike in their sales/popularity immediately after performing the halftime show. So why shouldn't the NFL get a piece of that since they are providing the avenue for these entertainers to reach 10s of millions of viewers. I also heard it broken down another way. A 30-sec commercial costs advertisers ~$4M. So the entertainer is basically getting a 12 min "commercial" now worth approximately $100M. That's a huge benefit to the entertainers. So, should the players pay the NFL?

Horrible analogy. There's no NFL without the players. The SB would continue flourishing without the halftime show.

In comment 11816386 Blue Baller said:

Quote:

to run their business as they see fit. If they make bad business decisions and lose customers so be it

I think that's pretty much it. If they don't get entertainers (or quality entertainers) and it causes them to lose business, then it was a bad decision. If it doesn't, then it was a good decision. But there is no "wrongness" to them asking.

In comment 11816389 BayRidgeBlue said:

Quote:

What if their business model ends up destroying the sport? Are you OK with that solely to be consistent with an ideology?

If the sport gets destroyed because they put up a shitty super bowl halftime show, they've' got more fundamental problems.

listen we all get a vote, we vote with our dollars (and to a lesser extent our web clicks and TV views)

its a pretty efficient system.

But at the end of the day its their choice to make

In comment 11816215 Giantology said:

Quote:

In comment 11816213 Jimmy Googs said: Quote: Free enterprise kind of works... I think the NFL can afford to pay entertainers for halftime entertainment considering they are raking in the cash. Don't be a dope.

Don't be a chucklehead. The NFL is a business and this is business. "Raking in cash" doesn't mean you should just leave money on the table if there is an opportunity to be more profitable. The entertainers clearly benefit before and after they put on this 25 minute show so the NFL is looking to see if it can share in that benefit.

And if an entertainer doesn't want the gig then so be it. But my guess is a show will go on one way or another.

ridiculous. Classless.

Obviously, my reference to destroying the sport was based on all the rule changes made to promote more offense which coincides with the League's incentive to dilute the sport to make more money.

Blue Baller, so you're pretty much saying that provided 31 families/individuals make a massive amount of money (much of it off of the taxpayer) from a "business" they inherited (all 3 NY owners qualify) then it's cool if they fundamentally alter the nature of the sport to suit their needs? For the life of me I can't understand why you wouldn't find a Green Bay model more preferable to the perverse thing we have now.

In comment 11816366 BayRidgeBlue said:

Quote:

for "free enterprise" in the NFL when that's the very thing killing the sport. If it weren't for the profit motive would the league be trying to create more offense? Would it be extorting cities into building new stadiums or asking lifelong loyal fans to build new stadiums that we don't need (or want)? Would it go around the country and try to sucker cities into wasting taxpayer money on an event that will provide little in economic benefit? Of course not - but hey, at least we're not socialists!

Don't be so dramatic. You act like the NFL always negotiates against 6 year olds.

BTW - if the NFL didn't care about running itself like a profitable business, you would ultimately hate the product and not watch it.

In comment 11816480 BayRidgeBlue said:

Quote:

Obviously, my reference to destroying the sport was based on all the rule changes made to promote more offense which coincides with the League's incentive to dilute the sport to make more money. Blue Baller, so you're pretty much saying that provided 31 families/individuals make a massive amount of money (much of it off of the taxpayer) from a "business" they inherited (all 3 NY owners qualify) then it's cool if they fundamentally alter the nature of the sport to suit their needs? For the life of me I can't understand why you wouldn't find a Green Bay model more preferable to the perverse thing we have now.

Um, yeah. It's their business.

We are always free to find something else to entertain us if they provide a poor product.

Which is the whole point of the show for the league. Given those ratings, what their partners can charge for air-time, the fact they don't pay the artist for the show (and nobody, btw, just shows up on the day and performs…it's a commitment of more time than that), the Half-Time show is likely already pretty profitable.

because I see it as an investment. But, I think it's perfectly ok for them to do it and see if the market (results) supports it.

In comment 11816507 vibe4giants said:

Quote:

Which is the whole point of the show for the league. Given those ratings, what their partners can charge for air-time, the fact they don't pay the artist for the show (and nobody, btw, just shows up on the day and performs…it's a commitment of more time than that), the Half-Time show is likely already pretty profitable.

The counter-argument is that there is one half-time show, and even among the 'elite' artists they become commoditized on that stage - it doesn't matter if it's Beyonce/Katy Perry/BrettNYG10(!!!!!) up there, it'll draw viewers regardless (I'm not sure whether that's true or not, I haven't seen ratings over a long time period for the show). Therefore, NFL has all the leverage (theoretically) if it's the boost to the artists that it's believed to be.

You and I don't know how much pretty profitable is.

And what difference does it make if the NFL decided it wants to be pretty profitable plus another 10% (just throwing that out as a %).

The entertainer can always say "no".

they wouldn't consistently book some of the most popular artists on the planet. That's not a gift to the viewers. It's TV 101.

SNL, for instances, gets a little risky, occasionally, booking lesser known acts. But they can afford to. The NFL is in the business of pleasing the masses. That's their brand. Their interest.

It's certainly also a win for the artists. And that's why they do it without being paid.

Nice terminology. You and I don't know how much 'clearly benefit' is.




(See how easy that is?)

and therefore wants some.

Again, the artists can all say "no" and the NFL would need to re-address what the market is saying.

Or maybe a top artist will ultimately say "yes".

We're stating our opinions as it reflects what appears to be the NFL's unceasing greed. In other words, a football discussion.

But good job with the pro-Corporate cash grab stance. The voice of the Big Guy is underrepresented out there in the world

I just find it odd that you'd be willing to sacrifice the integrity of a sport solely to make sure somebody who was given a team at birth can make that extra millionth dollar.

Jimmy Googs, who's being dramatic? I understand that you're cool with it, but it doesn't take away from the reality that the sport is being diluted solely for the benefit of the owners. Also, why are negotiations even taking place? If we're going to go down this road then lets do it - let them build their own new stadiums and fund their own events.

ultimately make them more profitable. Some other part of their cost structure or contract dealings could be rising and this makes their bottom line even. Or maybe they intend to donate more to charities. Or maybe indeed they are just allocating more to owners with the likely increased profits.

Either way, it doesn't affect you, only the millionaire "little guy" artist.

In comment 11816536 vibe4giants said:

Quote:

they wouldn't consistently book some of the most popular artists on the planet. That's not a gift to the viewers. It's TV 101. SNL, for instances, gets a little risky, occasionally, booking lesser known acts. But they can afford to. The NFL is in the business of pleasing the masses. That's their brand. Their interest. It's certainly also a win for the artists. And that's why they do it without being paid.

Oh yeah, I think they need a big name - but there's only one Super Bowl half time show and a lot of big names. Which is why the NFL only pays for expenses and not more, obviously. I don't think that leverage extends to collecting ticket sales.

in what world are we living in that the musicians are even being considered to pay for play? I wish the NFL weren't so greedy.

being diluted solely for the benefit of the owners...not really sure even what that means but I will let you fill me in if you feel the need to.

And if the market for new stadiums/events wasn't around then the owners would have to address whether they build their own. But that isn't the market right now and hasn't been for some time.

The one that supports the NFL or the musicians?

They could even make money off that by running a competition throughout the season on the NFL network.

In comment 11816589 BayRidgeBlue said:

Quote:

I just find it odd that you'd be willing to sacrifice the integrity of a sport solely to make sure somebody who was given a team at birth can make that extra millionth dollar. Jimmy Googs, who's being dramatic? I understand that you're cool with it, but it doesn't take away from the reality that the sport is being diluted solely for the benefit of the owners. Also, why are negotiations even taking place? If we're going to go down this road then lets do it - let them build their own new stadiums and fund their own events.

Before it's a sport, it's a business.

So whatever "integrity" there is, with respect to how it's played or with entertainment decisions, so long as it's not illegal, will be filtered by the viewer. If the viewer finds it so objectionable so that it becomes unwatchable, then the business will either have to change or fail. Not sure what's odd about that.

In comment 11816612 Blue Baller said:

Quote:

The one that supports the NFL or the musicians?

Blue - the pro Corporation supports the multi-millionaire NFL Owners.

The con Corporation supports the multi-millionaire most famous artists on the planet.

No, not really. Persistent worldwide appeal is what they've looked for, and there's not that many of those kind of acts.

In comment 11816646 schabadoo said:

Quote:

No, not really. Persistent worldwide appeal is what they've looked for, and there's not that many of those kind of acts.

Unlimited supply, no. But enough that the leverage tilts towards the NFL.

that bands that can afford to pay will not need the publicity.

So you really don't notice the league trying to promote offense via incredibly strict restrictions on the defense? More offense leads to more commercials and longer games but I bet that's a coincidence! There's no way a league that finds a way to make money off of every facet of its existence would figure out that they could get more money by creating more offense! Are you really telling me you don't see this?

This "market" talk is ridiculous. I'd imagine that the vast majority of people - football fans or not - disapprove of taxpayers building stadiums for millionaire owners but our political process favors those with money so of course they're built..but hey, it's legal and profitable for the owners so I'm cool with it.

of playing in front of that year's largest TV audience. I'm amazed at how many people, even legitimate football fans, give a shit about who is playing at the half.

Sell it to the highest bidder. Anyone want to start a collection for Wilco?

like any other vote for any other thing.

and want to blame rich people for all the problems in the world.

Nevertheless, i like all the conspiracy theories so keep them coming...

put in a bid!

a Frisbee.

In comment 11816320 schabadoo said:

Quote:

They've had a good number of live shows recently...Bruce, Tom Petty, U2, Prince, the Who, the Stones, Paul McCartney. I'd think last year's show would've been live if it wasn't in NJ in the winter. I'm curious to see what second-tier act they are going to put up there for the fee they're hoping to get.

In that I mean it's arrogant, tone-deaf and ridiculously greedy. But that's the way the NFL rolls these days.

These are some of the top entertainers in the world and they already provide their time, talent and fame for free so the NFL can sell ads during halftime. Now the NFL expects them to pay a stage fee on top of that like they were some garage band.

I'm sure that there are acts out there that would pay, or at least their labels would, but I doubt those would be the ones the NFL would be able to sell advertisers on.

But this is just par for the course. The NFL hates the idea that anyone out there is making money on their thing and not kicking back 95 cents on the dollar.

This has nothing to do with "blaming rich people" (always the last resort to those who don't want to actually engage in a debate).

All I said was that the league is currently structured in a manner that is antagonistic to most fans in terms of the quality of play and the direction of the sport. Most of us, myself included, have too much love and nostalgia for the sport and the Giants to walk away - that in no way means that we like where things are headed.

points okay...

The latest flurry of defensive penalties is a directive from the Leagues Competition Committee. Yes it will help the Offense, especially if the Defense doesn't adapt. But my guess is either they will and/or the refs will calm it down because fans are not enjoying the product as much. We'll see, but I think it is clearly over-reaching to say it was a directive from owners to pilfer more money thru commercials and longer games.

Relative to new stadiums being funded by taxpayers. This is voted on in the local community or at least I think it always is. While I don't disagree that is often challenged by groups who do not think it is warranted, however it goes to a democratic vote. If the politics are dirty, that is a different issue and not for our debate.

I don't know why anything would be considered a "reach" for this league given their recent history. Go take a look at their demands to potential SB hosts and then let me know what you think is below them.

I assume these would have to be "donations"

Called Pay to Play...

IT's bad enough they don't get paid. But, big names get signed to play halftime. None of them need the halftime show to promote themselves. Asking them to pay is just ridiculous and greed at its worst.

What DO they pay for Super Bowl weekend?

the dog and the frisbee

In comment 11817054 BayRidgeBlue said:

Quote:

I don't know why anything would be considered a "reach" for this league given their recent history. Go take a look at their demands to potential SB hosts and then let me know what you think is below them.

I don't know what they are, but I don't think I would be surprised.

Again, you sound as if a potential hosting city (just like an entertainer for halftime) has to stipulate. Negotiate, put up your own demands, back down, step up...whatever, but stop short of complaining that life is unfair.