NFL messing up a good thing (Pat McAfee)

[NoSaint]

2 minutes ago, LOVEMESOMEBILLS said:

 

 It's not just the logos. Part of what they paid for was showing highlights, NFL just told them they can't pause highlights when showing them. Not showing logos, in a way I get that part, but not being able to pause a highlight when you paid good money to be able to show highlights, seems way over the top to me.

 

 

I’m sure the contract was over the top specific on these terms and the nfl has to enforce their terms to protect their copyrights… but it’s not a great look for them on the publicity front 

[Warcodered]

1 hour ago, MAJBobby said:

Not a silly opinion. It is Capitalism. You want to profit of NFL materials PAY THE FEES. 
 

just that easy. All broadcasters do. So take some of your 30M a year made selling gambling to people that cannot afford it and send the fees for use of the logos. Or don’t. But crying about it ***** off 

Do you give away your ***** for FREE? 

Right the NFL is free to ***** around with them on this issue if they want just like McAfee is now free to bury them on it every time it comes up on his show.

Edited November 1, 2022 by Warcodered

[Donuts and Doritos]

Wonder if since other media outlets (Fox, ESPN etc) all have to pay for the rights to do this, they have to make Pat pay too? Otherwise those folks will threaten to stop paying. (It's like a copyright, if you don't enforce it you no longer have it). This is just speculation on my part as to why the NFL is doing this. 

[Coffeesforclosers]

11 minutes ago, extrahammer said:

All this is is the NFL saying "Hey you make a lot of money talking about our product and we want more $ from you." Sucks and I do think Pat has helped younger audiences be more NFL fans, I think he has the best show that covers the NFL today. But NFL owners only care about one thing and it's why they're all billionaires... cash. 

 

The phrase "pick your battles" comes to mind. This sounds like a really short sighted flex thats in danger of turning a profitable relationship into a liability. 

Edited November 1, 2022 by Coffeesforclosers

[DrDawkinstein]

Just now, NoSaint said:

I’m sure the contract was over the top specific on these terms and the nfl has to enforce their terms to protect their copyrights… but it’s not a great look for them on the publicity front 

 

Absolutely. All of these details were in the contract. And I get it. Major networks like ESPN have to abide by all the details and rules. If McAfee wants to make the money and play with the big guys, he needs to run his business appropriately.

 

But... It's just silly, and a short-sighted business move, for the NFL to not grant it's best marketer some leeway. Especially on that format.

[Motorin']

1 hour ago, NewEra said:

MILLIONS of businesses give away their products for free in exchange for positive feedback and marketing.  McAfees show portrays the nfl in a positive light 99.99a% of the time.  
 

i get what you’re saying and I agree that they deserve to get paid….and they are.  4M a year.  But the nfl would rather make more money at the expense of one of their biggest supporters.  Eager to see how the show attacks this.  

 

As someone who deals with licensing, and branding everyday in my line of work I actually think Pat is in the wrong here. 

 

Being able to use NFL team logos in content you generate for your show isn't the same thing as paying a licensing fee for footage. 

 

The deals that the networks pay to show games and highlights is orders of magnitude more than what Pat is paying for highlights, and most certainly includes logo usage.

 

How much do you think the NFL would charge for you to put team logos on shirts and sell them? And do you think you would be able to do that if you paid a licensing fee for highlight footage?

 

When Pat's show uses team logos in the graphics they generate, it's original content that they are creating for a show that generates them millions of dollars. 

 

So there should be an additional fee for logo usage. 

 

But where I think Pat is really running into dangerous territory is when he threatened to focus on untold NFL liability due to CTE in a way to damage the NFL. 

 

If he knows about underhanded practices by the NFL and hasn't said anything bc he's profiting off of the sport, but only threatens to spill the beans when his bottom line is effected, he's looks like a slime ball imo. 

[GoBills808]

2 minutes ago, Coffeesforclosers said:

 

The phrase "pick your battles" comes to mind. This sounds like a really short sighted flex thats in danger of turning a profitable relationship into a liability. 

The problem with the NFL has long been that they're so ridiculously popular they can afford to be short sighted, and this is yet another example.

[DrDawkinstein]

1 minute ago, Donuts and Doritos said:

Wonder if since other media outlets (Fox, ESPN etc) all have to pay for the rights to do this, they have to make Pat pay too? Otherwise those folks will threaten to stop paying. (It's like a copyright, if you don't enforce it you no longer have it). This is just speculation on my part as to why the NFL is doing this. 

 

Yes. Everyone pays the NFL a BUTTLOAD of money for an ever-decreasing amount of highlights and access.

 

Ever since the league launched their own channel, NFLN, they have been cutting access and increasing prices in order to push viewers to NFLN.

 

That is why ESPN coverage of the NFL has nose-dived compared to the 90s of classic NFL Primetime. ESPN is only allowed to show the extensive highlights on Primetime on their ESPN+ app, not on cable TV.

 

That kind of stuff.

[Motorin']

1 minute ago, GoBills808 said:

The problem with the NFL has long been that they're so ridiculously popular they can afford to be short sighted, and this is yet another example.

 

McAfee is the one being short sighted threatening to disclose NFL secrets about CTE in retaliation for having the logos pulled. 

 

And if he knows of liability around CTE and has kept his mouth shut, but is threatening to damage the NFL over a logo despite, I don't know how he looks like a good guy. 

[extrahammer]

9 minutes ago, Coffeesforclosers said:

 

The phrase "pick your battles" comes to mind. This sounds like a really short sighted flex thats in danger of turning a profitable relationship into a liability. 

 

It does, if I was Pat I wouldn't pay the extra cash to use the logos because he's really just getting started on the FanDuel deal and the show has been a massive success, I would prioritize his business and continuing to invest in the growth and people who have helped build it with him, which he seems to be doing. Plus it would be fun to refer to them as the Professional American Football League as poking fun at them. 

[Coffeesforclosers]

2 minutes ago, Motorin' said:

 

McAfee is the one being short sighted threatening to disclose NFL secrets about CTE in retaliation for having the logos pulled. 

 

And if he knows of liability around CTE and has kept his mouth shut, but is threatening to damage the NFL over a logo despite, I don't know how he looks like a good guy. 

 

He's a smart, self made media personality who also has a *****ton of access to players.

 

He fired a shot across the NFL's bow, so they know he's not going to curl up like a little B word. 

[GoBills808]

4 minutes ago, Motorin' said:

 

McAfee is the one being short sighted threatening to disclose NFL secrets about CTE in retaliation for having the logos pulled. 

 

And if he knows of liability around CTE and has kept his mouth shut, but is threatening to damage the NFL over a logo despite, I don't know how he looks like a good guy. 

If this is serious I honestly have no reply.

[DrDawkinstein]

9 minutes ago, Motorin' said:

 

McAfee is the one being short sighted threatening to disclose NFL secrets about CTE in retaliation for having the logos pulled. 

 

And if he knows of liability around CTE and has kept his mouth shut, but is threatening to damage the NFL over a logo despite, I don't know how he looks like a good guy. 

 

Its not that he knows secrets. It's that he's completely avoided any negative topics in an effort to only promote and befriend the NFL. All he is saying is, if they are going to be petty, then maybe the very popular show will start having more discussions about the tough topics that surround the NFL.

5 minutes ago, extrahammer said:

 

It does, if I was Pat I wouldn't pay the extra cash to use the logos because he's really just getting started on the FanDuel deal and the show has been a massive success, I would prioritize his business and continuing to invest in the growth and people who have helped build it with him, which he seems to be doing. Plus it would be fun to refer to them as the Professional American Football League as poking fun at them. 

 

I mean, that is really his only choice. He'll end up having to pay to use them. I see the "threats" as more negotiating through the media. Letting the NFL know that he has at least a little leverage in this.

 

 

Edited November 1, 2022 by DrDawkinstein

[NewEra]

16 minutes ago, Motorin' said:

 

As someone who deals with licensing, and branding everyday in my line of work I actually think Pat is in the wrong here. 

 

Being able to use NFL team logos in content you generate for your show isn't the same thing as paying a licensing fee for footage. 

 

The deals that the networks pay to show games and highlights is orders of magnitude more than what Pat is paying for highlights, and most certainly includes logo usage.

 

How much do you think the NFL would charge for you to put team logos on shirts and sell them? And do you think you would be able to do that if you paid a licensing fee for highlight footage?

 

When Pat's show uses team logos in the graphics they generate, it's original content that they are creating for a show that generates them millions of dollars. 

 

So there should be an additional fee for logo usage. 

 

But where I think Pat is really running into dangerous territory is when he threatened to focus on untold NFL liability due to CTE in a way to damage the NFL. 

 

If he knows about underhanded practices by the NFL and hasn't said anything bc he's profiting off of the sport, but only threatens to spill the beans when his bottom line is effected, he's looks like a slime ball imo. 

Looks like we’ll just have to wait and see what kind of a slime ball is and if the public agrees.  His views and subs will surely dip if this is fact

[Punching Bag]

2 hours ago, Mynamemike said:

Yeah the boys are doing alright when it comes to their bank accounts.  Now Pat’s doing gameday on Saturdays and I think he’s still involved with WWE doing their commentary so he’s pretty good I’d imagine. 
 

 

they have a lot Bills  players on for interviews which is cool too.  Players really seem much more loose during his show as compared to the normal cookie cutter interviews 

 

Not only players but coaches and front office of Bills.  I wonder how long before NFL tells coaches and front office personnel they cannot appear without additional license payment to NFL?

 

The Bills monetized Bills Mafia reducing support of Bills Backers groups who have supported them for 30+ years (we got a Bills Mafia flag this year rather the box of items they used to send) and NFL is being same way monetized whatever they can and dissing those who supported them.

Actually thinking of stepping down from Backers Group due to attitude change of teams and NFL.

 

[Golden*Wheels]

1 hour ago, MAJBobby said:

I think it is more likely the Graphics that the logos are on is their Fanduel betting stuff.  

 

I am positive the NFL is seeing that nice new 30M a year contract and saying yep we need our piece.

Amazingly, while they seem to often talk ABOUT betting, they also seem to push their sponsor a lot less than the NFL itself does every Sunday! Thank god!

[Punching Bag]

2 hours ago, MAJBobby said:

Cool that is their RIGHT. He can ask how much is the upgrade and we’ll then pay it to for USE of NFL materials. 
 

Capitalism Baby. 
 

why Should NFL Let ANYONE profit off their items without that fee? 

 

NFL is going to cut off their nose to spite their face.

Just now, Golden*Wheels said:

Amazingly, while they seem to often talk ABOUT betting, they also seem to push their sponsor a lot less than the NFL itself does every Sunday! Thank god!

 

My attitude is I will mute in broadcast and fast forward with videos any such reference.

I am expecting they will go to split screen with games when they see not enough people paying attention.

[PrimeTime101]

2 hours ago, MAJBobby said:

Pay the fee or don’t use NFL products. That simple. Stop crying about it Simp. 

I actually agree with this statement. who gives a damn. pay the fee. what he makes even after extra fees is crazy.. and what happens to this show when the contract is up and the NFL says screw you! we not renewing your contract?

 

Then will Pat be making his millions a year doing that same show?

 

it is what it is.

[NewEra]

3 minutes ago, Limeaid said:

 

Not only players but coaches and front office of Bills.  I wonder how long before NFL tells coaches and front office personnel they cannot appear without additional license payment to NFL?

 

The Bills monetized Bills Mafia reducing support of Bills Backers groups who have supported them for 30+ years (we got a Bills Mafia flag this year rather the box of items they used to send) and NFL is being same way monetized whatever they can and dissing those who supported them.

Actually thinking of stepping down from Backers Group due to attitude change of teams and NFL.

 

Dunno for sure but I think that would have to be in the collective bargaining agreement with the NFLPA.  No way that would ever get agreed upon in todays landscape of players creating their own brands.

[Punching Bag]

Just now, NewEra said:

Dunno for sure but I think that would have to be in the collective bargaining agreement with the NFLPA.  No way that would ever get agreed upon in todays landscape of players creating their own brands.

 

That is why I stated coaches and front office.  Did not state players.

[Motorin']

17 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

Its not that he knows secrets. It's that he's completely avoided any negative topics in an effort to only promote and befriend the NFL. All he is saying is, if they are going to be petty, then maybe the very popular show will start having more discussions about the tough topics that surround the NFL.

 

I mean, that is really his only choice. He'll end up having to pay to use them. I see the "threats" as more negotiating through the media. Letting the NFL know that he has at least a little leverage in this.

 

 

 

That could be true, I guess I took his comments to mean he has insider info. But you're right, he may have just meant staying all positive vs focusing on potentially negative stories.

 

I'm still not sure he wants to make those kinds of threats. He has a lot more to lose (his footage deal) than the NFL does. 

[NewEra]

2 minutes ago, Limeaid said:

 

That is why I stated coaches and front office.  Did not state players.

Gotcha, my bad.  
 

Still don’t see the nfl doing this.  It would only make them look bad.  

[RyanC883]

2 hours ago, MAJBobby said:

Cool that is their RIGHT. He can ask how much is the upgrade and we’ll then pay it to for USE of NFL materials. 
 

Capitalism Baby. 
 

why Should NFL Let ANYONE profit off their items without that fee? 

 

he should lawyer up and call their bluff.  Argument to be made that since they have let him, they have waived enforcement, among others.  

40 minutes ago, Donuts and Doritos said:

Wonder if since other media outlets (Fox, ESPN etc) all have to pay for the rights to do this, they have to make Pat pay too? Otherwise those folks will threaten to stop paying. (It's like a copyright, if you don't enforce it you no longer have it). This is just speculation on my part as to why the NFL is doing this. 

 

I hope this is it, otherwise it’s total nonsense. 

[Mango]

45 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

Absolutely. All of these details were in the contract. And I get it. Major networks like ESPN have to abide by all the details and rules. If McAfee wants to make the money and play with the big guys, he needs to run his business appropriately.

 

But... It's just silly, and a short-sighted business move, for the NFL to not grant it's best marketer some leeway. Especially on that format.

 

Just to be clear, the base of my understanding of what is happening here is that if a network wants to show a Bills helmet next to a Jets helmet this week, it will cost them more than $4M. That seems wild. 

 

I really think this is the NFL trying to squeeze McAfee and not the PMS actually violating the terms of their licensing agreement. 

13 minutes ago, RyanC883 said:

 

he should lawyer up and call their bluff.  Argument to be made that since they have let him, they have waived enforcement, among others.  

 

I hope this is it, otherwise it’s total nonsense. 

 

The guy has a $120M FanDuel contract. I bet a letter was out the door before his show even aired yesterday. 

[MJS]

Honestly, I do not see what anyone likes about Pat McAfee and his show. It is wildly popular. I just find him and the others on the show pompous and annoying.

[DrDawkinstein]

1 minute ago, Mango said:

 

Just to be clear, the base of my understanding of what is happening here is that if a network wants to show a Bills helmet next to a Jets helmet this week, it will cost them more than $4M. That seems wild. 

 

I really think this is the NFL trying to squeeze McAfee and not the PMS actually violating the terms of their licensing agreement. 

 

Not necessarily.

 

Keep in mind, I have never seen a contract for myself, but from similar situations being discussed by other media outlets previously, NFL rights contracts are very, very specific. What you can show, when, how long, no pausing, etc. To the point that if I miss PtI on ESPN and watch the replay, they dont show the NFL clips on the replay. They strip all NFL highlights out of the show. Little stuff like that.

 

I wouldnt be surprised to find this verbiage in the existing contract and McAfee's team just didnt see it, or understand it.

 

So they had agreed to a number of stuff they could do and show and that all added up to $4M. Using logos in their own graphics wasnt part of that. Mauybe it only costs an additional $500k/year? Who knows. Sounds like we'll find out tho 

[SirAndrew]

I think McAfee promising vengeance against the NFL by telling the “truth” is kind of lame. 

[Mango]

8 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

Not necessarily.

 

Keep in mind, I have never seen a contract for myself, but from similar situations being discussed by other media outlets previously, NFL rights contracts are very, very specific. What you can show, when, how long, no pausing, etc. To the point that if I miss PtI on ESPN and watch the replay, they dont show the NFL clips on the replay. They strip all NFL highlights out of the show. Little stuff like that.

 

I wouldnt be surprised to find this verbiage in the existing contract and McAfee's team just didnt see it, or understand it.

 

So they had agreed to a number of stuff they could do and show and that all added up to $4M. Using logos in their own graphics wasnt part of that. Mauybe it only costs an additional $500k/year? Who knows. Sounds like we'll find out tho 

 

Wait, when you watch replays of the talking heads on the ESPN app, they remove the actual highlights from the show? I didn't realize. But that one actually makes a lot more sense to me than what it sounds like what is going on here. They basically have a one time use, or live only license.

[SirAndrew]

1 hour ago, Motorin' said:

 

McAfee is the one being short sighted threatening to disclose NFL secrets about CTE in retaliation for having the logos pulled. 

 

And if he knows of liability around CTE and has kept his mouth shut, but is threatening to damage the NFL over a logo despite, I don't know how he looks like a good guy. 

He’s not going to get anywhere speaking out against the NFL. It was a weird flex. If they are so immoral, he should have been discussing it before they upset him. I’ll believe he’s ready to dish the dirt when I hear it. The NFL will stop that in a hurry. 

[djp14150]

3 hours ago, Doc said:

That show makes enough money to cover the $4 million a year?

 

how many radio station/ markets are they in..get that total…say 200

multiple that by the average fee the local radio station pays to broadcast that for 3 hrs..rough estimate would be half the salary of a daytime radio DJ salary.  Say $30,000

 

thats $6M right there. Then you add in national ad revenue  ( local affiliate have sd slots too)

[Punching Bag]

14 minutes ago, MJS said:

Honestly, I do not see what anyone likes about Pat McAfee and his show. It is wildly popular. I just find him and the others on the show pompous and annoying.

 

Beane doesn't, listens to it and appears on it.

[EasternOHBillsFan]

2 minutes ago, Limeaid said:

 

Beane doesn't, listens to it and appears on it.

 

Well he has to do what he has to in order to attract players to Buffalo... selling his soul to be on the show is understandable.

[colin]

2 hours ago, Bruffalo said:

Yes, the great altar of capitalism.  On your knees before its greatness, don't dare look at it in the eyes, for the supply side jesus saves. 

 

Screeching libertarianism isn't representative of reality. 

 

 

a good number, if not most, libertarians would argue that this isn't actually capitalism (not in the sense of what they like anyhow).  the licensing and IP stuff is all via government control.  basically, since images aren't economically scarce no one can actually own them, so the nfl can't tell someone what to put or not put on a broadcast.

[Mike in Horseheads]

Must be like the BS the NFL pulls making non partners call the Super Bowl, "The Big Game"

[Motorin']

1 hour ago, Mango said:

 

Just to be clear, the base of my understanding of what is happening here is that if a network wants to show a Bills helmet next to a Jets helmet this week, it will cost them more than $4M. That seems wild. 

 

I really think this is the NFL trying to squeeze McAfee and not the PMS actually violating the terms of their licensing agreement. 

 

The guy has a $120M FanDuel contract. I bet a letter was out the door before his show even aired yesterday. 

 

No, they are over reacting, and it was kind of funny up to a point. 

 

They were told they can't use trademarked NFL logos, including team logos, in original graphic content they create for the show. 

 

That doesn't mean they have to remove the helmets from their desks. 

 

In film and TV clearance there's a standard of fair use where you can use a logo or trademark if the product is being used in the way it was intended, and you don't disparage the brand. 

 

Like in scenes in bars where people order a beer, you don't have to blur out the Budweiser or whatever, and when you see that that happen it's usually bc the brand didn't pay a product placement fee (or they have a deal with a different brand).

 

But you can't take branded logos and make original videos that you have monetized.

 

Pat generates his money from his views, and he can't use other people's branded logos to make content that is monetized. It's that simple. 

 

Having memorabilia on their desk isn't a violation since the memorabilia is being used in it's intended purpose. 

 

 

[Mango]

12 minutes ago, Motorin' said:

 

No, they are over reacting, and it was kind of funny up to a point. 

 

They were told they can't use trademarked NFL logos, including team logos, in original graphic content they create for the show. 

 

That doesn't mean they have to remove the helmets from their desks. 

 

In film and TV clearance there's a standard of fair use where you can use a logo or trademark if the product is being used in the way it was intended, and you don't disparage the brand. 

 

Like in scenes in bars where people order a beer, you don't have to blur out the Budweiser or whatever, and when you see that that happen it's usually bc the brand didn't pay a product placement fee (or they have a deal with a different brand).

 

But you can't take branded logos and make original videos that you have monetized.

 

Pat generates his money from his views, and he can't use other people's branded logos to make content that is monetized. It's that simple. 

 

Having memorabilia on their desk isn't a violation since the memorabilia is being used in it's intended purpose. 

 

 

 

I am not referring to their desks. I mean when they talk about when they talk about the Bills vs. Jets and both of their logos are put on screen. Or when Rodgers comes on on a Tuesday and the screen shows his name and a Packers helmet in the corner as a graphic. 

 

I am under the impression that NFL logos cannot be used in these instances on the PMS. 

 

Also, why after week 8 of this year? It doesn't make sense. 

Edited November 1, 2022 by Mango

[Motorin']

2 minutes ago, Mango said:

 

I am not referring to their desks. I mean when they talk about when they talk about the Bills vs. Jets and both of their logos are put on screen. Or when Rodgers comes on on a Tuesday and the screen shows his name and a Packers helmet in the corner as a graphic. 

 

I am under the impression that NFL logos cannot be used in these instances on the PMS. 

 

Exactly, but in the segment where they told the audience that they couldn't use logos in graphics they took every helmet, poster, trinket off their desks that included a team logo. It was kind of funny. 

 

And to the original point, the 4 million was for highlight footage. They didn't say how much it would cost for logo use. It might be way less than the cost of the highlights. But it wasn't included in the highlights fee.

Edited November 1, 2022 by Motorin'

[1ManRaid]

5 hours ago, MAJBobby said:

Pay the fee or don’t use NFL products. That simple. Stop crying about it Simp. 

 

I guess you've never heard about this little thing called Fair Use.  Literally thousands of content creators and news outlets legally use the NFL's content without issue, and the one they go after is the one paying them millions of dollars a year just to cover them.

[C.Biscuit97]

To be fair, I haven’t listen to him enough but I don’t really get the PM love. He seems like kinda of a spaz and he is still a punter. I think pardon my take is far better than him. 

[Motorin']

1 minute ago, 1ManRaid said:

 

I guess you've never heard about this little thing called Fair Use.  Literally thousands of content creators and news outlets legally use the NFL's content without issue, and the one they go after is the one paying them millions of dollars a year just to cover them.

 

The way McAfee was using trademarked logos to create original monetized content doesn't fall under Fair Use, and he's not a news organization. News channels have different rights under Fair Use than entertainment shows.

 

And you're right, the NFL could issue a cease and desist to any content creator using NFL logos. I received one of those letters from the Bills legal team that forced a now defunct Bills fan site to change its name and stop using the Bills logo a long time ago.