Oh no, poor billionaires losing money.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 minute ago, Bferra13 said:

Politicians have to approve it. You would do the same exact thing in their position.

Sure, probably because they've lined my pockets

 

Make no mistake, don't like the politicians any more than I do the crooked billionaires

 

[MPT]

Build my stadium.

Pay my taxes.

Buy my tickets.

Buy my merchandise.

Watch my commercials. 

Wait no, not like that.

Why aren't they paying to watch my commercials?

[chongli]

5 hours ago, Albany,n.y. said:

  My problem will be the Amazon & Peacock games.

 

Amazon TNF games free, fast, and legal on Twitch, which is owned by Amazon.

[GunnerBill]

 

15 hours ago, appoo said:

The Premier League & Champion's League is more accesible than the NFL, and those are European soccer competitions

 

Also, you have Billionaire's extorting taxpayers to pay for their ridiculous stadiums, or threatening to move the franchise out of the state. 

 

Sure don't steal, but lose me with any kind of empathy or sympathy for these modern day oil barons

 

Buffalo Taxpayer Bill for new stadium that costs 1.4B - 850M

Net worth of Terry Pegula: 6.8B

 

Oh and they have the gall to charge you $60 for two hot dogs, some fries and two beers, after y'all pay for over 50% of the stadium

 

Whereas in the UK it is the other way around. Supply and demand. If you made the soccer as expensive as the NFL in America you wouldn't get subscribers. Vice versa here. Basically by paying what I pay for the EPL and the CL I get all the NFL prime time games plus one Sunday early and one Sunday late for free and then I pay a one off £150 on top for Game Pass on DAZN for access to every other game (and while DAZN is tons worse than the NFL's in house product was, value wise for what I pay I still think that is reasonable). 

 

My calculation is I pay about £60 a month for the soccer (and it brings me some of the NFL along for free by virtue of being on the same subscription service)

 

And then £12.50 per month for the NFL. 

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

36 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

 

Whereas in the UK it is the other way around. Supply and demand. If you made the soccer as expensive as the NFL in America you wouldn't get subscribers. Vice versa here. Basically by paying what I pay for the EPL and the CL I get all the NFL prime time games plus one Sunday early and one Sunday late for free and then I pay a one off £150 on top for Game Pass on DAZN for access to every other game (and while DAZN is tons worse than the NFL's in house product was, value wise for what I pay I still think that is reasonable). 

 

My calculation is I pay about £60 a month for the soccer (and it brings me some of the NFL along for free by virtue of being on the same subscription service)

 

And then £12.50 per month for the NFL. 

 

Yeah, it's a hell of a lot cheaper and better for foreigners to access NFL games than for Americans. It's like the NFL hates its customers.

[GunnerBill]

8 minutes ago, Pine Barrens Mafia said:

Yeah, it's a hell of a lot cheaper and better for foreigners to access NFL games than for Americans. It's like the NFL hates its customers.

 

Again though, it is supply and demand. If the NFL charged foreigners the same price it charges you guys fewer would buy. It's the old political joke about how the Treasury sets taxes..... it doesn't work out how much it needs to pay for services and then work out the tax rate from that. It works out how much it can get away with charging and then decides what to spend it on .

 

In the US the NFL has worked out it can get away with charging a lot before customers pull the plug. 

 

I don't approve of it, but that is market capitalism for you. They have a product that has a big market and there is quite a lot of price elasticity before people turn off..... and a lack of regulation to stop them exploiting it. 

 

 

Edited September 23, 2023 by GunnerBill

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

19 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Again though, it is supply and demand. If the NFL charged foreigners the same price it charges you guys fewer would buy. It's the old political joke about how the Treasury sets taxes..... it doesn't work out how much it needs to pay for services and then work out the tax rate from that. It works out how much it can get away with charging and then decides what to spend it on .

 

In the US the NFL has worked out it can get away with charging a lot before customers pull the plug. 

 

I don't approve of it, but that is market capitalism for you. They have a product that has a big market and there is quite a lot of price elasticity before people turn off..... and a lack of regulation to stop them exploiting it. 

 

 

This the entirely justified black market 

[GunnerBill]

8 minutes ago, Pine Barrens Mafia said:

This the entirely justified black market 

 

Yea and I think there is something to @PBF81's point. There will be a fair chunk of the black market streamers whose alternative will be "don't watch" because the NFL has priced them out of the market. So the idea that their losses are what they claim is far fetched IMO.

Edited September 23, 2023 by GunnerBill

[PBF81]

15 hours ago, Augie said:

 

Owners do not sneak in in the middle of the night and steal money from under your mattress. I know there is all kinds of stuff going on behind the scenes, but this is a negotiated transaction between elected officials and the owners. 

 

I know this is a sore subject for many, and I’m not looking to incite anyone, but are the owners stealing it, or are the politicians stealing it? Or are you just mad? The politicians just do what they think they need to do to keep their jobs. Maybe they read the room a little better than you do?

 

They is theft whether it's politically ordained or not.  

 

Just sayin'.  

 

And let's not pretend for a moment that people with money twist and contort anything that they can to get more.

 

That's a big part of the issue.

 

I mirror your sentiments otherwise.  🙂

 

 

[Augie]

8 minutes ago, PBF81 said:

 

They is theft whether it's politically ordained or not.  

 

Just sayin'.  

 

And let's not pretend for a moment that people with money twist and contort anything that they can to get more.

 

That's a big part of the issue.

 

I mirror your sentiments otherwise.  🙂

 

 

 

You can say it, but that doesn’t make it true. It is not theft. And while we’re at it, can you define “people with money” for us? You paint in very broad strokes, and that is almost always a bad thing.  

[PBF81]

4 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

You can say it, but that doesn’t make it true. It is not theft. And while we’re at it, can you define “people with money” for us? You paint in very broad strokes, and that is almost always a bad thing.  

 

We'll, we can disagree, but the equivalent of backroom deals with politicians, which we know as fact go on, for applying tax moneys for the business expenses of people far wealthier than those from whom the taxes come, is essentially theft.

 

Semantics aside.  

 

What if the average Joe business owner "that serves his community" via a popular business, had his financing on his brick-n-mortar, or other expense, funded by taxpayers.  I'm pretty sure the take would be different.  

 

 

[Augie]

7 minutes ago, PBF81 said:

 

We'll, we can disagree, but the equivalent of backroom deals with politicians, which we know as fact go on, for applying tax moneys for the business expenses of people far wealthier than those from whom the taxes come, is essentially theft.

 

Semantics aside.  

 

What if the average Joe business owner "that serves his community" via a popular business, had his financing on his brick-n-mortar, or other expense, funded by taxpayers.  I'm pretty sure the take would be different.  

 

 

 

We are not disagreeing, you are just wrong and it is not just semantics. Theft is against the law. 

[PBF81]

1 hour ago, Augie said:

 

We are not disagreeing, you are just wrong and it is not just semantics. Theft is against the law. 

 

We're disagreeing on the definition of theft.  

 

Laws do not always reflect morality.  

 

There is no law requiring people to pay personal income taxes, for example, yet if you do not, the heavy-handed IRS/Government will come down hard on you.   i.e., that's against the law too, taking from people without a law to support it.  

 

Therefore, that's theft.  A pretty classic definition of it in fact.  What they (those that took it illegally) do with the money doesn't matter.  It's still theft.  

 

Giving it to billionaire sports team owners then implicates them in that theft in the same way that people getting paid to rob a bank and give the loot to a mob-figure or someone else, after getting their "cut," however "cut" is defined, implcates that mob-figure or someone else.  

 

 

[HardyBoy]

4 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Again though, it is supply and demand. If the NFL charged foreigners the same price it charges you guys fewer would buy. It's the old political joke about how the Treasury sets taxes..... it doesn't work out how much it needs to pay for services and then work out the tax rate from that. It works out how much it can get away with charging and then decides what to spend it on .

 

In the US the NFL has worked out it can get away with charging a lot before customers pull the plug. 

 

I don't approve of it, but that is market capitalism for you. They have a product that has a big market and there is quite a lot of price elasticity before people turn off..... and a lack of regulation to stop them exploiting it. 

 

 

 

I don't agree that the current system in the nfl is market capitalism...first they are socializing the costs (which happens all over the place not just the nfl)...then they are getting tax exemptions and antitrust excemptions...there are all sorts of things they are doing and perks they are getting that prevent this from being market capitalism.

 

Not disagreeing with what you're saying either, it is definitely a supply and demand thing...I really would love to see the pricing analysis and strategy breakdown of why they decided to do that approach vs giving as many people the ability to watch the games as possible. Seems like they're capping their market share intentionally...maybe it's in a way to ensure more people watch their local team? 

Edited September 23, 2023 by HardyBoy

[CircleTheWagons99]

On 9/1/2023 at 5:09 PM, PBF81 said:

I question whether anyone doing free streaming somehow would pay for a package anyway.  Seems to me that's why they do it to begin with.

 

 

Ill answet that, NO. There will always be a stream. 

[PBF81]

8 minutes ago, CircleTheWagons99 said:

Ill answet that, NO. There will always be a stream. 

 

Agree

 

I also think that a lot of people viewing via these streams do so from overseas.  Not sure they'd be willing to pay for them however.   IDK, just posing it.  

 

Relatedly, I did my best to get the All-22 from NFL.com.  Put in my card info, etc.  But afterwards, when it came time for access, it said I couldn't access it.  Some (error?) message about DAZN not being available in my country, here, the U.S.  I tried a bunch of times to get access to the A22 as well as to a couple of other things that I tried just for sihts and giggles.  Three different browsers.  NONE of it worked.  

 

So, I tried to pay, actually did before canceling, but they didn't make the product that THEY gave me the link for, actually work.  Now I need to check my CC statements to make sure that they're cancelation system works too, otherwise I'll have to waste more of my time dealing with that.  Wouldn't be the first time.  

 

Seems to me that if I can find, for example, that A22 elsewhere, well, I guess that's what I'll do, pay or not.  But that's not my problem at this point, it's theirs.  They didn't want my money.   ... or rather, they did, but they didn't/couldn't offer the service that they promised in exchange for it. 

 

And I'm always stunned and amazed when these enormous multi-billion dollar international corporations can't seem to get the most basic of IT things down.  Heaven knows that those at the top get paid enough.  The EOs and VPs of IT and such.  

 

It shouldn't be that complicated frankly.  In my case it had to do with DAZN, whatever that is.  But if I now need 2 subscriptions(?), one that they told me I can't get(?), it expands the topic.  

 

And as others have pointed out, also, why can't they simply offer all Bills (single team) games for example at significantly less than the Sunday Ticket price.  I pretty much don't care about the rest of the NFL.  Sure, I'll watch a good game here and there if it's on for free, or TNF on Prime or whatever, but I'm not paying to watch other teams.  

 

If they want money, at least tailor to what people want, and, most importantly, make sure that the services that they hypothetically offer actually work.  

 

 

[GunnerBill]

25 minutes ago, HardyBoy said:

 

I don't agree that the current system in the nfl is market capitalism...first they are socializing the costs (which happens all over the place not just the nfl)...then they are getting tax exemptions and antitrust excemptions...there are all sorts of things they are doing and perks they are getting that prevent this from being market capitalism.

 

Not disagreeing with what you're saying either, it is definitely a supply and demand thing...I really would love to see the pricing analysis and strategy breakdown of why they decided to do that approach vs giving as many people the ability to watch the games as possible. Seems like they're capping their market share intentionally...maybe it's in a way to ensure more people watch their local team? 

 

The model of internal operations within the league isn't capitalism. I agree with that. But on the exemptions.... market capitalism as a system is built on loopholes for the powerful so that they never fail. 

[T&C]

20 minutes ago, CircleTheWagons99 said:

Ill answet that, NO. There will always be a stream. 

Has been one or more for at least the last 20 years. Had the Sunday ticket for around a decade but once they started screwing with the bill every 6 months it seemed I just said the hell with it. Now you need 3-4 separate services just to watch the damn games. I'm not paying anymore.

[Mr. WEO]

4 hours ago, PBF81 said:

 

They is theft whether it's politically ordained or not.  

 

Just sayin'.  

 

And let's not pretend for a moment that people with money twist and contort anything that they can to get more.

 

That's a big part of the issue.

 

I mirror your sentiments otherwise.  🙂

 

 

 

2 hours ago, PBF81 said:

 

We're disagreeing on the definition of theft.  

 

Laws do not always reflect morality.  

 

There is no law requiring people to pay personal income taxes, for example, yet if you do not, the heavy-handed IRS/Government will come down hard on you.   i.e., that's against the law too, taking from people without a law to support it.  

 

Therefore, that's theft.  A pretty classic definition of it in fact.  What they (those that took it illegally) do with the money doesn't matter.  It's still theft.  

 

Giving it to billionaire sports team owners then implicates them in that theft in the same way that people getting paid to rob a bank and give the loot to a mob-figure or someone else, after getting their "cut," however "cut" is defined, implcates that mob-figure or someone else.  

 

 

 

If your argument is now that all taxation is theft, then you are no longer railing against public funding of pro stadiums---which really don't rely on "back room deals".  The politicians are not opaque about their support or opposition to these funds. It just comes down to how much.  They crave power at least as much as money--none of them wants to be voted out of office for "losing the Bills"....

 

 

The bolded part has been endlessly repeated by a certain type of individual--and routinely defeated in court.  the 16th Amendment allows for the federal government to levy personal income taxes.  It is illegal to not pay these.  Likewise, Article 22 of the NYS Tax Law regards personal income tax.   Willfully choosing not to pay them can result in jail time.

[Mr. WEO]

2 hours ago, HardyBoy said:

 

I don't agree that the current system in the nfl is market capitalism...first they are socializing the costs (which happens all over the place not just the nfl)...then they are getting tax exemptions and antitrust excemptions...there are all sorts of things they are doing and perks they are getting that prevent this from being market capitalism.

 

Not disagreeing with what you're saying either, it is definitely a supply and demand thing...I really would love to see the pricing analysis and strategy breakdown of why they decided to do that approach vs giving as many people the ability to watch the games as possible. Seems like they're capping their market share intentionally...maybe it's in a way to ensure more people watch their local team? 

 

Simple---that's the way they did business for decades: sell the product to one or two legacy networks and ESPN.  Most people in the country could see multiple games on sunday and then MNF.  Then the various networks upped the bidding price against each other.   It only makes sense then for the NFL to split the pie even further and sell a night (TNF) or various games to the streamers who are willing to pay crazy premiums for the only really dominant programming content that reaches any TV in the world.

 

People seem not to get that the the ratings and viewership matter far more to the broadcasters than the NFL.  The networks and streamers have to make that money back with ads and subscriptions.  F0r the NFL it's always a revenue stream that is guaranteed to go up in value every time a new contract is signed.   

 

The NFL doesn't care if some viewers don't get their favorite team on TV every week.