Network pricing to watch all NFL games in 2025

[Johnny Bravo]

On 6/9/2025 at 7:01 PM, first_and_ten said:

 

You didn't get my point. My point is during a natural disaster, there are people who try to charge exorbitant prices for necessities like water. There is a reason that laws are in place to prevent this type of greed. It's called gouging.  If a bottle of water costs $10, then people will only buy what they need? You're joking right? It seems your worldview is that everyone is an honest broker. It's just not reality.

 

In the end, football doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. Can I watch football and still believe the owners are greedy? Yes, the two things can be true at the same time. Let's agree to disagree. I'm not here to argue. I wish you nothing but the best. Go Bills!!!

I appreciate that brother.  go Bills!

[SoCal Deek]

Seems like a few on here don't want to pay to watch something that they aren't required to watch. They just want to complain about the cost of watching it. I can tell you that I can very much afford it, but even I cut the cord on the DirectTV over a year ago when Sunday Ticket got (in my opinion) 'not worth it'.  And it's only gotten worse with YouTube. So....I now share the price of a 'subscription' with my Son-in-Law, and we watch the Bills games as a family. Issue solved!  I've found that I really don't care about watching the Seahawks and Chargers playing somewhere later in the day. There are much better things to do with three hours of my weekend. 

Edited yesterday at 03:00 PM by SoCal Deek

[colin]

On 6/7/2025 at 9:36 AM, Einstein said:

 

The poster I was responding to was talking about the NFL’s revenue - not their profit.

 

Accordingly, my comparison was to Walmart’s revenue - not profit. After all, it would not make sense to compare the NFL’s revenue to Walmarts profit - would it?

 

Walmart made a revenue of over $600 billion last year. You looked up the profit, not revenue. Problem is, no-one in this thread walk talking about profit… we were all talking about revenue.

If you are going to call someone out in such a condescending way, you should triple check that you know what you are talking about before doing so.

 

 

 

There is a very meaningful distinction (economically and possibly morally) between shoplifting and watching streamed stuff without paying the going rate.

 

Goods at Walmart (or anywhere) are economically scarce -- for you to have them someone else must in principle not have them.  Information is not economically scarce, if I know (or watch something) no one else will lose that knowledge because of my streaming (or playing a song, reading a pay wall article, etc).

 

Now, of your morality is strictly inline with the legal code, then it's definitely illegal, so by that code it's wrong.  Things like my TV and even Napster when it first came out are much more gray.  There were cases and arguments and so on where sharing on Napster was not illegal, or at least not punishable at some point, for example.

 

You also have a nearly perfectly segregated market -- prices in Europe or Canada are a small fraction of what they are here in America.  You will see a similar thing with soccer but I'm reverse -- way cheaper here for say Italian league seasons pass vs in Italy or Europe in general.

 

A further complicating factor is that the NFL is not a free enterprise but a regulated trust.  They have a special status existing as an exception to anti trust laws, so some people feel the law should not be how it is, and the current practices in streaming and black outs (in the past at least) are not legal in a correct interpretation of the law.

 

From a libertarian/pure free market point of view it's no clearer.  Information ownership requires government intervention to enforce IP laws.  If your morality is at least in part based on a libertarian view of fairness (and in fact many Americans poll strongly along these lines) then you will see these IP laws, or at least the case of the NFLs current implementation of it, as wrong.  For physical goods (and some services) there is a rule that "the lowest price is the law" where it is in at least some cases illegal to charge one person more for something than you would charge another.  Limited offers, sales, and so on often get around this, but it is still a thing.

 

It's complicated, but here is a little thought experiment -- if it's wrong to watch streamed content on a bootleg stream, is it wrong to watch the same content at your friend's house?  What if he's a paying official stream customer?  How about using his login when he's not using it?  How about watching it through the window of a bar?  Would it be wrong to cover a song you heard on the radio and record it?  Would it be wrong to sing a Taylor Swift song with your daughter and record it (many do this on tik tok and such)?

[Kevbeau]

YouTube offering military discount on renewals as well ($198.) I believe verbiage last year stated renewals wouldn’t receive the discount this year, but seems they’ve backed off that.

Edited yesterday at 06:11 PM by Kevbeau

[Ned Flanders]

12 minutes ago, Kevbeau said:

YouTube offering military discount on renewals as well ($198.) I believe verbiage last year stated renewals wouldn’t receive the discount this year, but seems they’ve backed off that.

Link?

[Johnny Bravo]

2 hours ago, colin said:

It's complicated, but here is a little thought experiment -- if it's wrong to watch streamed content on a bootleg stream, is it wrong to watch the same content at your friend's house?  What if he's a paying official stream customer?  How about using his login when he's not using it?  How about watching it through the window of a bar?  Would it be wrong to cover a song you heard on the radio and record it?  Would it be wrong to sing a Taylor Swift song with your daughter and record it (many do this on tik tok and such)?

I think what you are describing is not the issue.  Of course you can have friends over to watch the game with you.  Same as with PPV, etc.  The prohibitions come in if you start charging people to come watch the game at your place and that scenario is covered in the agreement you sign when you subscribe.  There is a separate product and pricing structure for businesses like sports bars.

 

I think the gray area comes in with two friends who share the subscription costs.  I did that years ago with a friend and I went over to his house every to watch games together.  This was before streaming.  Now in the streaming age we would have the option of each watching at our own home and I am not sure about the legality or morality of doing that.

[SoCal Deek]

1 minute ago, Johnny Bravo said:

I think what you are describing is not the issue.  Of course you can have friends over to watch the game with you.  Same as with PPV, etc.  The prohibitions come in if you start charging people to come watch the game at your place and that scenario is covered in the agreement you sign when you subscribe.  There is a separate product and pricing structure for businesses like sports bars.

 

I think the gray area comes in with two friends who share the subscription costs.  I did that years ago with a friend and I went over to his house every to watch games together.  This was before streaming.  Now in the streaming age we would have the option of each watching at our own home and I am not sure about the legality or morality of doing that.

I don’t see any of this as a ‘moral’ issue until you breach a contract you’ve signed. 

[Einstein]

2 hours ago, colin said:

Goods at Walmart (or anywhere) are economically scarce -- for you to have them someone else must in principle not have them.  Information is not economically scarce, if I know (or watch something) no one else will lose that knowledge because of my streaming (or playing a song, reading a pay wall article, etc).

One needs to twist logic into a pretzel for your argument to make sense.

You make the argument that stealing from Walmart is wrong because it causes a loss to someone else, but then add the distinction that illegal streaming doesn’t occur such loss by its owner. You're wrong. When people stream illegally, it lowers official viewership numbers, which directly impacts ad revenue and future broadcast contracts. That is a loss. The league makes less, players make less, etc. Yes, digital files aren’t scarce, but the value of the product depends on exclusive access.

Most people make the argument of "boo hoo, big rich league", but your argument is that not that the league makes enough already - its that you doing something illegal doesn't cause them harm. Which is quite the strange argument. 

There is always a loss to *someone* during theft. Your argument is akin to rioters who loot stores because "Insurance will pay for it - its a win/win for everyone". But in reality, premiums are raised costing stores more, insurance takes a hit which results in job losses (look at what happened to insurance companies in Florida), etc.

Theft is never free.

[ChronicAndKnuckles]

On 6/5/2025 at 9:29 AM, Einstein said:

 

I will never understand people advocating illegal streams. 

 

For some reason, it being media makes it pallatable for people to say things like like this. But most of us would never say “oh that restaurant meal was expensive - but there are ways to skip out the door before paying without the waitress knowing”. 

 

Why not just straight up say “i’m a thief”?

I supported this garbage franchise through 18 years of despair. Tickets, jerseys, vendors, Sunday ticket when I moved out of Rochester, etc. Ralph Wilson slapped every fan in the face when he went over the coach and benched Flutie. The constant threat looming over fans’ heads of moving the franchise. The hiring of proven losers at HC to save money. Big Splash moves like Terrell Owen’s that were only made to sell tickets. I could go on & on. If I’m struggling financially and need to illegally stream some games for a season, I will. Maybe I am a thief, but the owners & players aren’t going to starve as a result. 

[ChronicAndKnuckles]

On 6/5/2025 at 1:30 PM, SoMAn said:

NFL+ for around $99/year... BUT  the games are only shown after completion of the 'live' game. i.e.-A Bills 1pm game will start airing on the NFL app around 4pm after the final gun. The caveat is if you want to enjoy it as a live game without knowing the outcome, you need to stay off the grid and turn your phone off,  otherwise all the people in your social circle who know you're a Bills fan will start texting you with "great game", or "the Bills got robbed".  

 

I've opted out of the NFL Sunday ticket this year. The price keeps going up but that's not the main reason. With the BIlls being shown nationally, probably at least 8-10 times, and the Bills playing the Falcons division (I'm in ATL), it's not a very good value to pay $479 for what may amount to 5 or 6 games. At that price point, I may as well go to a Bills Backers bar or watch a couple of games on NFL+ with the delay. I also have a friend (Bills fan)nearby who's getting the ticket this year, so I can watch a game or two with him. 

 

Sadly, the days are long gone of calling Directv, threatening cancellation, getting the ticket for free, and then additional credits and free premium channels as an extra. Suckers.

I did NFL+ for a couple years when I had to work on Sunday. I honestly enjoyed it more than watching it live as it offered 2 “condensed” versions. One with just the commercials cut out (which I did for the Bills as I liked the anticipation & build of each play) and then just the action only (which I did for all other games which made them only 30 minutes or so.) It was great being able to pause the game and watch on my own time. 

[WotAGuy]

23 minutes ago, ChronicAndKnuckles said:

I did NFL+ for a couple years when I had to work on Sunday. I honestly enjoyed it more than watching it live as it offered 2 “condensed” versions. One with just the commercials cut out (which I did for the Bills as I liked the anticipation & build of each play) and then just the action only (which I did for all other games which made them only 30 minutes or so.) It was great being able to pause the game and watch on my own time. 

Think of the advertising revenue and ratings they are losing out on because of you, you sonuvabltch!

[Einstein]

3 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

I don’t see any of this as a ‘moral’ issue until you breach a contract you’ve signed. 

We are so screwed as a species. 

People are not only immoral but they are also happy and make jokes about their immorality. Theft was once a social stigma - you were embarrassed by your actions. Not anymore. Now it is simply; "You have something I want, and I don't want to pay for it. That's good enough justification".

 

Yikes.

[WotAGuy]

9 minutes ago, Einstein said:

We are so screwed as a species. 

People are not only immoral but they are also happy and make jokes about their immorality. Theft was once a social stigma - you were embarrassed by your actions. Not anymore. Now it is simply; "You have something I want, and I don't want to pay for it. That's good enough justification".

 

Yikes.

Dude, you live a sheltered life if you think people watching streams is the downfall of civilization. Have you watched the news?

 

As long as we’re talking morals, wanna hear my thoughts on sex?

 

 

Edited 19 hours ago by WotAGuy

[SoCal Deek]

1 hour ago, WotAGuy said:

Dude, you live a sheltered life if you think people watching streams is the downfall of civilization. Have you watched the news?

 

As long as we’re talking morals, wanna hear my thoughts on sex?

 

 

Sure! Let’s hear your thoughts on sex. It’s still the offseason. 😉

[Giuseppe Tognarelli]

5 hours ago, Kevbeau said:

YouTube offering military discount on renewals as well ($198.) I believe verbiage last year stated renewals wouldn’t receive the discount this year, but seems they’ve backed off that.

Military discount?! 😂

 

All these people talking about TV services they have that probably aren't legal but they're able to watch all of the NFL games and whatnot. I almost guarantee they're not watching in perfect HD on a TV. I bet it's a spammy laptop situation.

Edited 18 hours ago by Giuseppe Tognarelli

[colin]

6 hours ago, Einstein said:

One needs to twist logic into a pretzel for your argument to make sense.

You make the argument that stealing from Walmart is wrong because it causes a loss to someone else, but then add the distinction that illegal streaming doesn’t occur such loss by its owner. You're wrong. When people stream illegally, it lowers official viewership numbers, which directly impacts ad revenue and future broadcast contracts. That is a loss. The league makes less, players make less, etc. Yes, digital files aren’t scarce, but the value of the product depends on exclusive access.

Most people make the argument of "boo hoo, big rich league", but your argument is that not that the league makes enough already - its that you doing something illegal doesn't cause them harm. Which is quite the strange argument. 

There is always a loss to *someone* during theft. Your argument is akin to rioters who loot stores because "Insurance will pay for it - its a win/win for everyone". But in reality, premiums are raised costing stores more, insurance takes a hit which results in job losses (look at what happened to insurance companies in Florida), etc.

Theft is never free.

 

Not at all, you are missing a simple point entirely.

 

Firstly, you just claim it's theft, the argument I described is that it's not.

 

Information is simply not economically scarce.  There is no finite element to the supply of information.  

 

Your assumption is that watching in a stream lowers the revenue of the producer of the content.  That is only true if the person watching the stream would have other wise payed the full price to watch it.  If I'm willing to pay one dollar for a bills game broadcast, and they charge 10, they don't lose 10 if I watch it for free (be it via a bootleg stream or by me staring through my neighbor's window) because I would not have chosen to pay them that price anyhow.  Producer surplus does not exist without a paying customer.

 

If a person is willing to watch a game for free, say as background noise, but otherwise would never bother, then the NFL (or broadcaster or whoever) loses nothing because of the stream.

 

Intellectual property rights are different from all other property rights, and in fact they violate other property rights in their enforcement.  I own my phone, I pay a telecom provider for their spectrum (which they lease from the government who on paper works for me as a taxpayer) and enforcing the NFL broadcast monopoly violated my personal rights to use my phone (which is economically scarce) how I want.

 

Your examples about big business being greedy, or that retail loss is covered by insurance, are quite separate from my argument.  

6 hours ago, Johnny Bravo said:

I think what you are describing is not the issue.  Of course you can have friends over to watch the game with you.  Same as with PPV, etc.  The prohibitions come in if you start charging people to come watch the game at your place and that scenario is covered in the agreement you sign when you subscribe.  There is a separate product and pricing structure for businesses like sports bars.

 

I think the gray area comes in with two friends who share the subscription costs.  I did that years ago with a friend and I went over to his house every to watch games together.  This was before streaming.  Now in the streaming age we would have the option of each watching at our own home and I am not sure about the legality or morality of doing that.

 

The point of the thought experiment is to determine at what point does one violate someone else's (in this the IP owner) property rights.  Is me singing a Taylor Swift song stealing from her?  What if my daughter likes my version as much as Taylor's so she doesn't go out and buy or stream the song, which means less revenue for Taylor Swift?  There were laws against lending compact discs when they were new because the record companies were worried people could make really good copies and just not buy their own.  I think those might have eventually been struck down (John's stossel had some shows about this stuff a while back).

 

Einstein is claiming a bootleg stream is theft, my question is why?  At what point is not paying for intellectual property theft, and at what point is it not?

 

 

[SoCal Deek]

11 hours ago, colin said:

 

Not at all, you are missing a simple point entirely.

 

Firstly, you just claim it's theft, the argument I described is that it's not.

 

Information is simply not economically scarce.  There is no finite element to the supply of information.  

 

Your assumption is that watching in a stream lowers the revenue of the producer of the content.  That is only true if the person watching the stream would have other wise payed the full price to watch it.  If I'm willing to pay one dollar for a bills game broadcast, and they charge 10, they don't lose 10 if I watch it for free (be it via a bootleg stream or by me staring through my neighbor's window) because I would not have chosen to pay them that price anyhow.  Producer surplus does not exist without a paying customer.

 

If a person is willing to watch a game for free, say as background noise, but otherwise would never bother, then the NFL (or broadcaster or whoever) loses nothing because of the stream.

 

Intellectual property rights are different from all other property rights, and in fact they violate other property rights in their enforcement.  I own my phone, I pay a telecom provider for their spectrum (which they lease from the government who on paper works for me as a taxpayer) and enforcing the NFL broadcast monopoly violated my personal rights to use my phone (which is economically scarce) how I want.

 

Your examples about big business being greedy, or that retail loss is covered by insurance, are quite separate from my argument.  

 

The point of the thought experiment is to determine at what point does one violate someone else's (in this the IP owner) property rights.  Is me singing a Taylor Swift song stealing from her?  What if my daughter likes my version as much as Taylor's so she doesn't go out and buy or stream the song, which means less revenue for Taylor Swift?  There were laws against lending compact discs when they were new because the record companies were worried people could make really good copies and just not buy their own.  I think those might have eventually been struck down (John's stossel had some shows about this stuff a while back).

 

Einstein is claiming a bootleg stream is theft, my question is why?  At what point is not paying for intellectual property theft, and at what point is it not?

 

 

Yikes. 

[Einstein]

15 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Yikes. 

Yep. Absolute delusion. 

"its not theft because the stolen item is not economically scarce". 

So ridiculous its not even worth debating.