It's no joke. It seems like the more devoted of a fan you are, the less the league cares about your continued patronage.
The best example is the league's blackout policy, a wonderful gift from the league to its teams granting them added market pressure to charge whatever ridiculous amount they want for tickets. If a game doesn't sell out, the home market doesn't get to watch it on TV. (Basically, a 75-mile radius around the stadium doesn't get to see the game on TV if all the tickets aren’t bought first.)
The NFL, like a needy girlfriend, says, "Hey, fans, you like us? Prove it." Then the league asks us to prove it again and again, week after week, year after year.
I live within 75 miles of what should be John Elway Stadium, but Broncos fans are pretty much shielded from this stuff, right?
Not all of them. One of my friends is as supportive a fan as the NFL can have: he's a Broncos season ticket holder and an NFL Sunday Ticket subscriber. That means he can watch every game every week. Or, I should say, almost every game. When the Broncos travelled to Oakland this year, the Raiders (who destroyed us at Mile High) couldn't sell out the game, so despite a) holding season tickets to the road team and b) paying for the largest amount of football broadcasts available for sale, he couldn't watch the game. I mean, this guy loves the league, just hands them money all the time, and they still snatched away a little chunk of the season to spite his neighbors.
If the NFL can hate that guy, trust me. They hate you.
Further, don't expect the next NFL season to start on time. If they cared about maintaining the relationship they'd built with you over the years, I'd feel differently, but the owners haven't exactly struck me as eager to rush to the bargaining table. And why should they be? The TV deals are going to pay them, games or no games. Their only motivation to return is money; surely they'll make more this year if there's no lockout, right? But I doubt they'll pass on the opportunity to crush the players union.
And let there be no mistake: the owners are the villains in this. First, a lockout (which is what it seems we're headed for) is the opposite of a strike: it's when factory owners lock out the workers to keep them from working. I point this out because when baseball was headed for a labor stoppage in 2002, or when the NHL had its lockout, everyone blamed the greedy players, because the average person is an idiot.
Second, football players already have a pretty horrible deal compared to other sports, what with the non-guaranteed contracts, short careers, and terrifying medical futures. And yet, the other leagues are all still minting cash, so it’s not like the NFL teams need to make conditions any more favorable to themselves. Football players know the deal going in, perhaps, but that hardly makes owners' grab for additional profits any more just or palatable.
Yet we still hear horrific ideas like an 18-game season tossed around.
Two things I would love to see: a) the owners bear the brunt of the blame for any games that are missed. Even if I didn't think they deserved it, the publically-recognized athletes always get an undeserved share of the criticism. And b) some city that financed an NFL stadium go after the team for economic damages when the team starts skipping home games. The welfare for the wealthy that is publically-financed stadiums is at least mildly unconscionable, but if the citizens are going to take all the risk of building sports fortresses because of the (perhaps overblown) promise of economic growth in their city, well, they should get something back if the owner decides to just stop holding games. And if we can't get money from the teams somehow, find a way to put a targeted tax on whatever it is football team owners buy. Hmmm, perhaps on football teams themselves. Of course, the current Congress will probably just shut down the government again until the billionaires are taken care of, but that's the risk you run. Anyway, I hope you enjoyed that Super Bowl, because I think it's going to be the last NFL game you're going to see for a while.
4 comments:
Exactly right. The owners are seeking the deal of the century: and given the short careers and lack of transferrable job skills among players, they have the leverage to get it. Mark my word: the longer the labor stoppage drags on, the better the deal becomes for the owners.
And the owners are convinced that the fans eventually will return to the game, just as they have to baseball. And they are sadly probably right.
I love the idea of a city suing a franchise for damages due to any empty stadium. Too bad local politicians are too addicted to franchises' cash to actually do something about it.
Yep. The owners always have the advantage as a stoppage goes on; they're in better financial shape, for one. Many guys on the NFL fringe haven't actually made so much money that they can/will want to go very long without working, I suspect.
There is no question the fans will go back, kinda bugs me.
Punchy ~
This is a masterful post. I think you hit the nail on the head, as usual, and with good sense and good humor.
I agree with John and you that the idea of a lawsuit by the cities is a great idea and I hope it happens because these handouts to the billionaires are ridiculous.
Anyway, thanks for the great post!
DG
Thanks, DG!
Post a Comment