{"id":3069,"date":"2014-10-01T11:59:58","date_gmt":"2014-10-01T11:59:58","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ncjolt.org\/?p=3069"},"modified":"2020-06-04T20:53:41","modified_gmt":"2020-06-04T20:53:41","slug":"fcc-tackles-blackout-rule-but-do-nfl-fans-win","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/blogs\/fcc-tackles-blackout-rule-but-do-nfl-fans-win\/","title":{"rendered":"FCC tackles blackout rule, but do NFL fans win?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Every Sunday<\/span>, football fans across the country anxiously await their teams\u2019 match-ups\u2014saddling up to sport bars, piling onto friends\u2019 couches, or settling into their recliners to catch the game. But what if your team hasn\u2019t sold out its stadium? Since 1975, the Federal Communications Commission (\u201cFCC\u201d) had the ability to prohibit cable and satellite operators from airing any sports event that had been blacked out on a local broadcast station.
\nOn Tuesday<\/span> morning, the FCC voted<\/a> to dump this rule.
\nThe action removes FCC protection of the NFL\u2019s private blackout policy, which requires local broadcast stations to black out a game if a team does not sell a certain percentage of tickets at least 72 hours prior to game day.
\nDemocratic FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler and senior GOP Commissioner Ajit Pai both say it is time to sack the rule<\/a>. Wheeler adds<\/a>,<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s a simple fact, the federal government should not be party to sports teams keeping their fans from viewing the games \u2014 period.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Additionally, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) have both called for getting rid of the rule<\/a>, claiming it \u201charms consumers by insulating the NFL from market realities and punishing fans in cities with large stadiums and declining populations.\u201d
\nTo some, the FCC\u2019s rule seems obsolete. The NFL is king<\/a>, selling out almost every game. The rule was imposed in 1975 when barely 40 percent of games sold out and gate receipts were the league’s principal source of revenue. Since 1975, the number of games blacked out has steadily decreased, leading to more than 99 percent<\/a> of games in 2013 being aired on free television. Ken Edmonds, the league’s director of legislative affairs, said just two games were blacked out last season. In this regard, it would appear that getting rid of the rule would make no difference in fans\u2019 experiences.
\nDespite these stats, the NFL’s blackout policy remains a real concern for fans<\/a>. During the 2014 playoffs, Cincinnati, Green Bay and Indianapolis hadn’t sold out their games 72 hours before kickoff. In order to keep them from being blacked out, local businesses bought blocks of tickets so that the game could be officially \u201csold out\u201d and therefore viewable to the local residents.
\nGreen Bay faced a blackout when temperatures were minus-15 degrees. Despite a solid history of fan support and loyalty (Green Bay had sold out every regular season game since 1959) local Packer fans were effectively told that if they didn\u2019t sell out the game and sit in the freezing cold, the community wouldn\u2019t be able to view the game on television. Eventually, fans and corporate sponsors bought the remaining 1,000 tickets<\/a> to avoid the blackout.
\nBusinesses bailing communities out of a potential blackout is a sweet deal for the NFL. Fans are happy because they get to view the game for free and the NFL is happy because they just \u201csold out\u201d a game despite lack of fan attendance.
\nWhile this move to get rid of the rule seems like a win for fans, the NFL still holds the reins.
\nFirst, the NFL, without the FCC\u2019s help, is still capable of blacking out games. Though Tuesday\u2019s<\/span> action \u201ctakes [FCC’s] public policy finger off the scale<\/a>,\u201d said Commissioner Mignon Clyburn, the NFL still has the ability to blackout games under existing private contracts with broadcasters, or as a result of negotiation disputes between broadcasters and pay-per-view operators.
\nSecond, the NFL warns the repeal of the blackout rule could lead to pay-per-view football. The league warns that any FCC action to eliminate the rule \u201cmay hasten the migration of sports to pay-TV platforms<\/a>,\u201d ultimately depriving many fans of the ability to watch games. Despite caution from the league regarding the end of free football on local networks, NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy assures, \u201cwith or without the rule, the league will continue to work to find new ways to bring more people to the game, and bring the game to more people.\u201d
\nThe NFL is already under scrutiny for how they handle domestic violence, concussions, and the Washington Redskins name. The repeal of the FCC blackout rule may be the first of many withdraws by the government from the NFL during this rocky time.
\nFor example, under the 1961 Sports Broadcasting Act, NFL teams are permitted to jointly negotiate broadcasting rights without violating antitrust law. Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Rep. Brian Higgins (D-N.Y.) are sponsoring a bill called the FANS Act<\/a>, which would remove the league\u2019s antitrust exemption if it allows blackouts during disputes between its broadcast and cable partners.
\nOn its face, the FCC decision is a win for sports fans, but it is the NFL and further legislative action that will decide the fate for our Sunday<\/span> nights in the long run.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Every Sunday, football fans across the country anxiously await their teams\u2019 match-ups\u2014saddling up to sport bars, piling onto friends\u2019 couches, or settling into their recliners to catch the game. But what if your team hasn\u2019t sold out its stadium? Since 1975, the Federal Communications Commission (\u201cFCC\u201d) had the ability to prohibit cable and satellite operators …<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3070,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[51],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3069"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3069"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3069\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7437,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3069\/revisions\/7437"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3070"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3069"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3069"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3069"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}