What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Could a team somehow make its own TV network? (1 Viewer)

David Yudkin

Footballguy
In the future, what would the likelihood of success be for an NFL franchise to try to opt out of the revenue sharing model for tv revenue and instead creating their own network to broadcast their games? For example, Jerry Jones decides that he could make way more money creating The Cowboys Network, which would be the sole source for all Cowboys game. Jones already made local advertising deals with competitors to official NFL sponsors (soda, shoes, etc.) that did not go over with the rest of the league.

Baseball teams have their own cable networks (or are partnered with cable networks) to broadcast all or most of their games. In college, Notre Dame made their own deals with tv networks for years. Is it really that far fetched that a NFL team will step up and butt heads with the NFL in the future on something like this?

 

Please See Mine

Footballguy
Wasn't this basically one of the key issues in the lockout? The one that got the most press was the owners vs. players, but I thought that a significant piece was the more profitable teams wanting more leeway in terms of doing their own things from a revenue standpoint and not having to share as much. I don't think that they ended up moving too far away from the collective model, but I could be wrong. And, as thriftyrocker points out, the current TV deals run through 2022.

 

matttyl

Footballguy
Could a team make a TV channel or show that would have everything except for the games? Could the Redksins for instance have a channel that has reruns of past games, "insider" news, live footage of practices, stuff like that? Isn't the current TV deal just for games?

 

David Yudkin

Footballguy
I believe the league currently does not allow rebroadcast of entire games. Apparently to them it cheapens the telecast of a live game by showing it over again at any point in the future. Obviously they could change their minds on that, but as things stand now I don't think a team could replay games in their entirety.

Could a team make a TV channel or show that would have everything except for the games? Could the Redksins for instance have a channel that has reruns of past games, "insider" news, live footage of practices, stuff like that? Isn't the current TV deal just for games?
 

Sidewinder16

Footballguy
Can't happen until at least 2022.
This is part of it. It almost certainly breaks something in the current agreement the NFL has with it's TV partners. The NFL also holds ultimate control over all trademarks owned by the league and it's member clubs.

Probably the bigger part though, is that the NFL Constitution and Bylaws (an older version, but I think the pertinent parts are still relevant), not the TV contracts, requires all television income to be equally divided among the clubs, regardless of the source (unless unanimously agreed upon by the owners). Ownership of a franchise requires adhering to the league rules. I imagine blatantly breaking one of those rules could have serious ramifications, like being stripped of your ownership rights.

 

Lord Fantasy

Footballguy
Setting aside the rights issues I think we take for granted how challenging it is to create a quality television product.

Jerry Jones *might* be able to make more money with a Cowboys network, but it would take awhile to work out all the technical/financial/creative bugs. In the meantime he puts the repuation of a proven global brand at risk.

Of course, someone like Jerry Jones might do it on pure ego alone. In which case the answer is yes. Yes, a team could makes its own TV network.

 

Sidewinder16

Footballguy
Of course, someone like Jerry Jones might do it on pure ego alone. In which case the answer is yes. Yes, a team could makes its own TV network.
Jones may be egotistical, but I'm not sure he's "business-stupid". If starting his own Cowboy Network carries the serious risk of him not being an NFL owner anymore, I think he dismisses the idea pretty quickly.

 

PatsFanCT

Footballguy
It probably ends up being covered under the NFL revenue sharing plan. So the teams who create their own networks would be paying the teams without one. I guess if the money is good enough, then maybe they'd go for it.

 

Kool-Aid Larry

Footballguy
It probably ends up being covered under the NFL revenue sharing plan. So the teams who create their own networks would be paying the teams without one. I guess if the money is good enough, then maybe they'd go for it.
how would that be possible?

don't you think that would be in direct conflict with the nfl network, any agreement with any other network, and the nfl, itself?

just because baseball and football are both sports doesn't mean mlb = nfl

 

PatsFanCT

Footballguy
It probably ends up being covered under the NFL revenue sharing plan. So the teams who create their own networks would be paying the teams without one. I guess if the money is good enough, then maybe they'd go for it.
how would that be possible?

don't you think that would be in direct conflict with the nfl network, any agreement with any other network, and the nfl, itself?

just because baseball and football are both sports doesn't mean mlb = nfl
Who knows? I'm sure for the right price, the NFL, NFL Network and any other network wouldn't pass up extra cash. They would prohibit the live game from being shown, but if they can make money letting an NFL team have it's own network, why wouldn't they?

That's how it would be possible. But again, nobody seems to know for sure, including you.

 

Riversco

Footballguy
If its just the Cowboys doing this how would this work for the opponent? If the Cowboys play the Eagles who broadcasts the game in Philly? Would the network still send a broadcast team to do the game so fans in Philadephia get to watch their home team? Or would a local Philly TV station have to step up and broadcast two games per year? Or do fans in Philadelphia just get to watch JerruhVision?

 

Portis 26

Madden Freak
This is already happening for European soccer teams. Chelsea, Man Utd etc have their own satellite channels.

 

Sidewinder16

Footballguy
Portis 26 said:
This is already happening for European soccer teams. Chelsea, Man Utd etc have their own satellite channels.
Probably because they don't have a set of rules and bylaws agreed upon by all the owners that explicitly forbids it. The NFL has that.

 

Sidewinder16

Footballguy
Riversco said:
If its just the Cowboys doing this how would this work for the opponent? If the Cowboys play the Eagles who broadcasts the game in Philly? Would the network still send a broadcast team to do the game so fans in Philadephia get to watch their home team? Or would a local Philly TV station have to step up and broadcast two games per year? Or do fans in Philadelphia just get to watch JerruhVision?
This is another good reason why it won't happen without leaguewide ownership support (i.e. a change or amendment to the current rules). The NFL Constitution and Bylaws also requires each member organization to provide adequate space/support/facilities/etc. for it's TV partners to setup their broadcast equipment in the stadiums. How many people are really going to subscribe to JerruhVision :) when the games are still available through all the current, regular channels?

 
I believe one of the major reasons the NFL was granted an anti-trust exemption by congress was because they share their TV revenue. Starting an independent network for an individual franchise would likely jeopardize the leagues exemption. Chaos would ensue. My link. J

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Kool-Aid Larry

Footballguy
It probably ends up being covered under the NFL revenue sharing plan. So the teams who create their own networks would be paying the teams without one. I guess if the money is good enough, then maybe they'd go for it.
how would that be possible?

don't you think that would be in direct conflict with the nfl network, any agreement with any other network, and the nfl, itself?

just because baseball soccer and football are both sports doesn't mean mlb whatever = nfl
ok, I corrected my post

 

ghostguy123

Footballguy
I would think having a salary cap would make this very difficult.

If some teams branch off the NFL could lose enough money that they end up saying that instead of a league contract with the TV networks, they say each team has to have their own. Some teams may make a ton, some teams may not make enough to pay their teams anywhere near what the salary cap is.

I think the NFL itself would do whatever it could to keep this from happening in an attempt to preserve their product and not run the risk of teams jacking it up and ruining football.

 

ghostguy123

Footballguy
How bout this though. If the NFL wanted to generate more revenue (just a random thought, maybe not related to this topic).

How about they extend the season to make the regular season 18 weeks. Team still play 16 games, but instead of one they have TWO bye weeks.

The NFL makes the majority of their money on TV. This would be one more week of a Thursday night game, another week of 1 o'clock and 4 o'clock games, another week of the Sunday night game, and another week of a Monday night game.

I also think teams would appreciate the 2nd bye week for obvious reasons, not to mention maybe even it out a little better since some teams currently have a bye in week 4 and some in week 11, which sucks for the teams who have that bye in week 4.

Maybe I am overlooking something, but this seems like a much easier way to generate more money for both the NFL and the players than adding actual games. It wouldn't be as much money, but it would clearly be more money and seemingly better for everyone.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

matttyl

Footballguy
About the 18 game season - It's been discussed, and since the NFL won't start the season any earlier, it would obviously mean that the season would run later. The regular season wouldn't end till mid January now, and the post season would be inching closer to March.

 

spodog

Footballguy
About the 18 game season - It's been discussed, and since the NFL won't start the season any earlier, it would obviously mean that the season would run later. The regular season wouldn't end till mid January now, and the post season would be inching closer to March.
That isn't necessary. The League would be more than willing to surrender 2 pre-season games if the NFLPA was willing to allow the regular season to extend to 18 games. Indeed, the right for the NFL to do exactly this, convert the final 2 preseason games into regular season games at a point in the future, was an item that was included in the 2011-2020 CBA.

 

Kool-Aid Larry

Footballguy
How bout this though. If the NFL wanted to generate more revenue (just a random thought, maybe not related to this topic). How about they extend the season to make the regular season 18 weeks. Team still play 16 games, but instead of one they have TWO bye weeks. The NFL makes the majority of their money on TV. This would be one more week of a Thursday night game, another week of 1 o'clock and 4 o'clock games, another week of the Sunday night game, and another week of a Monday night game. I also think teams would appreciate the 2nd bye week for obvious reasons, not to mention maybe even it out a little better since some teams currently have a bye in week 4 and some in week 11, which sucks for the teams who have that bye in week 4. Maybe I am overlooking something, but this seems like a much easier way to generate more money for both the NFL and the players than adding actual games. It wouldn't be as much money, but it would clearly be more money and seemingly better for everyone.
you should e-mail the commissioner

 

ghostguy123

Footballguy
About the 18 game season - It's been discussed, and since the NFL won't start the season any earlier, it would obviously mean that the season would run later. The regular season wouldn't end till mid January now, and the post season would be inching closer to March.
Not 18 games, 18 WEEKS. Still 16 games.

Just add a 2nd bye week, which adds an extra week of TV revenue. Also, no need for the season to last longer if they get rid of the off week before the super bowl.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

PatsFanCT

Footballguy
About the 18 game season - It's been discussed, and since the NFL won't start the season any earlier, it would obviously mean that the season would run later. The regular season wouldn't end till mid January now, and the post season would be inching closer to March.
Not 18 games, 18 WEEKS. Still 16 games.

Just add a 2nd bye week, which adds an extra week of TV revenue. Also, no need for the season to last longer if they get rid of the off week before the super bowl.
They did this for a season or two back in the late 80's or early 90's. For what ever reason they stopped it then, is probably the same reason they wont do it now.

 

ghostguy123

Footballguy
About the 18 game season - It's been discussed, and since the NFL won't start the season any earlier, it would obviously mean that the season would run later. The regular season wouldn't end till mid January now, and the post season would be inching closer to March.
Not 18 games, 18 WEEKS. Still 16 games.

Just add a 2nd bye week, which adds an extra week of TV revenue. Also, no need for the season to last longer if they get rid of the off week before the super bowl.
They did this for a season or two back in the late 80's or early 90's. For what ever reason they stopped it then, is probably the same reason they wont do it now.
I would like some more info on that. I never heard of that. Whatever the reason was, it sure as heck coudlnt have been for financial purposes.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top