Yahoo Sports: NFL wants Super Bowl halftime acts to pay for privilege (1 Viewer)

[MattFancy]

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/nfl-wants-super-bowl-halftime-acts-to-pony-up-cash-for-the-privilege-of--exposure-180802404.html?_devicefull

The NFL doesn't pay musical acts to perform at the Super Bowl halftime show, and it's not hard to see why: with a worldwide audience numbering in the nine figures, halftime acts enjoy an almost immediate bump in sales and touring revenue.

Now, at last, the NFL is apparently going in the complete opposite direction, asking musical acts to pay for the privilege of playing the halftime show.

Per a new Wall Street Journal report, the NFL has apparently narrowed the list of potential halftime performers to three: Coldplay, Katy Perry and Rihanna. From there, negotiations are getting a little sticky, according to the WSJ: "While notifying the artists' camps of their candidacy, league representatives also asked at least some of the acts if they would be willing to contribute a portion of their post-Super Bowl tour income to the league, or if they would make some other type of financial contribution, in exchange for the halftime gig."

 

[Tom Servo]

Payola.

 

[bigbottom]

It may very well make financial sense, but it's distatsteful nonetheless.

 

[Willie Neslon]

Don't they already make us watch enough commercials?

 

[Guest]

Can't we just have dancing Pepsi bottles or something?

I didn't realize the NFL was so strapped for cash.

 

[Tom Servo]

Can't we just have dancing Pepsi bottles or something?

I didn't realize the NFL was so strapped for cash.

It's not being "strapped for cash"; they're trying to squeeze blood out of every stone they see.

 

[MattFancy]

Guess they're trying to set this up as some type of bidding war between acts the league approves of. Because what the NFL needs is more cash. The life of an NFL owner "cash rules everything around me".

And then in true NFL fashion, they'll find a way to raise ticket prices.

 

[Guest]

Can't we just have dancing Pepsi bottles or something?

I didn't realize the NFL was so strapped for cash.

It's not being "strapped for cash"; they're trying to squeeze blood out of every stone they see.

I get it and was being sarcastic.

 

[pollardsvision]

Makes sense.

 

[Premier]

Guys, they're running a business. Why wouldn't they do this? These acts get a huge bump afterwards. They should definitely pay for the privilege. The audience numbers are ridiculous.

Do you really care if Katy Perry has to shell out to sing her sucky songs for you?

 

[comfortably numb]

Sounds tasteless but a smart business move.

Someone will pay for the opportunity and ability to reach that kind of audience.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Can't we just have dancing Pepsi bottles or something?

I didn't realize the NFL was so strapped for cash.

It's not being "strapped for cash"; they're trying to squeeze blood out of every stone they see.

They need to build up as large of a kitty as they can to pay off all the future lawsuits.

 

[Premier]

I don't get how this is tasteless. Is it tasteless they charge for their commercials too?

 

[RUSF18]

I'm in for $50. I can play a dynamite piano song that I was forced to "write" in my 7th grade music class.

 

[Bull Dozier]

Sounds tasteless but a smart business move.

Someone will pay for the opportunity and ability to reach that kind of audience.

I'm guessing it won't be the type of artist I want to see at the Super Bowl.

 

[Willie Neslon]

Singing the national anthem tonight please welcome recording superstar Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Al Saud

 

[Guest]

Guys, they're running a business. Why wouldn't they do this? These acts get a huge bump afterwards. They should definitely pay for the privilege. The audience numbers are ridiculous.

Do you really care if Katy Perry has to shell out to sing her sucky songs for you?

I understand it from a business point of view, but maybe if they payed a little we wouldn't be stuck with Katy Perry in the first place.

 

[James Daulton]

When does enough become enough? The NFL is rapidly pricing out the average fan and they show no desire to deviate from this path. They'll soon have advertisements on the unis like Nascar and commercials running at the stadiums during tv commercial breaks (some do already). Within 10 - 20 years, football with be a game played in front of the elite only. I don't know how much their popularity will be impacted but it can't be healthy long-term for the league.

A real-world example, I've had Ravens season tickets since they came to Baltimore in 1996. Tickets that were priced at $35/ticket are now $97. While 18 years has elapsed over that time period, the price increase is way beyond normal inflation. I make decent money and the tickets are getting to the point where they're not worth it. At the start, 2 tickets cost me $700, now those same tickets are almost $2k. I will soon be a former season ticket holder. Plus, beer is $8.50! They squeeze every last drop of $ they can, and it will ultimately cost them in the long run.

 

[pollardsvision]

Sounds tasteless but a smart business move.

Someone will pay for the opportunity and ability to reach that kind of audience.

I'm guessing it won't be the type of artist I want to see at the Super Bowl.

What type of artist do you want to see at the Super Bowl? More importantly, why have you given any thought to what type of artist you want to see at the Super Bowl?

 

[MattFancy]

Guys, they're running a business. Why wouldn't they do this? These acts get a huge bump afterwards. They should definitely pay for the privilege. The audience numbers are ridiculous.

Do you really care if Katy Perry has to shell out to sing her sucky songs for you?

Well considering the NFL doesn't pay them to perform, why should the artists now have to pay to perform?

 

[Premier]

Guys, they're running a business. Why wouldn't they do this? These acts get a huge bump afterwards. They should definitely pay for the privilege. The audience numbers are ridiculous.

Do you really care if Katy Perry has to shell out to sing her sucky songs for you?

Well considering the NFL doesn't pay them to perform, why should the artists now have to pay to perform?

Well considering the NFL doesn't pay them to fill their air space, why should advertisers now have to pay to perform?

 

[comfortably numb]

When does enough become enough? The NFL is rapidly pricing out the average fan and they show no desire to deviate from this path. They'll soon have advertisements on the unis like Nascar and commercials running at the stadiums during tv commercial breaks (some do already). Within 10 - 20 years, football with be a game played in front of the elite only. I don't know how much their popularity will be impacted but it can't be healthy long-term for the league.

A real-world example, I've had Ravens season tickets since they came to Baltimore in 1996. Tickets that were priced at $35/ticket are now $97. While 18 years has elapsed over that time period, the price increase is way beyond normal inflation. I make decent money and the tickets are getting to the point where they're not worth it. At the start, 2 tickets cost me $700, now those same tickets are almost $2k. I will soon be a former season ticket holder. Plus, beer is $8.50! They squeeze every last drop of $ they can, and it will ultimately cost them in the long run.

I live in a fantasy world but I would love for teams to keep ticket prices as low as possible.

Sell off small ads on jerseys and use that profit to offset the cost of keeping tickets very cheap.

Record attendances apparently at many sports in majority of stadiums so what do i know.

 

[MattFancy]

Guys, they're running a business. Why wouldn't they do this? These acts get a huge bump afterwards. They should definitely pay for the privilege. The audience numbers are ridiculous.

Do you really care if Katy Perry has to shell out to sing her sucky songs for you?

Well considering the NFL doesn't pay them to perform, why should the artists now have to pay to perform?

Well considering the NFL doesn't pay them to fill their air space, why should advertisers now have to pay to perform?

Because advertisers normally pay for commercials on tv, right? Maybe not the crazy amount that comes with airing during the SB. I believe artists get paid when they perform at a certain venue. So why should they now have to pay the NFL?

"Hi Coldplay, this is the NFL. You've been chosen as one of our finalists to perform at the Super Bowl. How much are you willing to pay us to play there?"

Between this and the stuff that came out last year about the demands the NFL makes of the host city of the Super Bowl, there's no way they don't come out of these as looking like complete greedy bastards.

 

[bigbottom]

I don't get how this is tasteless. Is it tasteless they charge for their commercials too?

It's tasteless to have someone pay to perform the service that earns them a living. But I get that it may very well be a sound business decision for all involved.

 

[pollardsvision]

Guys, they're running a business. Why wouldn't they do this? These acts get a huge bump afterwards. They should definitely pay for the privilege. The audience numbers are ridiculous.

Do you really care if Katy Perry has to shell out to sing her sucky songs for you?

I understand it from a business point of view, but maybe if they payed a little we wouldn't be stuck with Katy Perry in the first place.

What? They've booked McCartney, Rolling Stones, Prince, Madonna, Bruce, The Who. I don't think the the lack of payment has hurt them in terms of who they book.

Maybe you don't like Katy Perry, but it's not like they'd be booking the local Grateful Dead cover band.

It's halftime of the SB, I don't know why anybody really gives a #### who they book.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

It may very well make financial sense, but it's distatsteful nonetheless.

Yeah I think I'm there too. I see their point and you can't fault them for it. But I mean, at some point, Uncle Scrooge's Money Vault can't hold anymore gold coins.

 

[bigbottom]

Singing the national anthem tonight please welcome recording superstar Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Al Saud

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Singing the national anthem tonight please welcome recording superstar Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Al Saud

Holy hell

 

[Premier]

Guys, they're running a business. Why wouldn't they do this? These acts get a huge bump afterwards. They should definitely pay for the privilege. The audience numbers are ridiculous.

Do you really care if Katy Perry has to shell out to sing her sucky songs for you?

Well considering the NFL doesn't pay them to perform, why should the artists now have to pay to perform?

Well considering the NFL doesn't pay them to fill their air space, why should advertisers now have to pay to perform?

Because advertisers normally pay for commercials on tv, right? Maybe not the crazy amount that comes with airing during the SB. I believe artists get paid when they perform at a certain venue. So why should they now have to pay the NFL?.

Because when they perform at a venue it is in front of 20,000 people. For the Super Bowl it will be 100 million+.

Surely you know that you cannot compare the two.

 

[Limp Ditka]

Singing the national anthem tonight please welcome recording superstar Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Al Saud

 

[pollardsvision]

I don't get how this is tasteless. Is it tasteless they charge for their commercials too?

It's tasteless to have someone pay to perform the service that earns them a living. But I get that it may very well be a sound business decision for all involved.

There are a lot of people that have to pay for access and marketing to an event to do something that earns them a living. You go to any festival/sporting event and it will be full of vendors paying for that access.

Nobody gets bothered by Joe Schmoe paying a vendor fee to sling BBQ. I'm certainly not worried about Beyonce paying for access to 50 million people.

 

[RUSF18]

In past years, do we know who pays for all the production related costs associated with the halftime show? I'm assuming the NFL since they would want control over everything in the stadium.

If so, I could see a situation where they would ask the performer to share a portion of those costs, which I imagine are pretty substantial, in exchange for the exposure they are receiving.

But I'd also expect these artists, if they are paying to play at the SB, to politely tell the NFL to go #### itself when they try to control the songs played, what they're wearing, the types of dancing that can be done, etc.

 

[comfortably numb]

Guys, they're running a business. Why wouldn't they do this? These acts get a huge bump afterwards. They should definitely pay for the privilege. The audience numbers are ridiculous.

Do you really care if Katy Perry has to shell out to sing her sucky songs for you?

Well considering the NFL doesn't pay them to perform, why should the artists now have to pay to perform?

Well considering the NFL doesn't pay them to fill their air space, why should advertisers now have to pay to perform?

Because advertisers normally pay for commercials on tv, right? Maybe not the crazy amount that comes with airing during the SB. I believe artists get paid when they perform at a certain venue. So why should they now have to pay the NFL?

"Hi Coldplay, this is the NFL. You've been chosen as one of our finalists to perform at the Super Bowl. How much are you willing to pay us to play there We understand you will be performing to an audience seen and heard by over a billion people. How much is this kind of publicity worth to you?"

Between this and the stuff that came out last year about the demands the NFL makes of the host city of the Super Bowl, there's no way they don't come out of these as looking like complete greedy bastards.

This is probably why.

 

[dgreen]

So why should they now have to pay the NFL?

Same reason anyone pays for anything: because they have something you want.

 

[MattFancy]

Guys, they're running a business. Why wouldn't they do this? These acts get a huge bump afterwards. They should definitely pay for the privilege. The audience numbers are ridiculous.

Do you really care if Katy Perry has to shell out to sing her sucky songs for you?

Well considering the NFL doesn't pay them to perform, why should the artists now have to pay to perform?

Well considering the NFL doesn't pay them to fill their air space, why should advertisers now have to pay to perform?

Because advertisers normally pay for commercials on tv, right? Maybe not the crazy amount that comes with airing during the SB. I believe artists get paid when they perform at a certain venue. So why should they now have to pay the NFL?.

Because when they perform at a venue it is in front of 20,000 people. For the Super Bowl it will be 100 million+.

Surely you know that you cannot compare the two.

And you don't think some of the more casual fans aren't tuning into the game to watch the said halfime show?

 

[pollardsvision]

In past years, do we know who pays for all the production related costs associated with the halftime show? I'm assuming the NFL since they would want control over everything in the stadium.

If so, I could see a situation where they would ask the performer to share a portion of those costs, which I imagine are pretty substantial, in exchange for the exposure they are receiving.

But I'd also expect these artists, if they are paying to play at the SB, to politely tell the NFL to go #### itself when they try to control the songs played, what they're wearing, the types of dancing that can be done, etc.

These acts are more than welcome to tell the NFL to go #### themselves. The NFL will not struggle to find a popular artist with incentive to pay to promote themselves to 50 million people.

 

[bigbottom]

I don't get how this is tasteless. Is it tasteless they charge for their commercials too?

It's tasteless to have someone pay to perform the service that earns them a living. But I get that it may very well be a sound business decision for all involved.

There are a lot of people that have to pay for access and marketing to an event to do something that earns them a living. You go to any festival/sporting event and it will be full of vendors paying for that access.

Nobody gets bothered by Joe Schmoe paying a vendor fee to sling BBQ. I'm certainly not worried about Beyonce paying for access to 50 million people.

Joe's livelihood is slinging BBQ. In your example, I assume that he is selling his BBQ, rather than paying people to eat it.

 

[Quint]

if Slayer would start a gofundme campaign, i'd be in for $25.

 

[MattFancy]

I could see maybe more of an upcoming artis typet that would be willing to pay to perform at the Super Bowl. But Coldplay, Rihanna and Katy Perry are all very well known around the world. Will they really gain any more exposure by playing at the Super Bowl?

 

[Premier]

Guys, they're running a business. Why wouldn't they do this? These acts get a huge bump afterwards. They should definitely pay for the privilege. The audience numbers are ridiculous.

Do you really care if Katy Perry has to shell out to sing her sucky songs for you?

Well considering the NFL doesn't pay them to perform, why should the artists now have to pay to perform?

Well considering the NFL doesn't pay them to fill their air space, why should advertisers now have to pay to perform?

Because advertisers normally pay for commercials on tv, right? Maybe not the crazy amount that comes with airing during the SB. I believe artists get paid when they perform at a certain venue. So why should they now have to pay the NFL?.

Because when they perform at a venue it is in front of 20,000 people. For the Super Bowl it will be 100 million+.Surely you know that you cannot compare the two.

And you don't think some of the more casual fans aren't tuning into the game to watch the said halfime show?

Sure. That's even more reason the artist should have to pay.

 

[bigbottom]

And it's not like they are paying a set fee for access to the event (though that may end up being what happens). It sounds like the NFL is trying to negotiate a cut of the artist's future tour revenues.

 

[MattFancy]

Guys, they're running a business. Why wouldn't they do this? These acts get a huge bump afterwards. They should definitely pay for the privilege. The audience numbers are ridiculous.

Do you really care if Katy Perry has to shell out to sing her sucky songs for you?

Well considering the NFL doesn't pay them to perform, why should the artists now have to pay to perform?

Well considering the NFL doesn't pay them to fill their air space, why should advertisers now have to pay to perform?

Because advertisers normally pay for commercials on tv, right? Maybe not the crazy amount that comes with airing during the SB. I believe artists get paid when they perform at a certain venue. So why should they now have to pay the NFL?.

Because when they perform at a venue it is in front of 20,000 people. For the Super Bowl it will be 100 million+.Surely you know that you cannot compare the two.

And you don't think some of the more casual fans aren't tuning into the game to watch the said halfime show?

Sure. That's even more reason the artist should have to pay.

They should have to pay because people want to see them?

 

[dgreen]

Guys, they're running a business. Why wouldn't they do this? These acts get a huge bump afterwards. They should definitely pay for the privilege. The audience numbers are ridiculous.

Do you really care if Katy Perry has to shell out to sing her sucky songs for you?

Well considering the NFL doesn't pay them to perform, why should the artists now have to pay to perform?

Well considering the NFL doesn't pay them to fill their air space, why should advertisers now have to pay to perform?

Because advertisers normally pay for commercials on tv, right? Maybe not the crazy amount that comes with airing during the SB. I believe artists get paid when they perform at a certain venue. So why should they now have to pay the NFL?.

Because when they perform at a venue it is in front of 20,000 people. For the Super Bowl it will be 100 million+.

Surely you know that you cannot compare the two.

And you don't think some of the more casual fans aren't tuning into the game to watch the said halfime show?

If you heard (insert musician name here) was doing a 15 minute concert on FOX on a Sunday night at 8 PM, how many viewers do you think it would get? Assume a episode of Family Guy is on at 7:30 and at 8:30 is American Dad.

 

[MattFancy]

And it's not like they are paying a set fee for access to the event. It sounds like the NFL is trying to negotiate a cut of the artist's future tour and record sales revenues.

Exactly. "Oh, you got really popular since the Super Bowl? Gives us 5% of all your revenue since then".

 

[dutch]

Guys, they're running a business. Why wouldn't they do this? These acts get a huge bump afterwards. They should definitely pay for the privilege. The audience numbers are ridiculous.

Do you really care if Katy Perry has to shell out to sing her sucky songs for you?

Well considering the NFL doesn't pay them to perform, why should the artists now have to pay to perform?

Well considering the NFL doesn't pay them to fill their air space, why should advertisers now have to pay to perform?

Because advertisers normally pay for commercials on tv, right? Maybe not the crazy amount that comes with airing during the SB. I believe artists get paid when they perform at a certain venue. So why should they now have to pay the NFL?.

Because when they perform at a venue it is in front of 20,000 people. For the Super Bowl it will be 100 million+.Surely you know that you cannot compare the two.

And you don't think some of the more casual fans aren't tuning into the game to watch the said halfime show?

Sure. That's even more reason the artist should have to pay.

They should have to pay because people want to see them?

Sure. Why not? You pay to see most concerts why not the biggest concert of them all?

 

[Apple Jack]

Singing the national anthem tonight please welcome recording superstar Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Al Saud

 

[dutch]

Guys, they're running a business. Why wouldn't they do this? These acts get a huge bump afterwards. They should definitely pay for the privilege. The audience numbers are ridiculous.

Do you really care if Katy Perry has to shell out to sing her sucky songs for you?

Well considering the NFL doesn't pay them to perform, why should the artists now have to pay to perform?

Well considering the NFL doesn't pay them to fill their air space, why should advertisers now have to pay to perform?

Because advertisers normally pay for commercials on tv, right? Maybe not the crazy amount that comes with airing during the SB. I believe artists get paid when they perform at a certain venue. So why should they now have to pay the NFL?.

Because when they perform at a venue it is in front of 20,000 people. For the Super Bowl it will be 100 million+.Surely you know that you cannot compare the two.

And you don't think some of the more casual fans aren't tuning into the game to watch the said halfime show?

Sure. That's even more reason the artist should have to pay.

They should have to pay because people want to see them?

Sure. Why not? You pay to see most concerts why not the biggest concert of them all?

oops, my bad...

 

[bigbottom]

And for the record, this is not at all unprecedented in the music world. Acts often pay the management company on a tour for an opening slot simply because the exposure of touring with a notable headliner is worth it.

 

[MattFancy]

Guys, they're running a business. Why wouldn't they do this? These acts get a huge bump afterwards. They should definitely pay for the privilege. The audience numbers are ridiculous.

Do you really care if Katy Perry has to shell out to sing her sucky songs for you?

Well considering the NFL doesn't pay them to perform, why should the artists now have to pay to perform?

Well considering the NFL doesn't pay them to fill their air space, why should advertisers now have to pay to perform?

Because advertisers normally pay for commercials on tv, right? Maybe not the crazy amount that comes with airing during the SB. I believe artists get paid when they perform at a certain venue. So why should they now have to pay the NFL?.

Because when they perform at a venue it is in front of 20,000 people. For the Super Bowl it will be 100 million+.

Surely you know that you cannot compare the two.

And you don't think some of the more casual fans aren't tuning into the game to watch the said halfime show?

If you heard (insert musician name here) was doing a 15 minute concert on FOX on a Sunday night at 8 PM, how many viewers do you think it would get? Assume a episode of Family Guy is on at 7:30 and at 8:30 is American Dad.

Guess it depends on who it was. Someone like Katy Perry would probably attract a good amount of eyeballs to FOX.

 

[Willie Neslon]

People will come off desperate. it will backfire. The public will get no names paid for by their record label. Lose for everyone.

tonight's special teams for your Pittsburgh Steelers are being coached by Cindy and Megan Bezos. Let's block some punts ladies.