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

[Jules Winnfield]

Please Foo Fighters. Pony up some cash

 

[Arizona Ron]

Are we running out of things to be outraged about? Who ####ing cares???

 

[JB Breakfast Club]

At least the money will be going to a nice, non-profit organization, so it won't raise any tax money.

 

[Jules Winnfield]

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.

So we can see her lip sync and look at her boobies

 

[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?

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?

There are a lot of acts that casual fans will tune in to see, so any single artist has no leverage. If people are dumb enough to care about 4 songs being played at halftime of a football game, they probably don't care who it is. The up-and-coming pop stars that need this exposure are probably the best bet, and they are very replaceable.

SB ratings have dipped 3 times since 2000: The halftime acts were all very popular performers that you'd think had great pull and leverage. Aerosmith/N'Sync/Britney Spears ('01), Paul McCartney ('05), and Beyonce ('13).

 

[Dippa]

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?

Looks like about a 1600% bump in music sales on average. How many extra viewers do you think the NFL is getting due to these halftime acts? I'm sure it's nowhere close to a 1600% increase.

 

[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.

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.

My point was that once you are no longer an invited guest, and you're now paying for the privilege, the rules should change. Knowing the NFL and their broadcast partners, I'm not sure how much of that control they're willing to sacrifice, given past events.

You couldn't envision a scenario where two weeks from now, Rihanna agrees to pay a substantial figure to perform at the SB, and then a month before the show, she writes some garbage song that is a little too controversial for the league and they don't want her to play it, causing her to say "I've paid to perform what I wanted, and now you won't let me. I'm out."?

 

[Sammy3469]

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?

Looks like about a 1600% bump in music sales on average. How many extra viewers do you think the NFL is getting due to these halftime acts? I'm sure it's nowhere close to a 1600% increase.

That's album sales, not concert revenue. Coldplay basically sold out ever venue on their last tour with each member pocketing close to 12 million pounds. The NFL must be nuts if they thing any of the big bands that are already established concert acts will give up future earnings to them. Rihanna and Katy Perry might, but the Coldplay's, Stones, U2, Springsteen's of the world don't.

 

[dgreen]

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.

My point was that once you are no longer an invited guest, and you're now paying for the privilege, the rules should change. Knowing the NFL and their broadcast partners, I'm not sure how much of that control they're willing to sacrifice, given past events.

You couldn't envision a scenario where two weeks from now, Rihanna agrees to pay a substantial figure to perform at the SB, and then a month before the show, she writes some garbage song that is a little too controversial for the league and they don't want her to play it, causing her to say "I've paid to perform what I wanted, and now you won't let me. I'm out."?

I'd guess the contract would detail who has control of what. I'm sure they could even build into the contract the exact songs she would sing.

 

[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.

My point was that once you are no longer an invited guest, and you're now paying for the privilege, the rules should change. Knowing the NFL and their broadcast partners, I'm not sure how much of that control they're willing to sacrifice, given past events.You couldn't envision a scenario where two weeks from now, Rihanna agrees to pay a substantial figure to perform at the SB, and then a month before the show, she writes some garbage song that is a little too controversial for the league and they don't want her to play it, causing her to say "I've paid to perform what I wanted, and now you won't let me. I'm out."?

The NFL will still exercise as much control as it can get away with. The artists actually paying really doesn't matter. The vendors and the broadcast network still have to follow whatever guidelines the NFL negotiated with them.

As we can see the artists don't have much leverage here, so I doubt they are going to be calling many shots.

 

[Dippa]

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?

Looks like about a 1600% bump in music sales on average. How many extra viewers do you think the NFL is getting due to these halftime acts? I'm sure it's nowhere close to a 1600% increase.

That's album sales, not concert revenue. Coldplay basically sold out ever venue on their last tour with each member pocketing close to 12 million pounds. The NFL must be nuts if they thing any of the big bands that are already established concert acts will give up future earnings to them. Rihanna and Katy Perry might, but the Coldplay's, Stones, U2, Springsteen's of the world don't.

My point was simply that the artist gets a significant bump in sales for performing, and I doubt the NFL receives much of a bump in viewers due to these acts. I have no idea if it would be worth it to Coldplay or whoever, but it's a free market. If no one is willing to pay them, then the NFL won't get paid for it. My guess is that there are plenty of artists who would be willing to pay for the exposure.

 

[Vike Me]

Are we running out of things to be outraged about? Who ####ing cares???

Agreed, but it does help my further slide into "casual fan" of the NFL. I just don't give as much of a #### as I used to about the NFL or football in general.

 

[pollardsvision]

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?

Looks like about a 1600% bump in music sales on average. How many extra viewers do you think the NFL is getting due to these halftime acts? I'm sure it's nowhere close to a 1600% increase.

That's album sales, not concert revenue. Coldplay basically sold out ever venue on their last tour with each member pocketing close to 12 million pounds. The NFL must be nuts if they thing any of the big bands that are already established concert acts will give up future earnings to them. Rihanna and Katy Perry might, but the Coldplay's, Stones, U2, Springsteen's of the world don't.

It's a good point, as I'm sure there is some risk here for the NFL in the type of acts they can get.

My guess is that they don't think it matters and there's a good chance that the Stones/U2/Springsteen types don't get them any more ratings than Rihanna and Katy Perry. Maybe even a lot less.

The old white dudes that want to see the Stones or Springsteen are going to be watching the SB no matter what. For the younger crowd that has the casual fans the NFL wants, I'm sure a young pop star is more interesting to them.

It's a stupid 4-song pop concert in the middle of a football game for heaven's sake.

 

[Sammy3469]

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?

Looks like about a 1600% bump in music sales on average. How many extra viewers do you think the NFL is getting due to these halftime acts? I'm sure it's nowhere close to a 1600% increase.

That's album sales, not concert revenue. Coldplay basically sold out ever venue on their last tour with each member pocketing close to 12 million pounds. The NFL must be nuts if they thing any of the big bands that are already established concert acts will give up future earnings to them. Rihanna and Katy Perry might, but the Coldplay's, Stones, U2, Springsteen's of the world don't.

It's a good point, as I'm sure there is some risk here for the NFL in the type of acts they can get.

My guess is that they don't think it matters and there's a good chance that the Stones/U2/Springsteen types don't get them any more ratings than Rihanna and Katy Perry. Maybe even a lot less.

The old white dudes that want to see the Stones or Springsteen are going to be watching the SB no matter what. For the younger crowd that has the casual fans the NFL wants, I'm sure a young pop star is more interesting to them.

It's a stupid 4-song pop concert in the middle of a football game for heaven's sake.

Well right now Rihanna's a bigger concert grosser than almost all the rock bands save the Stones, so I seriously doubt they get her to pony up the money either (Her and Eminem just sold out the Rose Bowl and MetLife stadium).

This is just the NFL being greedy for the sake of being greedy. Hell Coldplay's certainly bigger in Europe than the NFL and Rihanna is as well.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Please Foo Fighters. Pony up some cash

Or Muse. Muse and Foo Fighters are two modern rock bands that are mainstream and would bring the house down during the halftime show.

Coldplay's not bad, but they are a bit too mellow for something like this.

 

[Jules Winnfield]

What would happen if a band like Gwar (before the deaths) or Cannibal Corpse paid the money or had some rich billionaire pay the entry fee. Would the NFL take the money and let them play?

 

[bagger]

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?

if this happens I will start a fund raising site for nickelback to play.

 

[bagger]

Runner up would be U2 and then Bono just playing the kazoo in protest.

 

[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.

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?

Well, the easy answer is Pearl Jam because they are my favorite band.

Obviously, PJ wouldn't play the half time show whether they were paid or not.

I also understand they don't have a wide enough apeal to be a SB halftime show.

Lastly, why have I given any thought? Because it is a really easy question to answer and doen't take a whole lot of thought. Each time they annouce it, I think, "dang, I wish it were Pearl Jam instead."

 

[17seconds]

I liked Goodell the first couple of years but he's working on being the most radical commissioner in the history of major US sports.

Profit seems to be his #1, #2, and #3 priority.

This isn't horrible on its own but you look at the other things like the ridiculous bias toward offense and fines and suspensions, he's loves fixing things that ain't broke.

 

[Jules Winnfield]

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?

Looks like about a 1600% bump in music sales on average. How many extra viewers do you think the NFL is getting due to these halftime acts? I'm sure it's nowhere close to a 1600% increase.

That's album sales, not concert revenue. Coldplay basically sold out ever venue on their last tour with each member pocketing close to 12 million pounds. The NFL must be nuts if they thing any of the big bands that are already established concert acts will give up future earnings to them. Rihanna and Katy Perry might, but the Coldplay's, Stones, U2, Springsteen's of the world don't.

It's a good point, as I'm sure there is some risk here for the NFL in the type of acts they can get.

My guess is that they don't think it matters and there's a good chance that the Stones/U2/Springsteen types don't get them any more ratings than Rihanna and Katy Perry. Maybe even a lot less.

The old white dudes that want to see the Stones or Springsteen are going to be watching the SB no matter what. For the younger crowd that has the casual fans the NFL wants, I'm sure a young pop star is more interesting to them.

It's a stupid 4-song pop concert in the middle of a football game for heaven's sake.

Well right now Rihanna's a bigger concert grosser than almost all the rock bands save the Stones, so I seriously doubt they get her to pony up the money either (Her and Eminem just sold out the Rose Bowl and MetLife stadium).

This is just the NFL being greedy for the sake of being greedy. Hell Coldplay's certainly bigger in Europe than the NFL and Rihanna is as well.

According to Pollstar these are the worldwide top grossing concerts of 2014:

I don't see Rhianna anywhere on this list

 

[Leroy Hoard]

So we can see her lip sync and look at her boobies

 

[IvanKaramazov]

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

My take exactly. Good posting.

Edit: The analogy to commercials is spot on. Playing at the SB is essentially 15 minutes of super-high-exposure advertising time for whoever gets selected. That's worth way more to somebody like Bruno Mars than it is to the NFL.

 

[Keith R]

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?

Looks like about a 1600% bump in music sales on average. How many extra viewers do you think the NFL is getting due to these halftime acts? I'm sure it's nowhere close to a 1600% increase.

That's album sales, not concert revenue. Coldplay basically sold out ever venue on their last tour with each member pocketing close to 12 million pounds. The NFL must be nuts if they thing any of the big bands that are already established concert acts will give up future earnings to them. Rihanna and Katy Perry might, but the Coldplay's, Stones, U2, Springsteen's of the world don't.

It's a good point, as I'm sure there is some risk here for the NFL in the type of acts they can get.

My guess is that they don't think it matters and there's a good chance that the Stones/U2/Springsteen types don't get them any more ratings than Rihanna and Katy Perry. Maybe even a lot less.

The old white dudes that want to see the Stones or Springsteen are going to be watching the SB no matter what. For the younger crowd that has the casual fans the NFL wants, I'm sure a young pop star is more interesting to them.

It's a stupid 4-song pop concert in the middle of a football game for heaven's sake.

Well right now Rihanna's a bigger concert grosser than almost all the rock bands save the Stones, so I seriously doubt they get her to pony up the money either (Her and Eminem just sold out the Rose Bowl and MetLife stadium).

This is just the NFL being greedy for the sake of being greedy. Hell Coldplay's certainly bigger in Europe than the NFL and Rihanna is as well.

According to Pollstar these are the worldwide top grossing concerts of 2014:

I don't see Rhianna anywhere on this list

She's on tour with Eminem, who is listed at #19.

 

[Keith R]

IF one of these top artist's management companies were so offended by this proposal, wanted to profit off a Super Bowl halftime show, and IF they could find a decent network to cooperate, they could run their own concert opposite Super Bowl halftime. The last part though is the most problematic, as no one wants to upset the mighty NFL and most cable stations are owned by larger corporations (Disney, Viacom, etc) that have networks that do business with the NFL. Interesting possibility though.

A couple times in the early 1990s, the idea was floated to have a World Heavyweight Title boxing match on FOX opposite the Super Bowl halftime, once would have been with Riddick Bowe, another would have been with George Foreman. Of course neither happened.

 

[pollardsvision]

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?

Looks like about a 1600% bump in music sales on average. How many extra viewers do you think the NFL is getting due to these halftime acts? I'm sure it's nowhere close to a 1600% increase.

That's album sales, not concert revenue. Coldplay basically sold out ever venue on their last tour with each member pocketing close to 12 million pounds. The NFL must be nuts if they thing any of the big bands that are already established concert acts will give up future earnings to them. Rihanna and Katy Perry might, but the Coldplay's, Stones, U2, Springsteen's of the world don't.

It's a good point, as I'm sure there is some risk here for the NFL in the type of acts they can get.

My guess is that they don't think it matters and there's a good chance that the Stones/U2/Springsteen types don't get them any more ratings than Rihanna and Katy Perry. Maybe even a lot less.

The old white dudes that want to see the Stones or Springsteen are going to be watching the SB no matter what. For the younger crowd that has the casual fans the NFL wants, I'm sure a young pop star is more interesting to them.

It's a stupid 4-song pop concert in the middle of a football game for heaven's sake.

Well right now Rihanna's a bigger concert grosser than almost all the rock bands save the Stones, so I seriously doubt they get her to pony up the money either (Her and Eminem just sold out the Rose Bowl and MetLife stadium).

This is just the NFL being greedy for the sake of being greedy. Hell Coldplay's certainly bigger in Europe than the NFL and Rihanna is as well.

I don't pretend to know what the ticket sales are like for any of these acts, but maybe she'd like to be able to sell out the Rose Bowl and not split the money with Eminem.

I would think there will always be a highly popular performer/band that could use the publicity of performing for 100 million people, and would be willing to pay for it. The NFL thinks so too.

 

[17seconds]

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

My take exactly. Good posting.

Edit: The analogy to commercials is spot on. Playing at the SB is essentially 15 minutes of super-high-exposure advertising time for whoever gets selected. That's worth way more to somebody like Bruno Mars than it is to the NFL.

I agree it's more beneficial to the artist than the NFL but it's mutually beneficial.

If this happens then all halftime shows will be whatever new artist a record company is pimping that year. Paul McCartney isn't going to pay to perform.

Just another way Goodell and company are changing too much and ultimately making the NFL worse.

 

[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?

Well, the easy answer is Pearl Jam because they are my favorite band.Obviously, PJ wouldn't play the half time show whether they were paid or not.

I also understand they don't have a wide enough apeal to be a SB halftime show.

Lastly, why have I given any thought? Because it is a really easy question to answer and doen't take a whole lot of thought. Each time they annouce it, I think, "dang, I wish it were Pearl Jam instead."

I was kidding about the last part, but it seems clear that the SB halftime show is never going to really cater to discerning music tastes.

The absolute best case scenario is that they get a 70 year old former legend to play 4 songs.

The halftime show is there to help keep the tweens and commercial watchers entertained.

 

[Joe Summer]

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.

Musicians pay to rent concert halls and promote tours all the time. This situation isn't quite the same as that, but the fundamental principle is the same: the musician is paying upfront costs out-of-pocket and then hoping to reap profits on the back end.

 

[MattFancy]

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.

Musicians pay to rent concert halls and promote tours all the time. This situation isn't quite the same as that, but the fundamental principle is the same: the musician is paying upfront costs out-of-pocket and then hoping to reap profits on the back end.

Well this one is the NFL trying to reap the benefits on the back end

 

[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.

Musicians pay to rent concert halls and promote tours all the time. This situation isn't quite the same as that, but the fundamental principle is the same: the musician is paying upfront costs out-of-pocket and then hoping to reap profits on the back end.

Well this one is the NFL trying to reap the benefits on the back end

I think you're getting caught up in the "cut of the tour" type of compensation. Either way, it's a performer paying for the access. Whether it's straight cash or a cut of the next tour, or whatever, they'll negotiate and figure out what works for both sides.

I'm not sure what the big deal is. I think there's truth to Cuban's "pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered" comments, but I really don't think this applies.

 

[Tom Servo]

IF one of these top artist's management companies were so offended by this proposal, wanted to profit off a Super Bowl halftime show, and IF they could find a decent network to cooperate, they could run their own concert opposite Super Bowl halftime. The last part though is the most problematic, as no one wants to upset the mighty NFL and most cable stations are owned by larger corporations (Disney, Viacom, etc) that have networks that do business with the NFL. Interesting possibility though.

A couple times in the early 1990s, the idea was floated to have a World Heavyweight Title boxing match on FOX opposite the Super Bowl halftime, once would have been with Riddick Bowe, another would have been with George Foreman. Of course neither happened.

Other networks run counter programming every year. Most of us remember the Rock and Mankind wrestling for the WWE heavyweight title in an empty arena (I want to say on USA Network) opposite the Super Bowl halftime.

 

[MattFancy]

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.

Musicians pay to rent concert halls and promote tours all the time. This situation isn't quite the same as that, but the fundamental principle is the same: the musician is paying upfront costs out-of-pocket and then hoping to reap profits on the back end.

Well this one is the NFL trying to reap the benefits on the back end

I think you're getting caught up in the "cut of the tour" type of compensation. Either way, it's a performer paying for the access. Whether it's straight cash or a cut of the next tour, or whatever, they'll negotiate and figure out what works for both sides.

I'm not sure what the big deal is. I think there's truth to Cuban's "pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered" comments, but I really don't think this applies.

How does that not apply? It's the NFL looking for ways to get more money from the artists they select to play at the Super Bowl. We're picking you to play at the Super Bowl, but only if you give us a cut of your earnings after the Super Bowl. Sounds like what Cuban was talking about to me.

 

[Willie Neslon]

Isn't the halftime show already sponsored? This is like the casting coach only instead of asking for sex they want money. Hey there are thousands of girls who would love this part so...

I would imagine the performers unions would not let this stand. When a band is on a late night talk show they have to be paid. They cannot charge a musician and tell them the national exposure is worth x amount of dollars. They are not paid much but they have to be paid something. It is a mutually beneficial arrangement for the musician and the show or in this case the league. People tune in to watch the musician, the musicians album or tour is promoted and the show gets more viewers. What this would be is greed at it's worst. The NFL reminds me of the diner manager in the movie Heat. These people are going to squeeze every dime out of this thing until it they kill it. They'll eventually change the name of the Redskins to the redBulls. Cowboys vs. Giants will soon be Swiffers vs. Snapples

 

[Dippa]

Isn't the halftime show already sponsored? This is like the casting coach only instead of asking for sex they want money. Hey there are thousands of girls who would love this part so...

I would imagine the performers unions would not let this stand. When a band is on a late night talk show they have to be paid. They cannot charge a musician and tell them the national exposure is worth x amount of dollars. They are not paid much but they have to be paid something. It is a mutually beneficial arrangement for the musician and the show or in this case the league. People tune in to watch the musician, the musicians album or tour is promoted and the show gets more viewers. What this would be is greed at it's worst. The NFL reminds me of the diner manager in the movie Heat. These people are going to squeeze every dime out of this thing until it they kill it. They'll eventually change the name of the Redskins to the redBulls. Cowboys vs. Giants will soon be Swiffers vs. Snapples

No performer has ever been paid to perform at the Super Bowl. They do it because it makes their record company, etc. a lot of money.

It's funny how it's "greed" when the NFL wants a cut, but no one seems to have a problem with everyone else profiting off of the free exposure.

 

[Bull Dozier]

Isn't the halftime show already sponsored? This is like the casting coach only instead of asking for sex they want money. Hey there are thousands of girls who would love this part so...

I would imagine the performers unions would not let this stand. When a band is on a late night talk show they have to be paid. They cannot charge a musician and tell them the national exposure is worth x amount of dollars. They are not paid much but they have to be paid something. It is a mutually beneficial arrangement for the musician and the show or in this case the league. People tune in to watch the musician, the musicians album or tour is promoted and the show gets more viewers. What this would be is greed at it's worst. The NFL reminds me of the diner manager in the movie Heat. These people are going to squeeze every dime out of this thing until it they kill it. They'll eventually change the name of the Redskins to the redBulls. Cowboys vs. Giants will soon be Swiffers vs. Snapples

"Rhianna's half time Super Bowl performance is brought to you by Rhianna."

 

[Jules Winnfield]

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?

Looks like about a 1600% bump in music sales on average. How many extra viewers do you think the NFL is getting due to these halftime acts? I'm sure it's nowhere close to a 1600% increase.

That's album sales, not concert revenue. Coldplay basically sold out ever venue on their last tour with each member pocketing close to 12 million pounds. The NFL must be nuts if they thing any of the big bands that are already established concert acts will give up future earnings to them. Rihanna and Katy Perry might, but the Coldplay's, Stones, U2, Springsteen's of the world don't.

It's a good point, as I'm sure there is some risk here for the NFL in the type of acts they can get.

My guess is that they don't think it matters and there's a good chance that the Stones/U2/Springsteen types don't get them any more ratings than Rihanna and Katy Perry. Maybe even a lot less.

The old white dudes that want to see the Stones or Springsteen are going to be watching the SB no matter what. For the younger crowd that has the casual fans the NFL wants, I'm sure a young pop star is more interesting to them.

It's a stupid 4-song pop concert in the middle of a football game for heaven's sake.

Well right now Rihanna's a bigger concert grosser than almost all the rock bands save the Stones, so I seriously doubt they get her to pony up the money either (Her and Eminem just sold out the Rose Bowl and MetLife stadium).

This is just the NFL being greedy for the sake of being greedy. Hell Coldplay's certainly bigger in Europe than the NFL and Rihanna is as well.

According to Pollstar these are the worldwide top grossing concerts of 2014:

I don't see Rhianna anywhere on this list

She's on tour with Eminem, who is listed at #19.

So by herself she wouldn't be a top grosser on the list. I don't think she would be a good choice at all for halftime nor would Katy Perry. What happened to all the Al Yankowic talk?

 

[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.

Musicians pay to rent concert halls and promote tours all the time. This situation isn't quite the same as that, but the fundamental principle is the same: the musician is paying upfront costs out-of-pocket and then hoping to reap profits on the back end.

Well this one is the NFL trying to reap the benefits on the back end

I think you're getting caught up in the "cut of the tour" type of compensation. Either way, it's a performer paying for the access. Whether it's straight cash or a cut of the next tour, or whatever, they'll negotiate and figure out what works for both sides.

I'm not sure what the big deal is. I think there's truth to Cuban's "pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered" comments, but I really don't think this applies.

How does that not apply? It's the NFL looking for ways to get more money from the artists they select to play at the Super Bowl. We're picking you to play at the Super Bowl, but only if you give us a cut of your earnings after the Super Bowl. Sounds like what Cuban was talking about to me.

While this is a form of the NFL being greedy (if you call negotiating a fair deal greedy), that notion, to me, has to do with the NFL flooding the market with games and trying to "own" half the nights of the week. Or overexpansion as they look for more markets. Or adding more games to a sport that's already at the point where a lot of rational parents wouldn't dream of letting their children play football.

This has no effect on the consumer.

This is simply a mild annoyance to a few filthy rich performing artists that can no longer get this exposure for free.

If the NFL is overplaying their hand here (unlikely), fine. They can just backtrack. Either way, this essentially meaningless for the fans or the league.

 

[Willie Neslon]

Isn't the halftime show already sponsored? This is like the casting coach only instead of asking for sex they want money. Hey there are thousands of girls who would love this part so...

I would imagine the performers unions would not let this stand. When a band is on a late night talk show they have to be paid. They cannot charge a musician and tell them the national exposure is worth x amount of dollars. They are not paid much but they have to be paid something. It is a mutually beneficial arrangement for the musician and the show or in this case the league. People tune in to watch the musician, the musicians album or tour is promoted and the show gets more viewers. What this would be is greed at it's worst. The NFL reminds me of the diner manager in the movie Heat. These people are going to squeeze every dime out of this thing until it they kill it. They'll eventually change the name of the Redskins to the redBulls. Cowboys vs. Giants will soon be Swiffers vs. Snapples

No performer has ever been paid to perform at the Super Bowl. They do it because it makes their record company, etc. a lot of money.

It's funny how it's "greed" when the NFL wants a cut, but no one seems to have a problem with everyone else profiting off of the free exposure.

The nfl does get a cut. It's a mutually beneficial relationship.

 

[CBusAlex]

You can tell the average age of this board is like 50+ when "the NFL will have to settle for Rhianna or Bruno Mars because they won't be able to get Paul McCartney or Springsteen" is stated as a serious concern.