Read the debate intro, Loyal Homer’s argument that the NFL should update their game blackout rules and Bleacher Fan’s argument that the NFL should not.
It seems that some fans are convinced that the NFL is more interested in being business-friendly than fan-friendly. Certainly it is compelled to be business-friendly, and no fault is passed for that. Fans start complaining, however, when NFL teams are moving games to London, England and the commissioner of the league is talking about having a franchise there in the future. Fans are allowed to be cautious in how they view the league.
In fact, the public relations battle that people in the NFL seem to love is a constant roller coaster. Just look at San Diego Chargers linebacker Shawne Merriman, currently accused of choking his girlfriend. He released three statements back-to-back-to-back to show how innocent he is. Public relations (as a discipline, not as a literal concept of relating the public) are a big part of the NFL engine. They use their resources to fight fan negativity and convince the Eskimos that buying some more ice is a good idea.
Because of that, fans of the NFL have a reason to gripe about certain issues. However, the NFL’s blackout rules do not give fans fodder for their complaint cannon (side note: how cool would it be to really have a cannon that shoots complaints?). Therefore, Bleacher Fan wins.
It is easy to, as Loyal Homer points out, highlight how it seems regular Joes – average fans – are hard working folks who are punished by their circumstances when it comes to attempts to enjoy their local team. Sports Illustrated NFL writer Peter King even goes so far as to say that Detroit’s “tragic unemployment” has earned a relaxing of the blackout standard – albeit a temporary one.
Bleacher Fan is right, though. The truth behind this blackout rule is that the NFL cares a GREAT deal about its perception (ask Mike Vick), and a fan filled stadium is the strong preference of the league and the owners. Truthfully, an empty, quiet stadium looks terrible on television. It starts to create a negative perception of a team – and by extension, the league. Sell outs are important (and dangerous to refs in Cleveland).
Bleacher Fan makes an excellent point that Cleveland is the second poorest city in America (to Detroit, the focus of Peter King’s proposal). However, the Browns still sell games out, and still fill up the stadium (having that home Steelers game near the end of the season helps, too).
Since Bleacher Fan introduced Cleveland as an example… the fans must demonstrate they care for their team or they risk losing them. The Browns still sell out in part because the fans were starved for football in Cleveland during the Browns’ absence. The Browns (named after that Paul Brown fella) are important to the history of football, and local love is vital. Cleveland fans know that if they want to enjoy the luxury and privilege of having an NFL franchise in their backyard they must support it. And so they do.
No one has a RIGHT to watch an NFL game. Additionally, fans have myriad ways to view games now, and the NFL must be even more protective of its product. The value of the NFL, even on television, starts with, as Bleacher Fan says, “butts in seats.” If fewer butts occupy those seats, more teams will move. And, I hear London is looking.
I’m not convinced having games on TV would affect any potential non-sellout. Meaning…if the game is on TV, that is not going to factor in to whether or not I go to the game.
I just feel bad for these 7 year old kids in Detroit who walk around wearing Calvin Johnson jerseys but they can’t go to the game and they can’t watch them on TV because of the blackout policy.
I understand what you’re saying… but I AM not convinced otherwise.
What about radio? It is not impossible to follow a team, no matter what economic circumstances a person has. Cities and fans are not entitled to teams. It is a privilege, and a business. Therefore both the business and the fans are responsible for holding up their end of the bargain. Fans must buy tickets, and organizations must put out a good product. If the Lions were 16-0 last year and not 0-16, they would have sold out every game, regardless of the economy.
To most…radio is becoming extinct. I know you and I both love radio…but most do not. Good luck getting an 8 year old listen to a game on the radio!
Obviously winning helps sell tickets. So does tradition.
I think you are disrespecting the fan. You telling me that watching a game on TV is a priviledge? According to the NFL, it is. According to most, I would say no.
Look at the poll and see what the public thinks!
What the public thinks makes sense. It’s our job to dive deeper into thoughtful issues.
If that 8-year old (did he age a year from your previous post??) wants to follow the Lions, they will listen to the radio. If team allegiance is outweighed by not having the preferred medium to experience the team, then that person is not a real fan, anyway.
I am a fan! There’s no disrespect. Who is entitled to a TV? Or a team? Who is born and is entitled to have an NFL team?
In reference to Bleacher Fan’s BOLD STATEMENT….the NFL is biting the hand that feeds it.
7 years old…8 years old….78 years old. It’s a lose lose situation for all fans!
The NFL is preserving its brand, and is also working hard to make sure games are even more fun for fans to attend. That is important to them, and the first step into a new age of fan experience is being ushered in by Jerry Jones and his dream stadium. The NFL cannot be complacent and assume attendance, just like fans cannot be complacent and assume they’ll always have a team.
[...] Sports Debates looks at whether the NFL blackout rules are fair… [...]
[...] The Should the NFL Relax the Blackout Rules Debate – The Policy Is … [...]