Options
Future direction of the NFL network a concern for league
Michigan
Posts: 4,942 ✭
in Sports Talk
Super Bowls in England. Pro Bowls before Super Bowls. Hold the NFL
draft in prime time. What will Roger Goodell think of next?
Goodell, the fast-thinking and fast-acting commissioner of the NFL,
will lead the league's owners through a one-day meeting Tuesday in
Philadelphia. After a year in which Goodell has received praise (he
was ranked No. 1 among the 100 most influential people in sports in
the Oct. 8 edition of BusinessWeek), he might start to face difficult
questions and perhaps even some resistance. That's what happens when
you start to talk about money with a bunch of billionaires.
While the meeting is not expected to include any substantial voting
issues, there will be a number of financial reports to address. In
particular, a discussion on the progress of the NFL Network is
expected.
In addition, Goodell will likely be asked again about his comments
last week about London hosting a future Super Bowl and his suggestion
last month that the Pro Bowl gets moved up to the weekend before the
Super Bowl. Goodell is also expected to announce that the NFL draft
will be restructured, moving at least part of the first round to prime
time in an effort to capitalize on its popularity.
But the discussion that could cause the most angst regards the
league's cable network, which lost a court ruling in May that allowed
Comcast to move the Network from popular programming packages to a
less widely distributed tier of sports channels.
In the words of one high-ranking team executive: "We're down from
being in nine million homes on one network to about 750,000. Frankly,
it's embarrassing."
That embarrassment may lead to changes.
Chief among those changes could be that the NFL Network will lose the
package of Thursday and Saturday games it started broadcasting last
year. The network is scheduled to show eight games this season,
starting with the Atlanta Falcons playing host to the Indianapolis
Colts on Thanksgiving night.
Two team executives said that package of games is worth approximately
$350 million if sold to a network. That's far more than the league
stands to make right now with its current cable distribution numbers.
As a result, views on the network are mixed.
"The NFL and the owners are committed to making the network go," said
Seth Palansky, communications director for NFL Network.
While that sounds good, actually making it "go" could be quite
complex.
"Damned if you do or damned if you don't," one owner said. "We all
love the idea of the network, but the strategy of how to make it
viable is tough. You're a long-term project in a group of people where
a lot of them are thinking short term."
In fact, the changes could be even deeper. At least two NFL owners
have talked about disbanding the network altogether.
"If we don't have the distribution, we're not going to make any money
at it," one owner said. "Sure, we could eventually make some power
play with the networks if we really wanted to, but you have to build
toward that and it takes a lot of money to do that. And a lot of time.
Then you're talking about lobbying groups and government interference.
It could get really ugly.
"Ultimately, we can win all those battles. But, in the process, it
could be unbelievably expensive and we have other owners out there
with a lot of debt who have no appetite for that. Plus, we could
alienate the fans with all this stuff. Right now, we're on every major
network. Everybody wants to be part of the NFL and they pay a big
price to be part of it. If you take that away, are we risking the
exposure we get? … So you win all the battles, but you lose the war."
Still, the talk of disbanding the network appears premature.
"I don't see that happening. But I will say this: The league spends a
lot more on the Network than we ever did on NFL Europe and you see
what happened to NFL Europe," said the team executive, referring to
the closure this summer of the minor league system in Europe. The
league spent 16 years trying to make it work.
However, flirtation with Europe is not over as evidenced by next
weekend's game in London's Wembley Stadium between the Miami Dolphins
and New York Giants. While a Super Bowl would have obvious logistical
issues to consider, some of the thinking behind it has to do with the
expansion of the game itself.
To some league insiders, the game is quickly outgrowing many American
cities, such as Jacksonville, Fla., and Detroit, which hosted the game
in 2005 and 2006, respectively.
"The game is outgrowing those cities," a league source said. "We're
getting to the point where we're limited to the number of places you
can go and that's a bad situation. … There's no place in California
because the stadiums are all terrible."
For instance, San Diego's Qualcomm Stadium, which was the last
California site to hold a Super Bowl in 2003, doesn't have the power
capacity now needed for the event. The league and television networks
had to bring in generators to make sure they had enough power.
"It was a nightmare to do the game in San Diego," a league source
said. "From the power to whether it rained because the upper deck
doesn't drain, it was just a nightmare."
Thus, the talk about London by Goodell is motivated just as much out
of necessity as it is out of interest.
draft in prime time. What will Roger Goodell think of next?
Goodell, the fast-thinking and fast-acting commissioner of the NFL,
will lead the league's owners through a one-day meeting Tuesday in
Philadelphia. After a year in which Goodell has received praise (he
was ranked No. 1 among the 100 most influential people in sports in
the Oct. 8 edition of BusinessWeek), he might start to face difficult
questions and perhaps even some resistance. That's what happens when
you start to talk about money with a bunch of billionaires.
While the meeting is not expected to include any substantial voting
issues, there will be a number of financial reports to address. In
particular, a discussion on the progress of the NFL Network is
expected.
In addition, Goodell will likely be asked again about his comments
last week about London hosting a future Super Bowl and his suggestion
last month that the Pro Bowl gets moved up to the weekend before the
Super Bowl. Goodell is also expected to announce that the NFL draft
will be restructured, moving at least part of the first round to prime
time in an effort to capitalize on its popularity.
But the discussion that could cause the most angst regards the
league's cable network, which lost a court ruling in May that allowed
Comcast to move the Network from popular programming packages to a
less widely distributed tier of sports channels.
In the words of one high-ranking team executive: "We're down from
being in nine million homes on one network to about 750,000. Frankly,
it's embarrassing."
That embarrassment may lead to changes.
Chief among those changes could be that the NFL Network will lose the
package of Thursday and Saturday games it started broadcasting last
year. The network is scheduled to show eight games this season,
starting with the Atlanta Falcons playing host to the Indianapolis
Colts on Thanksgiving night.
Two team executives said that package of games is worth approximately
$350 million if sold to a network. That's far more than the league
stands to make right now with its current cable distribution numbers.
As a result, views on the network are mixed.
"The NFL and the owners are committed to making the network go," said
Seth Palansky, communications director for NFL Network.
While that sounds good, actually making it "go" could be quite
complex.
"Damned if you do or damned if you don't," one owner said. "We all
love the idea of the network, but the strategy of how to make it
viable is tough. You're a long-term project in a group of people where
a lot of them are thinking short term."
In fact, the changes could be even deeper. At least two NFL owners
have talked about disbanding the network altogether.
"If we don't have the distribution, we're not going to make any money
at it," one owner said. "Sure, we could eventually make some power
play with the networks if we really wanted to, but you have to build
toward that and it takes a lot of money to do that. And a lot of time.
Then you're talking about lobbying groups and government interference.
It could get really ugly.
"Ultimately, we can win all those battles. But, in the process, it
could be unbelievably expensive and we have other owners out there
with a lot of debt who have no appetite for that. Plus, we could
alienate the fans with all this stuff. Right now, we're on every major
network. Everybody wants to be part of the NFL and they pay a big
price to be part of it. If you take that away, are we risking the
exposure we get? … So you win all the battles, but you lose the war."
Still, the talk of disbanding the network appears premature.
"I don't see that happening. But I will say this: The league spends a
lot more on the Network than we ever did on NFL Europe and you see
what happened to NFL Europe," said the team executive, referring to
the closure this summer of the minor league system in Europe. The
league spent 16 years trying to make it work.
However, flirtation with Europe is not over as evidenced by next
weekend's game in London's Wembley Stadium between the Miami Dolphins
and New York Giants. While a Super Bowl would have obvious logistical
issues to consider, some of the thinking behind it has to do with the
expansion of the game itself.
To some league insiders, the game is quickly outgrowing many American
cities, such as Jacksonville, Fla., and Detroit, which hosted the game
in 2005 and 2006, respectively.
"The game is outgrowing those cities," a league source said. "We're
getting to the point where we're limited to the number of places you
can go and that's a bad situation. … There's no place in California
because the stadiums are all terrible."
For instance, San Diego's Qualcomm Stadium, which was the last
California site to hold a Super Bowl in 2003, doesn't have the power
capacity now needed for the event. The league and television networks
had to bring in generators to make sure they had enough power.
"It was a nightmare to do the game in San Diego," a league source
said. "From the power to whether it rained because the upper deck
doesn't drain, it was just a nightmare."
Thus, the talk about London by Goodell is motivated just as much out
of necessity as it is out of interest.
0
Comments
Get out of the Direct TV contract, which I think ends next year. Then distribute all of the games via NFL Network to ALL cable companies at the same price.
Revenue will triple overnight.
Case solved and you're welcome.