NFL TV Blackouts: In Defense of Congress and Arlen Specter

Ever missed a local game because of television blackouts?  Remember the last time there was an incredible game on but due to broadcast rules you had to watch your "neighboring market's" 2-12 team?  If you are a fan of the business side of the NFL, then getting rid of Specter and the rest of congress is for you.  But if its football you like, then read on.  You might not be as mad at Arlen as you thought you were ... 

To understand what Congress is doing with its business up in the NFL, you need a little history.  The marriage between Congress and the NFL dates back to an agreement just before the first ever televised games. The NFL was worried that by televising its games it would loose its main source of profit -- ticket sales (at this time it was unclear that television was going to be a substantial source of revenue). An agreement was founded to allow for televised games while protecting ticket sales, of which the hallmark feature of was the Blackout rules. As you know, these rules, which ban the broadcast of NFL games in a local market if the ticket sales are insufficient, are still in effect today.

Enforcement of blackout rules is possible because the NFL sells the rights to broadcast a game to local stations, and can leverage access. But here's the rub: there is only 1 major football franchise in the US, which makes it a monopoly. As such it is illegal to wield such leverage over broadcast rights, and without a congressional exemption, the NFL would be forced to allow multiple broadcasters to cover the games.

From the NFL's perspective, this is a disaster. Not only could they not maintain blackout rules, competition would drive down the selling price of broadcast rights. From the NFL's perspective at the time, free market broadcasting of NFL games was not feasible.  They put a case to Congress asking for an Monopoly Exemption under the premises that its not reasonable to expect 2 sports franchisees to exist and compete and it would be difficult to maintain competition and parity with free market economic structures (there is some merit to this, as can be seen in Baseball). Congress reluctantly agreed, but with some stipulations giving them oversight over the quality of the sport and pricing features, as well as availability to fans.

In other words, the NFL is operating under a monopoly, without competition, and could charge you whatever it feels like, except that they have to worry about congress if they go to far. A quick look at stadium prices, and more telling, the fact that in a supposed free market economy you are often not free to choose what game you want to watch because the NFL has chosen for you, should convince you that the NFL is willing to push that limit to the maximum.

All that stands between us and higher prices and more control over what we watch is Congress, which wields the all powerful trump card of the AntiTrust Excemption. Specter's motives are unclear to this author, but as a representative of congress he is fighting against the (very wealthy) brass of the NFL to maintain the integrity of football; something I would argue we need more of. 

As fans, we should encourage more congressional oversight, not less.  I for one would like to see Congress reconsider the AntiTrust (monopoly) Excemption, or leverage it so that as fans we are free to watch whatever game we want to by giving local and national broadcasters control over what games they are allowed to broadcast.  I'd like to know that if a city decides to spend my tax dollars on a stadium instead of health care or hospitals or police, then the owner cant pick up the team and leave because he thinks there's more profit elsewhere. 

You wont see these changes without help from congress, and if and when our congressmen stick their heads into the business of the NFL as fans we drive them away, we will find ourselves at the mercy of the 32 millionaires and billionaires who run the league.  Congress, and therefore Specter, is on our side.  Lets give the guys some support.

[e-mail]