Trump's remarks about NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem

[Mojouw]

Voters also disapprove 52 - 43 percent of NFL players taking a knee during the National Anthem. There are wide gender, age and racial gaps:

• Men disapprove 57 - 39 percent while women are divided 48 - 48 percent;
  
• Voters 18 to 34 years old approve 66 - 27 percent, while voters over 65 years old disapprove 62 - 34 percent;
• White voters disapprove 60 - 37 percent, as black voters approve 79 - 18 percent. Hispanic voters are divided 46 - 45 percent.

https://poll.qu.edu/national/release...ReleaseID=2491

You can basically guess the demographics of each poster around the internet based on their response(s) to this issue. I find it shocking that the NFL cares so much about the negative responses, as each older than 65 viewer who is a "loss" on the issue could be off-set by a younger viewer who is "pro" on the issue?

I wonder if this got cross-referenced with actual viewership? Or maybe the NFL just needs to reach 18-34 year olds on the platforms they actually consume content on?

Interesting data on the issue regardless.

[AtlantaDan]

I find it shocking that the NFL cares so much about the negative responses, as each older than 65 viewer who is a "loss" on the issue could be off-set by a younger viewer who is "pro" on the issue?

If your audience skews older than the median age of the U.S. population (37.7 years in 2016 according to the second linked article) and is getting older you care

While the average NFL viewer is 50, only 9% of the NFL’s audience is kids under 18.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the...ces-2017-06-30

The NFL in 2016 had a median TV viewer age of 50, up four from 2006.

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/J...ip-trends.aspx

And if you are particularly concerned about losing white male viewers how the anthem issue breaks down with that group is another concern - this on the 2016 ratings drop




The startling drops among white men in midseason largely remained into the rest of the season. Among all white men, the average broadcast seen just over one million fewer viewers, an 11% fall to 8.3 million in 2016 (9.3 million a year ago). While the slippage with every ethnic, gender and age group should have signaled some major problems, it makes some statistical sense that losing a million sets of eyes from the largest group of viewers (and citizens) would be why the NFL pulled its proverbial hair out.

http://awfulannouncing.com/nfl/nfl-v...s-in-2016.html

[Mojouw]

But this is only counting TV viewers. That's kinda my point. Old white guys watch TV. Younger white guys watch phones/tablets/streaming devices.

The NFL has a causation-correlation issue. Is the anthem causal to the drop in viewership or simply correlated? I think that it is a bit of both, but mostly correlated. Almost every NFL fan I know (all between 30-55) don't watch much NFL on TV. Why?

1. Can't get the game they want w/out paying far too much.
2. Even if they would be willing to pay, Sunday Ticket not available in their location
3. Sunday afternoons are hard to devote to football in the face of other adult responsibilities.

So what do they do? Watch illegal streams on their mobile devices/computers. Watch illegal recordings at a later time in the day. And on and on. All of those eyeballs are uncounted.

It is an "on demand" entertainment world and the NFL has failed miserably to respond to that - instead relying on outdated content delivery models and a false assumption that demand for their product was limitless. Not surprising that TV data is skewing towards older folks who are likely retired, have adult children, and far more time on their hands to simply watch whatever game their local station has each week.

Couple that with the fact that the game quality has been declining, Thursday night football is an unwatchable joke (the data on increases in penalties, decreases in scoring, and % of home team wins is undeniable at this point), concussions, and some political backlash and you have a pretty easy path to decreased viewership.

The NFL is in the same position that the music industry was in the late 1990's with the rise of Napster and the one song at a time model of consumer consumption rather than physical albums. If the NFL doesn't adapt then they are going to continue to loss viewers.

[AtlantaDan]

But this is only counting TV viewers. That's kinda my point. Old white guys watch TV. Younger white guys watch phones/tablets/streaming devices....

The NFL has a causation-correlation issue. Is the anthem causal to the drop in viewership or simply correlated? I think that it is a bit of both, but mostly correlated. Almost every NFL fan I know (all between 30-55) don't watch much NFL on TV. Why?

1. Can't get the game they want w/out paying far too much.
2. Even if they would be willing to pay, Sunday Ticket not available in their location
3. Sunday afternoons are hard to devote to football in the face of other adult responsibilities.

So what do they do? Watch illegal streams on their mobile devices/computers....

It is an "on demand" entertainment world and the NFL has failed miserably to respond to that - instead relying on outdated content delivery models and a false assumption that demand for their product was limitless. Not surprising that TV data is skewing towards older folks who are likely retired, have adult children, and far more time on their hands to simply watch whatever game their local station has each week....

The NFL is in the same position that the music industry was in the late 1990's with the rise of Napster and the one song at a time model of consumer consumption rather than physical albums. If the NFL doesn't adapt then they are going to continue to loss viewers.

You may have a demographically unique set of acquaintances if they watch most of their NFL games through illegal streams.

Not surprisingly the NFL knows the means of delivering content is changing from the cable/satellite bundle

So why is the NFL bothering with digital alternatives when television still dominates? These internet partnerships are a way for the league to make a little more cash now, test a number of new distribution models and, most importantly, set up a scenario down the line in which internet giants like Facebook and Amazon are bidding on the League’s distribution rights against existing partners like NBC and CBS.
More bidders ultimately means more money for the NFL. At least that’s the hope.

https://www.recode.net/2017/5/1/1538...otball-ratings


At this point the legal streaming audience for games is insignificant compared to the TV audience.

Digital audiences are a fraction of the TV audience. Even though the NFL’s “Thursday Night Football” TV ratings were down 9 percent in 2016, the games still brought in an average of nearly 15 million viewers per week on CBS this season, according to Nielsen.

During Week 6 of the [2016] season, when the San Diego Chargers beat the Denver Broncos, digital streams across Twitter, the NFL and CBS averaged just 369,000 viewers combined. The next week, when the Chicago Bears played the Green Bay Packers, that average was just 341,000 viewers.


In other words, people still watch football on TV much more than over the internet. By a wide, wide margin. And the NFL knows that.

https://www.recode.net/2017/5/1/1538...otball-ratings

That does not appear to be changing now that Amazon Prime viewers get the streaming package

For the Sept. 28 [2017] meeting of the Chicago Bears and Green Bay Packers, Amazon reached 1.6 million worldwide viewers who initiated a stream on Amazon Prime Video, according to the NFL

The average worldwide audience watching “Thursday Night Football” for at least 30 seconds on Amazon Prime Video was 372,000, with each viewer watching an average of 55 minutes.


As expected, Amazon’s draw was only a fraction of the total audience for “Thursday Night Football,” the vast proportion of which came from TV. Prime Video viewers represented just 2.5% of the total.

http://variety.com/2017/digital/news...gs-1202576606/

I would wager the illegal streaming audience is also relatively insignificant. If the NFL was able to claim viewership is down because the ratings do not measure everyone having switched over to illegal steaming I bet you would see the claim being raised. To my knowledge the illegal streaming still includes the ads and the NFL could tell the networks to pass along to its advertisers that there had been no net reduction in the number of viewers of its ads.

It may be that like other forms of entertainment, the NFL may come out on the other side of crossing the digital distribution divide with a new distribution model that simply is not as lucrative as the current method. The music industry ultimately transitioned from the collapse of the CD method of distribution through illegal downloads that were aggressively challenged through civil actions to selling individual songs through iTunes to what appears to be the monthly subscription method of Pandora and Apple Music. That generates revenue, but not as much as the old album/CD method. The NFL ultimately might have a similar subscription service, as opposed to selling rights to ESPN that were financed though ESPN collecting a subscription fee from every cable viewer as part of the subscriber's bundle whether they watched ESPN or not, that is not as lucrative as the current model for reasons including the fact that fewer people want to watch anything for three hours straight. Until then the NFL has to figure out new distribution methods that do not simply undercut the current method.

How consumers elect to receive their NFL, now or in the future, is an interesting subject for another thread. But the bottom line is the NFL (owners/league office, not players) has made a decision that it has an immediate need to fix the anthem protest issue. Since these folks are fairly cold blooded about making money, they presumably have market research that shows the least damage to the product will result from snuffing the anthem protests, regardless of how many non-TV viewers, illegal and otherwise, are sympathetic to the players and not measured in the ratings the NFL uses to sell its product to distributors.

[Mojouw]

You may have a demographically unique set of acquaintances if they watch most of their NFL games through illegal streams.

Not surprisingly the NFL knows the means of delivering content is changing from the cable/satellite bundle

Getting too long to quote it all.

Not sure I agree with the "demographically unique". I think it is a minority, but growing. Everyone in that group has the common trait of having moved away from home for education/work and does not follow the "local" team. So they have no interest in the game on television. They all have access to the internet and a base-line level of computer literacy. Rather than watch the NFL's regional coverage -- they watch what they want when they want.

I also suspect the illegal streaming crowd is a totally under-reported and under-counted #. For instance, no one really knew how big illegal TV stuff was until HBO did a ton of research to figure out how in the world everyone knew about Game of Thrones, but no one was reported as watching. What did they find, there was a legion of folks (in most reports) -- just as many that paid for HBO! I would imagine that anyone who has moved away from the regional market for their hometown team and doesn't want to drop 200-400 bucks on Sunday ticket is a potential illegal streamer. That is a massive segment of fans!

I also call "BS" on the streaming numbers from the linked article. That is the # of people who chose a stream over the ONLY game being broadcast in that time slot. Of course I'm going to watch it on the big-screen rather than my phone when there is no conflict. A real test would be stream ALL the games for free on internet platforms for a given week and THEN track viewership.

You are correct, this is a tangent that is taking me far afield from the original thread subject. But I will attempt to loop back around to it.

NFL viewership drop is due to a complex mixture of causes that have been slowly creeping together over time. The anthem protests is a component of that, but is (IMHO) largely a coincidental correlation rather than the sole source of causation.

[AtlantaDan]

Getting too long to quote it all.

Not sure I agree with the "demographically unique". I think it is a minority, but growing. Everyone in that group has the common trait of having moved away from home for education/work and does not follow the "local" team. So they have no interest in the game on television. They all have access to the internet and a base-line level of computer literacy. Rather than watch the NFL's regional coverage -- they watch what they want when they want.

I also suspect the illegal streaming crowd is a totally under-reported and under-counted #. For instance, no one really knew how big illegal TV stuff was until HBO did a ton of research to figure out how in the world everyone knew about Game of Thrones, but no one was reported as watching. What did they find, there was a legion of folks (in most reports) -- just as many that paid for HBO! I would imagine that anyone who has moved away from the regional market for their hometown team and doesn't want to drop 200-400 bucks on Sunday ticket is a potential illegal streamer. That is a massive segment of fans!

I also call "BS" on the streaming numbers from the linked article. That is the # of people who chose a stream over the ONLY game being broadcast in that time slot. Of course I'm going to watch it on the big-screen rather than my phone when there is no conflict. A real test would be stream ALL the games for free on internet platforms for a given week and THEN track viewership.

You are correct, this is a tangent that is taking me far afield from the original thread subject. But I will attempt to loop back around to it.

NFL viewership drop is due to a complex mixture of causes that have been slowly creeping together over time. The anthem protests is a component of that, but is (IMHO) largely a coincidental correlation rather than the sole source of causation.

I agree completely the NFL has bigger problems than the anthem in terms of declining viewership - the NFL was the last bastion of TV ratings not slipping and it finally caught the NFL too - the anthem is not nearly the problem for the NFL that the impact of more choices and switching between those choices online with a smartphone has on TV viewing for 3 hours straight or attending a game in person rather than watch it remotely. Good luck filling up 65,000 seat stadiums with crappy upstairs views in the future.

As for the streaming numbers being BS, it is a lot easier to measure viewing online than through Nielsen taking a samples of homes for TV ratings - one part of the brilliance of Amazon/Google/Facebook is that they can provide this level of granular detail you cannot get with any degree of confidence from Nielsen or any other sampling service.

Amazon reached 1.6 million worldwide viewers who initiated a stream on Amazon Prime Video, according to the NFL

The average worldwide audience watching “Thursday Night Football” for at least 30 seconds on Amazon Prime Video was 372,000, with each viewer watching an average of 55 minutes.

As far as "a real test would be stream ALL the games for free on internet platforms for a given week and THEN track viewership" it is not a lab experiment - it is the real world of what is being watched right now, not what might be watched. And of course nothing is free if you want a viable business model - I can stream Sunday Ticket and ESPN on my phone and Roku at no additional charge but only because I have a satellite subscription for both products. The last communications industry that gave its product away to get people to read it online and figured it could charge readers later after they got used to accessing the product online was local newspapers - that has not ended well in terms of sustaining readership.

Will be interesting to see what the league rolls out this week on the anthem.

[Dwinsgames]

people can down play the impact because " the media" and " the polls " claim this or that , but remember it was that same liberal media that presented us with election polls and the proclamation of no path to victory ....


these paint a quite different picture ...
]


]
similar pics of Falcons , Ravens and others at link below

https://twitter.com/brad_gohornsbkw/...12536902836224

[Mojouw]

I have never been to a live sporting event that doesn't have empty seats at the starting kick or the beginning of a half. That's when you get beer and food!

Context is everything. Want to convince me? Show me something during game action.

Jags and Chargers don't count because no one has been going to Jags games for years and the Chargers situation is a mess.

I don't doubt that there are less people watching and I don't doubt that people are pissed -- but photos w/ goofy contexts are not an effective way to make an argument.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree completely the NFL has bigger problems than the anthem in terms of declining viewership - the NFL was the last bastion of TV ratings not slipping and it finally caught the NFL too - the anthem is not nearly the problem for the NFL that the impact of more choices and switching between those choices online with a smartphone has on TV viewing for 3 hours straight or attending a game in person rather than watch it remotely. Good luck filling up 65,000 seat stadiums with crappy upstairs views in the future.

As for the streaming numbers being BS, it is a lot easier to measure viewing online than through Nielsen taking a samples of homes for TV ratings - one part of the brilliance of Amazon/Google/Facebook is that they can provide this level of granular detail you cannot get with any degree of confidence from Nielsen or any other sampling service.

Amazon reached 1.6 million worldwide viewers who initiated a stream on Amazon Prime Video, according to the NFL

The average worldwide audience watching “Thursday Night Football” for at least 30 seconds on Amazon Prime Video was 372,000, with each viewer watching an average of 55 minutes.

As far as "a real test would be stream ALL the games for free on internet platforms for a given week and THEN track viewership" it is not a lab experiment - it is the real world of what is being watched right now, not what might be watched. And of course nothing is free if you want a viable business model - I can stream Sunday Ticket and ESPN on my phone and Roku at no additional charge but only because I have a satellite subscription for both products. The last communications industry that gave its product away to get people to read it online and figured it could charge readers later after they got used to accessing the product online was local newspapers - that has not ended well in terms of sustaining readership.

Will be interesting to see what the league rolls out this week on the anthem.

I agree with that and do NOT think anyone should give things away for free. But I think the NFL is underestimating the demand for a dedicated streaming platform for its product. If individuals could buy say 12-24 hour access to the game of their choice over an internet or mobile app, I suspect the paltry #'s one is seeing for Amazon Prime and Twitter would explode.

If I could buy access to my game of choice each week and watch when I was able to, I would sit through ads and gladly pay for the privilege. That is my only real point - there are more people who would watch the NFL in countable #'s if the NFL met them on a distribution channel that suited their needs.

[Dwinsgames]

I have never been to a live sporting event that doesn't have empty seats at the starting kick or the beginning of a half. That's when you get beer and food!

Context is everything. Want to convince me? Show me something during game action.

Jags and Chargers don't count because no one has been going to Jags games for years and the Chargers situation is a mess.

I don't doubt that there are less people watching and I don't doubt that people are pissed -- but photos w/ goofy contexts are not an effective way to make an argument.

- - - Updated - - -



I agree with that and do NOT think anyone should give things away for free. But I think the NFL is underestimating the demand for a dedicated streaming platform for its product. If individuals could buy say 12-24 hour access to the game of their choice over an internet or mobile app, I suspect the paltry #'s one is seeing for Amazon Prime and Twitter would explode.

If I could buy access to my game of choice each week and watch when I was able to, I would sit through ads and gladly pay for the privilege. That is my only real point - there are more people who would watch the NFL in countable #'s if the NFL met them on a distribution channel that suited their needs.

why don't you just be honest and say it ... your mind is made up and nothing will change it .... because no matter what evidence is presented you disagree ( even pictures ) ....

Falcons , Ravens , Texans ( see link )

[Mojouw]

why don't you just be honest and say it ... your mind is made up and nothing will change it .... because no matter what evidence is presented you disagree ( even pictures ) ....

Falcons , Ravens , Texans ( see link )

While you have remained a model of flexibility and compromise? Look all I am saying is that when you take a photo is just as important as what you are taking a photo of. I generally do not buy anything from sources that appear to have an agenda or a point to prove.

Show me empty stadiums during game-play and I will start to buy in. I watched the Chiefs-Steelers and the Vikings-Packers with a bit of Pats-Jets this past weekend. Based on the flawed TV feeds, it appeared all 3 games played to packed houses.

Additionally, none of it will make a difference until the tickets to those potentially empty seats is actually going unsold. The NFL and the owners will worry about unused - empty stadiums are a bad look. But they won't totally freak out until those seats are unfilled because the tickets remain unsold. Currently, most NFL teams are reporting the same # of sell-outs (and yes I know the #'s are fudged) as with previous years. The NFL is fine with selling you a ticket and having you not use it - for now.

Personally, I could give a shit. I'll be watching every Sunday until the league folds up its tents.

[AtlantaDan]

I agree with that and do NOT think anyone should give things away for free. But I think the NFL is underestimating the demand for a dedicated streaming platform for its product. If individuals could buy say 12-24 hour access to the game of their choice over an internet or mobile app, I suspect the paltry #'s one is seeing for Amazon Prime and Twitter would explode.

If I could buy access to my game of choice each week and watch when I was able to, I would sit through ads and gladly pay for the privilege. That is my only real point - there are more people who would watch the NFL in countable #'s if the NFL met them on a distribution channel that suited their needs.

I think for the NFL it is more a matter of cannibalizing your existing revenue streams and how to cut loose your long time business partners who finance your operations than willfully ignoring a new source of cash flow. My situation is somewhat different because I receive Sunday Ticket at no additional charge above the discounted rate I pay for a DirecTV programming bundle. But if I was paying the full $300 price for Sunday Ticket and could purchase an alternative streaming package of just Steelers games to watch on my big screen through Roku for a lower price (let's say $50 a season or $5 a game if the Steelers were not on a local channel) I would do it. The question is whether the increased revenue generated from selling that ala carte menu of the weekly streaming game of your choice (let's say to make the math easy 200,000 customers at $50 a season = $10 million) is going to be offset from the revenue lost by some subscribers dumping their full Sunday Ticket package because all they want to watch is one game a week (lose 40,000 Sunday Ticket customers who are now paying $50 for the game of their choice rather than $300 for the full package and you have lost the $10 million in new revenue generated by the new ala carte package). That leaves aside how to cut loose DirecTV, which pays the NFL more for Sunday Ticket exclusivity (as a hook to get viewers to buy the required regular DirecTV programming package in addition to paying for Sunday ticket) than anyone other than ESPN is paying for NFL rights (which pays so much for reasons including keeping the NFL away from another cable network and for the rights to broadcast unlimited highlights on its other programming).

ESPN pays $2 billion a year for Monday Night Football and one wild card NFL playoff game that airs on ABC and ESPN.
Fox pays $1.1 billion a year for the NFC television package and its playoff games.
CBS pays $1 billion a year for the AFC television package, its playoff games, and an additional $230 million for five Thursday night football games.
NBC pays $950 million for Sunday Night football, some playoff games, and an additional $230 million for five Thursday night football games.

DirecTV pays $1.5 billion a year for the NFL Sunday Ticket.

https://www.outkickthecoverage.com/h...a-year-030117/

Balancing the generation of new revenue from streaming while losing traditional revenue streams is the situation ESPN is facing as it attempts to set up a free standing streaming option outside of its current satellite/cable business model (viewers can now stream the ESPN on phone/tablet/computer/Roku only if they a cable/subscription package)

ESPN’s [streaming content option] will be comparatively incomplete, at least at the start, because the existing contracts it has with cable companies and sports leagues do not allow the network to sell certain content on its own as part of a separate streaming package. Plus, ESPN extracts more than $9 per month from every cable subscriber who gets the company’s four major channels (ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, SEC Network), by far the most expensive package on one’s cable lineup. The company cannot afford to see that revenue stream dry up — to have consumers ditch cable en masse for its OTT [Over The Top streaming] offering — especially at a time when more and more people are ditching cable altogether (ESPN has lost more than 10 million subscribers since 2010).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.c41e7b7f5040

The cable/satellite bundling method of getting programming is dying but trying to keep your business afloat during the transition to new (and what ultimately might be lower) revenue streams is the big issue

[Mojouw]

I think for the NFL it is more a matter of cannibalizing your existing revenue streams and how to cut loose your long time business partners who finance your operations than willfully ignoring a new source of cash flow.

The cable/satellite bundling method of getting programming is dying but trying to keep your business afloat during the transition to new (and what ultimately might be lower) revenue streams is the big issue

That has been my big argument for some time now. I think the next "TV Deal" - who knows what networks, streaming platforms, or the NFL's own content delivery platform are included -- will be either flat or going down in terms of overall revenue to the league. The current model is unsustainable. Their current NFL contract may have destroyed ESPN. Those layoffs were made worse by the massive contractual burden they carry for the NFL programming in the face of declining cable subscriptions.

I think the NFL makes it to the end of the current CBA and not much further. A shrinking pie from broadcast revenue, fights over league discipline measures, drugs, etc etc etc are most likely going to lead to a protracted labor battle. Not sure if the league, at least in its current form, survives that very well.

Swinging back around to the main topic of the thread -- this is absolutely stunning! The power of personality of the current President is something that I constantly underestimate. Just amazing that very few folks gave a flying fig about the anthem issue until Trump made his statements. Seeing it graphical form is staggering.

[Steeldude]

Rishard Matthews goes back on his word to quit the NFL. It goes to show he isn't protesting anything he believes in. Also, why wasn't he kneeling during the previous 5 years in the NFL? The entire thing is a joke. There was never any real reason to kneel other than to be a brat throwing a tantrum.

I wonder if Rishard Matthews has ever given a single dime to charity/cause before this year?

[AtlantaDan]

Update from Willie Colon (!) on the players/owners meeting - classic Goodell here

[Mojouw]

Update from Willie Colon (!) on the players/owners meeting - classic Goodell here

Don't you know? There hasn't been racial inequality for the past 100 years - Mike Ditka said so!

I mean between racism and like 100 mini-Ditkas -- who wins? I say the mini-Ditkas!

I think the funniest part (I mean besides the "shocking" inability of a bunch of privileged billionaires to engage with any issue that doesn't clearly make them money) is that Goodell is reading the newspaper. What could be more symbolic of how behind the times and out of touch the people running the league truly are?

Why, it says right here in my broadsheet that Americans want to watch more of our sporting contests on their television sets in their barcoloungers! We have nothing to worry about.

[AtlantaDan]

Do not recall if this has been posted before - do not want to start a new thread but found this interesting

How Every NFL Team’s Fans Lean Politically

Here’s the breakdown of each fan base by party affiliation, according to our poll. Keep in mind that more Americans self-identify as Democrats than Republicans. In our poll, the average team’s fan base is made up of 6 percentage points more Democrats than Republicans. The key is to look at how each team’s fan base compares to the average.

There was also a major partisan split between the two most popular teams in our poll: the Dallas Cowboys and Green Bay Packers. Unlike the Patriots, both the Cowboys and Packers are based in Trump-friendly areas. (Trump carried the Dallas media market by 12 percentage points; he carried the Green Bay media market by 18 points.) Yet, according to our poll, the Cowboy fan base is far more Republican than the Packer fan base. That may be why Cowboys owner Jerry Jones has tried to remain in Trump’s good graces. ...

Arguably, though, the biggest takeaway from our poll is that every team in the NFL has both Democrats and Republicans in their fan base. No matter what teams choose to do during the anthem — they’re probably going to get in some trouble with some portion of their fan base.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...cid=538twitter

[AtlantaDan]

Roger gave a press conference on the anthem

Asked what the league would do if a team decided to discipline its players, Goodell said he didn't want to get into hypotheticals. He reiterated that no changes were made to official policy.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/2...ssues-protests

More classic Goodell here

[AtlantaDan]

Ratings update

• There are six time-related viewing windows the NFL measures every week. Through six weeks, the NFL’s ratings were down in 20 of 36 windows.
• The NFL’s average household rating is currently 25.1, down from 26.9 over the same period last year, and the 28.1-28.7 range where it sat from 2013-15.
• Twenty-five of 31 teams (excluding the Chargers, because of the move) are drawing lower local numbers than they did in 2016. Nineteen have dropped 5 percent or more, including brand name teams like the Cowboys (7% drop), Patriots (8%) and Steelers (6%), and both New York clubs (the Giants are down 7%, the Jets are down 37%). Conversely, only three teams (Chiefs, Bucs, Lions) have improved by more than 5 percent.
• Digital streaming numbers are improving, but not at the rate that TV numbers are falling. ESPN counts the stream crowd as 3 percent of its viewership of Monday Night Football, which is the best of all the game-carrying networks....

Again, no one is claiming that fights with the White House’s social media wing and players kneeling during the anthem are even close to the only reasons for the professional football model being shaken up a bit. But the fact is, that model has been shaken up a bit, and the league doesn’t sit on its hands waiting for situations like this to steady themselves.

https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/10/19/nfl-ratings-decline-owners-players-meeting-mmqb

http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/nfl-...ason-playoffs/

[Mojouw]

Digital streaming numbers are improving, but not at the rate that TV numbers are falling. ESPN counts the stream crowd as 3 percent of its viewership of Monday Night Football, which is the best of all the game-carrying networks....

This is such a stupid metric. How can the digital streaming #'s be UP if I still need cable to access the stream? I would watch ALL the ESPN games if I didn't have to pay my local cable provider $200/month to get ESPN!"Cutting the Cord" is the whole reason folks switch to streaming. You don't "stream" your entertainment so you can pay your cable company also!

Either the folks writing these articles fundamentally do not understand how channel and game packages are actually delivered to fans or the NFL doesn't.

One is just laziness and bad editing. One means the league is going to die off like the dinosaurs.If the NFL doesn't make an a la carte streaming package within the the next 2-4 years -- they are dead. They just won't realize it.

[AtlantaDan]

Digital streaming numbers are improving, but not at the rate that TV numbers are falling. ESPN counts the stream crowd as 3 percent of its viewership of Monday Night Football, which is the best of all the game-carrying networks....

This is such a stupid metric. How can the digital streaming #'s be UP if I still need cable to access the stream? I would watch ALL the ESPN games if I didn't have to pay my local cable provider $200/month to get ESPN!"Cutting the Cord" is the whole reason folks switch to streaming. You don't "stream" your entertainment so you can pay your cable company also!

Either the folks writing these articles fundamentally do not understand how channel and game packages are actually delivered to fans or the NFL doesn't.

One is just laziness and bad editing. One means the league is going to die off like the dinosaurs.If the NFL doesn't make an a la carte streaming package within the the next 2-4 years -- they are dead. They just won't realize it.

I agree nobody with access to an available TV is going to watch the game on their phone. But the 3% presumably includes anyone who dips into the broadcast at any time while away from access to a TV or might be watching online while other programming is on the big screen (e.g. - multitasking with the baseball playoffs or other members of the household control the remote Monday night after the big screen was filled with football all weekend). So ESPN can tell advertisers it got additional viewers not counted by Nielsen that should count for the ad base (after already banking the fee embedded in every cable/satellite bill for ESPN programming). The increase also may be a matter of more folks figuring out how to load the WatchESPN app on their phones/tablets and computers

FWIW the Sunday Ticket Max surcharge pretty much works on the principle you stream a second game on your phone/IPad/computer while paying to watch the main game on the big screen as part of your base Sunday ticket subscription or get access while away from a TV. That and giving your password to someone else who can stream a Sunday Ticket game on Roku or another streaming device while you watch the game on your TV.

[Dwinsgames]

plenty of ways to stream without paying the cable company , sure ultimately someone is paying them but scores watch per paid user streaming / multicasting it ...

but it has been that way for several years and is not mutually exclusive to this years numbers drop and thinking as much would be flawed logic ...

at the end of the day they can ill afford to loose any viewership as viewership determines TV deals , TV deals have a major impact on cap numbers ...

they need to attract spenders from other areas not alienate them to enable to offset what sooner or later will be declining TV deals or they will start to take in water faster than they can pump it out

[Mojouw]

I feel like I am not making my point clearly enough, because we keep talking about ESPN or Sunday Ticket viewing #'s. I am saying those content delivery vehicles are the actual problem.

Le me try it this way. My buddy is an absolute NBA junkie - the type who wants to watch every game. So he signs up for League Pass (http://www.nba.com/leaguepass). Boom. On flat monthly fee and he can watch any game he wants, when he wants, on any internet connected thing-a-ma-jig. No cable TV package. No satellite dish networks involved. Unlike the NFL's version (https://gamepass.nfl.com/packages?redirected=true) which does not offer live games.

So now he can watch the NBA when he wants and how he wants - around his schedule. NFL fans are not able to do this unless they use pirated streams. None of the eyeballs on pirated broadcasts are "counted". Therefore looking at ESPN or AMAZON only getting a low % streaming viewership is not really any kind of measuring stick.

The NFL seems to fail to realize that "streaming" is not simply watching the game on your phone. It is watching the content you want, when you want, and where/how you want. The NFL does not really offer that model currently. So their streaming numbers suck, because they are not meeting "Streamers" and "cord cutters" on their terms. Many folks for economic and personal reasons have become cable tv "cord cutters". The NFL's entire business model is based on all of us having cable television in our homes. They must adapt to the new realities that cable subscriber bases are most likely in a permanent downturn and even the NFL will not lure them back.

Finally, I think it is worth thinking through what the presence of almost infinite illegal streaming sites for NFL games each week means. The NFL is the most aggressive of the major American sports leagues in shutting these sites down, yet they pop up constantly. The internet is often the ultimate arena of supply and demand. People want to watch the game of their choosing from any geographic region. The NFL and its broadcast partners make that either impossible or expensive. The internet has developed solutions to this. Since gaining access to high speed internet in the the late 1990s. I have never missed a Steelers game because I couldn't get it on my TV - I've watched several hundred games on illegal internet streams. None of those was I ever counted as a "viewer". How many people just like me are there?

Of course the NFL has a viewership problem. Part of the problem is that there is a lack of a good on the field product (officiating and the lack of practice time in the new CBA have combined to water down the league). Part of the problem is the conduct of the players has nauseated some fans. Part of the problem is that the shifts in how the game is played have alienated some folks. But the NFL's continued inability to get ahead of the technology curve in terms of distributing content to its fans and potential fans is laughable.

The NFL has a national and often international sport being broadcast under a regional model that dates to the 1960s. They must adapt or they will die out.

I have long stated that the next CBA will most likely deal the league a significant wound or even kill it. There will be less money in it. Because there is almost assuredly going to be less money in the next broadcast deal, unless the NFL finds new partners (Apple, Google, etc). Hell ESPN might not even make it to 2021! If there is less money in the CBA - there will be a labor dispute. POOF! The goose that lays the golden eggs is dead.

[Mojouw]

This is likely going to be taken as trolling. I don't know, maybe it is, but it isn't meant that way.

I spent several weeks/months being told that players choosing the anthem for a protest is disrespectful, unpatriotic, etc. Even have seen the opinion repeatedly expressed that players should be either punished, prevented, or both for protesting.


Several have shared some interesting opinion polling and other information that shows this issue really spiked and came to head when the President got involved. Others have argued that the majority of NFL fans are conservative and likely echo or share the President's opinions on this issue.

I will take all that to be true. If so, where is the outrage from the same people (not aimed at any one specifically just meant as the people who are drawing a straight line between the anthem and respect for the troops) for the President totally stumbling and bumbling his way through a condolence call with the family of a recently deceased military member? Telling a pregnant widow that their husband and the father to their unborn child that he knew what he was getting into? Then calling the widow and her mother liars in the media after his miss-step becomes public?

Is this not direct disrespect and poor treatment of a military family and the memory of a service member? Or maybe it is all just liberal fake news...?

[Born2Steel]

This is likely going to be taken as trolling. I don't know, maybe it is, but it isn't meant that way.

I spent several weeks/months being told that players choosing the anthem for a protest is disrespectful, unpatriotic, etc. Even have seen the opinion repeatedly expressed that players should be either punished, prevented, or both for protesting.


Several have shared some interesting opinion polling and other information that shows this issue really spiked and came to head when the President got involved. Others have argued that the majority of NFL fans are conservative and likely echo or share the President's opinions on this issue.

I will take all that to be true. If so, where is the outrage from the same people (not aimed at any one specifically just meant as the people who are drawing a straight line between the anthem and respect for the troops) for the President totally stumbling and bumbling his way through a condolence call with the family of a recently deceased military member? Telling a pregnant widow that their husband and the father to their unborn child that he knew what he was getting into? Then calling the widow and her mother liars in the media after his miss-step becomes public?

Is this not direct disrespect and poor treatment of a military family and the memory of a service member? Or maybe it is all just liberal fake news...?

I think the constant 'look at this ass now' Trump stories in every form of media, have made most people numb to it. Every picture of the President is either of him frowny and wind blown, or with some sort of smirk faced pose. It's all so politically driven it is beyond nauseating, IMO. So, anything I see or read on him no longer brings any feelings at all. Other than maybe, will you PLEASE DO SOMETHING POSITIVE. This phone call issue can't be taken serious at all. You can't exactly side with 'it's fabricated', nor can you vilify the President, due to the constant flow of blatant left slant gossip. Impossible to get the true, clear picture in any story.

[AtlantaDan]

I feel like I am not making my point clearly enough, because we keep talking about ESPN or Sunday Ticket viewing #'s. I am saying those content delivery vehicles are the actual problem.

Le me try it this way. My buddy is an absolute NBA junkie - the type who wants to watch every game. So he signs up for League Pass (http://www.nba.com/leaguepass). Boom. On flat monthly fee and he can watch any game he wants, when he wants, on any internet connected thing-a-ma-jig. No cable TV package. No satellite dish networks involved. Unlike the NFL's version (https://gamepass.nfl.com/packages?redirected=true) which does not offer live games.

So now he can watch the NBA when he wants and how he wants - around his schedule. NFL fans are not able to do this unless they use pirated streams. None of the eyeballs on pirated broadcasts are "counted". Therefore looking at ESPN or AMAZON only getting a low % streaming viewership is not really any kind of measuring stick.

The NFL seems to fail to realize that "streaming" is not simply watching the game on your phone.....

The NFL has a national and often international sport being broadcast under a regional model that dates to the 1960s. They must adapt or they will die out.

I have long stated that the next CBA will most likely deal the league a significant wound or even kill it. There will be less money in it. Because there is almost assuredly going to be less money in the next broadcast deal, unless the NFL finds new partners (Apple, Google, etc). Hell ESPN might not even make it to 2021! If there is less money in the CBA - there will be a labor dispute. POOF! The goose that lays the golden eggs is dead.

I have low opinions of the NFL owners on a lot of matters but not on their ability to squeeze dollars from their broadcast rights, which of course is what we are dealing with here - the NBA, NFL and any other major sports league does not care what conveniences the fans except to the extent it transfers in the short term or long term to the bottom line. It's a business.

There are tranches of accessibility

The NFL requires going through DirecTV to get complete access to out of market games and imposes a surcharge (which can be negotiated) if a customer wants to stream rather than just watch through a satellite signal

MLB requires going through some cable or satellite provider - "eligible subscribers in the U.S. must authenticate through their supported Pay TV provider."
http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/subscriptions...ct=US&c_id=mlb

The NBA goes through Turner Sports but does not require a pay TV subscription
NBA.com is part of Turner Sports Digital, part of the Turner Sports & Entertainment Digital Network.
http://www.nba.com/leaguepass

Each league presumably has not structured its distribution packages without crunching some numbers on whether alternative methods might generate more $.

The NFL has been wringing money out of DirecTV for over 20 years by granting DirecTV exclusivity to broadcast out of market games (and offer streaming of those games as an add on to the Sunday ticket package). It has fought congressional and private lawsuits to break that exclusivity.

Arlen Specter (aka the Senator from Comcast) threatened the NFL's anti-trust exemption but lost

The NFL's ability to negotiate exclusive sports packages is under fire from the outgoing chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) twice said he would introduce legislation in the next session aimed at eliminating the league's freedom from antitrust laws.
Specter said the NFL should not use the exemption to negotiate exclusive programming packages such as DirecTV's Sunday Ticket, which allows viewers to watch teams outside their regional market.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...120701608.html

A private antitrust suit to challenge that exclusivity was tossed this summer

DirecTV and the NFL are dancing in the legal endzone after a California federal court dismissed a nationwide class-action lawsuit over Sunday Ticket.
Both commercial and residential fans had accused the league and provider of restraining broadcasts of out-of-market games and charging "supracompetitive premiums."
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr...awsuit-1018317

Why is the NFL doing that? Because of the "supracompetitive premiums" it gets from selling exclusive rights to DirecTV.

When AT&T was considering its purchase of DirecTV, renewal of the Sunday Ticket package was required.

DirecTV will negotiate a deal with the National Football League independently, AT&T Inc.’s chief financial officer said, days after the mobile carrier announced a bid for the company that hinges on a renewal of the NFL Sunday Ticket Football Package.
In a filing related to the acquisition, the companies agreed that if DirecTV’s renewal for the NFL Sunday Ticket Service is not renewed on the terms discussed between the parties, AT&T may decide not to consummate the merger.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-at...A4K0KQ20140521

So DirecTV paid up and probably overpaid significantly for reasons including the pending AT&T deal. The fact AT&T said its acquisition required DirecTV to keep Sunday Ticket confirms how essential Sunday Ticket is to DirecTV's business model, which requires a purchase of a DirecTV programming package along with Sunday Ticket unless you are in favored demographic groups such as college kids (a way of getting younger customers hooked on the product) or cannot get a clear line of sight to a satellite signal.

NFLSUNDAYTICKET.TV service is only available to non-DIRECTV customers who live in select multi-dwelling unit buildings (apartments,condos,etc) nationwide in the U.S. where DIRECTV service is not available, live in select areas within various metropolitan cities, live in a residence that has been verified as unable to receive DIRECTV satellite TV service due to obstructions blocking access to satellite signals,or are college students. NFLSUNDAYTICKET.TV U only available to students actively enrolled in post-secondary educational institutions.

http://www.nfl.com/nflsundaytickettv

So if you are a college kid and more likely to consume video online you get this offer, which indicates someone at DirecTV or the the NFL knows streaming covers more than phones

The NFLSUNDAYTICKET.TV U package allows verified college students to stream live, out-of-market NFL regular season games every Sunday afternoon on a computer, tablet, smartphone, game console or connected streaming device. View the list of compatible devices. Verified students have access to exclusive features including RED ZONE CHANNEL and DIRECTV FANTASY ZONE, a live channel dedicated to fantasy football. College students receive an exclusive discount.
https://nflsthelp.directv.com/hc/en-...U-season-pass-

The NFL and DirecTV are probably watching how that offer works and potentially rolling it out to other non-DirecTV subscribers in a manner that does not excessively cannibalize existing traditional subscriptions.

Does this mean the NFL will stick with DirecTV forever? No.

The negotiations for the current contract went down to the wire and while the NFL kicked the tires with Silicon Valley on the potential of distributing the pay per view package, DirecTV managed to shut cable out of Sunday Ticket again. AT&T has since taken over DirecTV and is looking for new ways to distribute content. While this might excite the NFL, it may feel the next contract could be the time to reach out for a new partner.
Cable’s window to get Sunday Ticket may have closed. This will likely be the best opportunity for Apple, Google or Facebook to step forward and take the package online and allow for more people to gain access to the pay per view package.
http://awfulannouncing.com/nfl/nfl-d...-contract.html

So just because the NFL has not abandoned DirecTV and Sunday Ticket exclusivity yet for an online partner does not mean it will not in the future. For now it believes it is in its financial interest to stick with its current distribution model. Could they be wrong - sure. But they are compensated very well to consider these matters and we just post about it, just as we second guess Mike Tomlin but he is the one with the multi-million $ contract.

Until then the NFL is faced with deciding how to milk profits from its existing distribution model until it is cost effective to switch horses and jump on a new distribution model - timing is everything on that. My uneducated guess is that as DirecTV's subscription base withers it will not be able to pay what the NFL wants the next time the out of market game package is up for bid.

[Mojouw]

I have low opinions of the NFL owners on a lot of matters but not on their ability to squeeze dollars from their broadcast rights, which of course is what we are dealing with here - the NBA, NFL and any other major sports league does not care what conveniences the fans except to the extent it transfers in the short term or long term to the bottom line. It's a business.

So just because the NFL has not abandoned DirecTV and Sunday Ticket exclusivity yet for an online partner does not mean it will not in the future. For now it believes it is in its financial interest to stick with its current distribution model. Could they be wrong - sure. But they are compensated very well to consider these matters and we just post about it, just as we second guess Mike Tomlin but he is the one with the multi-million $ contract.

Until then the NFL is faced with deciding how to milk profits from its existing distribution model until it is cost effective to switch horses and jump on a new distribution model - timing is everything on that. My uneducated guess is that as DirecTV's subscription base withers it will not be able to pay what the NFL wants the next time the out of market game package is up for bid.

I agree in some portion to what I think your overall argument is. And yes, I am sure that the numbers guru that the NFL pays to dive into this stuff knows more about it than me. But I am not encouraged on the other hand because Goodell has not made a SINGLE decision during his tenure that hasn't made the NFL worse. He has to be one of the worst commissioners I can think of. SO I do not see the league having strong leadership going into stormy seas. Like I said in another post, he still reads newspapers -- a totally flawed and dying way to get a window on public opinion and current events.

The other aspect is that there seems to be a recent trend in some avenues to draw a fairly straight line between "politically active players" and "declining viewership". I am really attempting to argue that the NFL's viewership problem started before significant political opinions began being weaponized around the NFL.

And that, just as the music industry fundamentally misunderstood and misread what people wanted at the dawn of the internet, the NFL seems to be not understanding what people want to be able to do when it comes to consuming their product. I have seen some numbers that focus on the drop in younger viewership. Well the NFL is doing NOTHING to help meet these younger viewers where they are at. People no longer want to watch entertainment products at a scheduled time. Few want to subscribe to the expensive cable or satellite packages that carry the live feeds of many sports games.

Additionally, I can not even watch games away from my TV that are broadcast over FREE networks because NBC/CBS/FOX require you to validate a CABLE LOG-IN to watch their content on connected devices. Huh? I realize that this is due to decisions made by the individual networks and not controlled by the NFL. But when it comes to providing content to these broadcasters, the NFL is the 800 pound Gorilla in the room and could really throw their weight around to get what they wanted.

If the league continues to lock itself into a death spiral with declining subscription based broadcast partners -- we are looking at a reduced/diminished league inside of 10 years.

[AtlantaDan]

I agree in some portion to what I think your overall argument is. And yes, I am sure that the numbers guru that the NFL pays to dive into this stuff knows more about it than me. But I am not encouraged on the other hand because Goodell has not made a SINGLE decision during his tenure that hasn't made the NFL worse.

Roger Goodell is a figurehead - he can be out front on whether a player should be suspended for beating up his spouse/girlfriend or whether Tom Brady knew footballs were deflated, but on the most important matter there is ($$$$) owners like Jerry Jones (who changed the model for selling naming/marketing rights after he bought the Cowboys) take over

When the anthem dispute hit the fan Jerry Jones took over in the owners meeting 3 weeks ago - Goodell was basically the host

In the meeting, many owners wanted to speak, but the discussion soon was "hijacked," in the words of one owner, by Jones, a $1 million contributor to Trump's inaugural committee fund and who declined comment through a spokesman.

http://www.espn.com/espn/otl/story/_...ational-anthem

[Mojouw]

Roger Goodell is a figurehead - he can be out front on whether a player should be suspended for beating up his spouse/girlfriend or whether Tom Brady knew footballs were deflated, but on the most important matter there is ($$$$) owners like Jerry Jones (who changed the model for selling naming/marketing rights after he bought the Cowboys) take over

When the anthem dispute hit the fan Jerry Jones took over in the owners meeting 3 weeks ago - Goodell was basically the host

In the meeting, many owners wanted to speak, but the discussion soon was "hijacked," in the words of one owner, by Jones, a $1 million contributor to Trump's inaugural committee fund and who declined comment through a spokesman.

http://www.espn.com/espn/otl/story/_...ational-anthem

Then fine. Jerry Jones has not made a single decision that has made the NFL better while he has had his hand elbow deep in Goodell's ass working him like a puppet.

Since the signing of the last CBA, the NFL has bungled every major decision that has come there way with the gusto of a drunken manner determined to shoot his own foot off.

[AtlantaDan]

Then fine. Jerry Jones has not made a single decision that has made the NFL better while he has had his hand elbow deep in Goodell's ass working him like a puppet.

Since the signing of the last CBA, the NFL has bungled every major decision that has come there way with the gusto of a drunken manner determined to shoot his own foot off.

Until it impacts the value of what they own the owners do not care - fans are consumers and players are employees, not their partners or friends - anything other than franchise value and profits is a secondary concern

Jerry Jones has bungled his way to owning a franchise that he bought for $140 million in 1989 that now has value of $4.2 billion

http://cowboyswire.usatoday.com/2017...-donald-trump/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbad.../#5d612a00243f

That is the primary reason he is in Canton, regardless of what the plaque may say, not because of the three Lombardis

Under Goodell "the N.F.L.’s annual revenue has nearly tripled, to about $14 billion, since he took over as commissioner in 2006, and the average value of franchises has more than doubled, to $2.3 billion, according to Forbes."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/21/s...ract.html?_r=0

That might be about to collapse just as General Motors was the wealthiest corporation in the U.S. until selling crap products caught up to GM in the 70s, but until it does the owners will take that kind of bungling

The NFL owners simply are selling a product to make money - if the game is worse than it used to be they will get concerned when it appears to be hurting the bottom line (which is what is driving the concern about what to do with the anthem protests). I suppose an argument could be made that they would be even wealthier if better decisions were made but so far that position is hard to quantify

[Dwinsgames]

This is likely going to be taken as trolling. I don't know, maybe it is, but it isn't meant that way.

I spent several weeks/months being told that players choosing the anthem for a protest is disrespectful, unpatriotic, etc. Even have seen the opinion repeatedly expressed that players should be either punished, prevented, or both for protesting.


Several have shared some interesting opinion polling and other information that shows this issue really spiked and came to head when the President got involved. Others have argued that the majority of NFL fans are conservative and likely echo or share the President's opinions on this issue.

I will take all that to be true. If so, where is the outrage from the same people (not aimed at any one specifically just meant as the people who are drawing a straight line between the anthem and respect for the troops) for the President totally stumbling and bumbling his way through a condolence call with the family of a recently deceased military member? Telling a pregnant widow that their husband and the father to their unborn child that he knew what he was getting into? Then calling the widow and her mother liars in the media after his miss-step becomes public?

Is this not direct disrespect and poor treatment of a military family and the memory of a service member? Or maybe it is all just liberal fake news...?

you answered your own question ... HERE is the phone call released by the widow because she was pissed at how it was being put out there by the Fake News people ..