trhee
ㅇtㅈyㅅr
I hope so too. But at the same time, it'll be interesting to see which artist will be desperate enough to pay to play.
NFL wants Superbowl halftime performers to pay them for the privilege
- Thread starter finnbow
- Start date
usedto
Lunatic Member
That is no lie, it would be like a... football game. But Christ, even with the college games on TV you don't see the bands very often; at halftime the networks go instead to "college football central"; a gaudy set full of flashing lights where a bunch of pompous talking heads fill us in on the other games, in so ruining our enjoyment of the game we chose to watch.
This is to appeal to attention deficient "sports fans" who have to be rapid fire experts on every trivial event; people who are "into" things rather than simply enjoying things. The kind of people who know exactly what the Chicago Bears need to do but have no idea what they themselves need to do. People who can name the entire lineup of the White Sox but can't name their state rep. Pellet heads.
I feel better now.
Last edited:
Hahaha.
This, and well said. As long as you are spectating and/or buying licensed stuff, you are complicit and don't really have much of a leg to stand on. Sorry, boys and girls.
Nice verbing. ;-)
sKiZo
Hates received: 92644 43.20°N 85.50°W
... and the horses they rode in on? <G>
I suppose the most revealing commentary on SB halftimes is that the most memorable moment was a wardrobe malfunction ...
I've seen the nipple and the damage done
I love you, baby,
can I see some bun
Ooh, ooh, the damage done.
I suppose the most revealing commentary on SB halftimes is that the most memorable moment was a wardrobe malfunction ...
I've seen the nipple and the damage done
I love you, baby,
can I see some bun
Ooh, ooh, the damage done.
robgmn
Super Member
A malfunction that resulted in a $300,000 fine.
For a nip slip during the halftime of an event where 300lb men try to physically destroy each other in order to move a ball across an end line of a field.
'Talk about effed-up priorities in this country...
sKiZo
Hates received: 92644 43.20°N 85.50°W
What we need is more and better "counter programming" to tune in when halftime starts.
Remember the Beavis and Butthead "Butt Bowls" in the late '90's?
Then again, the Animal Planet's "Puppy Bowls" make the SB look good.
PS ... write the Lingerie Football League and see if we can talk them into running their bowl during the Super Bowl again. They did that a couple years and got quite a few watchers ...
Remember the Beavis and Butthead "Butt Bowls" in the late '90's?
Then again, the Animal Planet's "Puppy Bowls" make the SB look good.
PS ... write the Lingerie Football League and see if we can talk them into running their bowl during the Super Bowl again. They did that a couple years and got quite a few watchers ...
Really wish this accusation would stop being repeated over and over, its quite misleading.
The NFL is a 501(c)6 organization, same as a chamber of commerce, boards of trade which are not organized for profit and no part of the net earnings goes to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. Basically it organizes a whole bunch of associated businesses. The non-taxable part is only for the organizational aspects. While its true that the money does filter through the NFL - the overwhelming majority ends up in the hands of football clubs who operate and are taxed like any other business. Beyond that, the tax revenue from ticket sales, hotels, income, corporate and entertainment taxes makes having the NFL in your city a massive tax boon.
That said, the NFL wields a huge (almost concerning) amount of economic power -- they are using their prime position to bully themselves into better economic agreements, which is pretty much what I would expect of a well run business. Nobody forces anybody into doing business with them, its just that the benefits generally far outweigh the costs.
The exposure for a Super Bowl half time act is huge, the beneficiary in the long run is the act, not the NFL. So, an act paying to play sounds crazy, I'm not so sure it is. Especially when busineses happily line up with millions of dollars begging to get airtime for Super Bowl ads. I'd contend most viewers are more interested in the ads than the half time show -- the NFL would get less negative attention if they just replaced the half time show with more commercials, problem solved.
.dew.
usedto
Lunatic Member
Not so sure about that. I think the NFL needed the viewership more than The Rolling Stones needed exposure.
robgmn
Super Member
Some good points, dew.
Though I'd question the same thing about the NFL providing these big-name acts with needed exposure.
I don't think the majority of football enthusiasts give a rats ass about the hip hop a stars that have been booked as of late, and certainly aren't going to run out and see if Britney concert just because they saw her on halftime halftime...
2006 is not today. Then again, a legendary/established act might be a prestige act for the NFL and would not be handled the same way.
Look at last years act, Bruno Mars, he went from a rising act with a few top singles to superstar in short order. I expect that is more likely the template going forward. Two years ago Madonna used it to revive her career (attempt it atleast) and launch a huge promo campaign for her new album.
Check this on the last three halftime shows: Beyonce was watched by 110.8 million viewers, Madonna was watched by 112.5 million viewers and Bruno Mars' performance at the Super Bowl XLVIII halftime show which attracted 115.3 million viewers. That is a lot of eyeballs.
I think its been echoed already -- it really needs to be mutually beneficial to make any sense. I'd say some acts benefit more than others, so maybe that sliding scale should apply? If there are three acts wanting to play -- that's certainly what I would call an excess of supply, rather than demand.
.dew.
Next, you'll be paying to use the john! 
