As the Hatfield-McCoy thing between the NFL and Comcast continues to rage, details have emerged regarding an outside-the-box effort by Comcast in 2006 to get its hands on the eight regular-season games that the league has held in its back pocket for broadcast on NFL Network.
The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that, in 2006, Comcast offered a combination of rights fees and partial ownership of the Versus channel, if the eight games would be aired on that station, which at the time was called “Outdoor Life Network.”
Comcast believed that the owners would be able to shield the equity stake in Versus from the 59-cents-on-the-dollar revenue distribution to the league’s players. The NFL and the NFLPA disagree with that assessment.
Former NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue supposedly acknowledged that the Comcast offer might have been too good to pass up. ”Perhaps the owners are making a mistake here,” Tagliabue reportedly told Comcast’s CEO, Brian Roberts. ”Your offer may be better. Sometimes the owners have to learn the hard way.”
When the NFL passed, Roberts reportedly told Tagliabue, “Your relationships with the cable industry are going to get very interesting.”
Needless to say, things have gotten more than very interesting since then. The most popular sports league in America can’t find a suitable home on many major cable systems for its in-house network, causing the effort to lose, by all appearances, a lot of money — and reportedly resulting in discussions with ESPN about a partnership aimed at salvaging what has become a slowly sinking ship.
_2.gif)





June 26th, 2008 at 9:58 am
This article in the Inquirer is written by a guy who writes many very positive article about Comcast. If you look through his work from earlier this year, to me it sounds like a Comcast promotional tour. With that I would certainly question the facts related in this article, or be careful to assume these are all the facts.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 3.65 / 5 with 3 rating(s)
June 26th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Hmmm…. Interesting. Any wonder why Comcast employee… er….uncompromised US Senator, Arlen Specter, would be so adament at going after the team whose owner (Bob Kraft) was the head of the television committee at the time of this deal getting rejected.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 3.4 / 5 with 5 rating(s)
June 26th, 2008 at 10:27 am
What a mess. So help me God, if these jokers end up messing around and getting a few Cowboys games blacked out from my basic cable I’ll sue Jerry Jones for causing me pain and suffering, emotional distress, and whatever else my conniving lawyer can add to the tab!
Screw the war in the Middle East, gun rights and the environment; Congress needs to get their priorities straight and fix this crap before we all find ourselves logging onto illegal Chinese websites streaming live NFL games…
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 3 / 5 with 3 rating(s)
June 26th, 2008 at 10:30 am
This whole idea of games on NFLN is a debacle. The NFL makes money by selling games to networks and by selling tickets and merchandise to fans. They’ve managed to alienate both customers with this silly endeavor. It appears they’re too stuborn or stupid to declare a “mea cupla,” sell the rights to the 8 games for a billion dollars, and move on.
I wonder which owners were behind this losing idea. My gut tells me Snyder, who I believe is on the broadcast committee. Six Flags, Red Zebra radio, Johnny Rockets…. not a great track record for investment decisions.
This is further evidence of why Tagliabue doesn’t belong in the Hall. He was able to peddle a bad CBA through to the owners, but he couldn’t talk them out of this folly. His HOF resume is about as strong as Joey Harrington’s.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 4.5 / 5 with 2 rating(s)
June 26th, 2008 at 10:31 am
I’ve only seen the NFL Network once. Who actually gets to watch these games at home - less than 1% of the country? The NFL Network and the NFL are so pigheaded about not making these games available, they have been willing to “cut off their noses to spite their faces” for the last 3 plus years.
I’m with the cable companies - until they make all the games available to “everyone” who wants to watch and is willing to pay and not confine the availablity to Direct TV - the NFL Network will continue to be a bust along with their fellow dummies at The Big 10 Network who have in one season set back Big Ten Sports by 60 years.
I want to see the games my favorite teams play - college or pro - and I’m willing to pay within reason - satallite TV is NOT the answer. The NFL Owner money grubbers are preventing that and I applaud the cable companies for standing up to them. Until they come around and make everything equal including all the games on cable every Sunday - the NFL’s TV negotian anti-trust exemption should be suspended.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 3.35 / 5 with 3 rating(s)
June 26th, 2008 at 10:47 am
Why would the owners let their games be broadcasted on The Outdoor Life Network? They are not as desperate as the NHL.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 4 rating(s)
June 26th, 2008 at 10:51 am
I hate comcast, unfortunatley, I’d rather have it than pay for a dish. So I guess when NFLN starts showing games this year, I’m gonna have to find a sports bar with satelite.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
June 26th, 2008 at 10:53 am
It’s a good time to be a DirecTV subscriber. Every game, no matter what. I’m just going to enjoy it while it lasts.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 2 rating(s)
June 26th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Remember Comcast owns the Flyers and 76ers. So the local press here will never say anything bad as long as they have access to the teams. Also Comcast is the only cabcel company is Philadelphia. There is no competition at all. I have Direct TV and the local comcast channels are not carried on direct tv so I can’t watch the Phillies or Flyers unless they are on another local station. But I would rather have that then pay one penny to Comcast. During the Flyers play off run a local bar was my place to visit.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 3.5 / 5 with 2 rating(s)
June 26th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
I don’t see what the big deal is with having people pay for the NFLN. I had Comcast, and I paid the measly $4.99 for it so I could watch the games. I have since moved and my local cable co includes NFLN on the regular package, which is fantastic. But why should people who DON’T watch the NFLN have to pay the fee to get it? I don’t want to pay extra to have the basket weaving network because a bunch of other people do. I think its time to start moving towards a complete ala cart setup where I can pick the exact channels I want on the cable company website, and next to it is the price per month that channel costs. This way, you pay for exactly what you want.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 4.5 / 5 with 2 rating(s)
June 26th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
instead of partnering with espn, the nfl network should partner with all the channels on the sports tier, versus, golf channel, tennis channel, and every other weird channel no one watches. pool all your resources, hire better analysts than controversial former players who can’t speak english nor talk about anything other than their former position, and work to drive espn out of business.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 4 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
June 26th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
DirectTV FTW!!!!!!!11111
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
June 26th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
if this all comes down to a pissing contest,i’m putting
my money on the nfl.the way the cable companies are
screwing the public is beyond the pale.
given their druthers,the public would take out their
wrath primely on the cable companies
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 2.5 / 5 with 2 rating(s)
June 26th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Here in Houston they have a thing called AT&T U-Verse that has been rolled out and there will be others offering cable over IP that provides far better picture and is cheaper than what Comcast offers. They offer NFL network, as I think most cable providers do now outside of Comcast, and are taking a big chunk of Comcasts subscriber base. The NFL might of missed out for a couple of years, but in the long run they’ll be in a better position.
As far as fans complaining about not getting the games, not all games were ever offered to everyone so these games just expand upon what they already had. It’s a good idea by the NFL. It sucked when they only had it on dish but that is no longer the case.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
June 26th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Overlooked in all the hand wringing by fans that they may not see eight games per year is that in reality, games are not being ‘taken away’ from them if they don’t have NFLN or DirecTV.
Games on cable - ESPN or NFLN - are simulcast on a local broadcast station in each team’s market. The only exception would be if the game doesn’t sell out, which would mean it wouldn’t be aired in the home market - no different than if the game was on FOX or CBS.
If you’re an out of town fan - say a Packer fan in Florida or a Cowboy fan in Ohio - then nothing has changed with games being broadcast on Thursdays by the NFLN. If those games were played on Sunday, there would be no guarantee you would see them in out of town markets anyways. The Packer fan in Florida would have a Bucs game followed by Seahawks - Vikings, for example.
This year the Thursday night schedule starts with the Jets at the Patriots. The game will be simulcast by local stations in Boston and New York. If it was scheduled for Sunday, it probably wouldn’t be broadcast anywhere else anyways; the AFC games that would be seen would be a ‘local’ game first, such as Titans at Jaguars; followed by the late game, Chargers at Steelers. Jets and Patriots fans in Florida or Ohio or wherever weren’t going to get that game anyways, unless they had Sunday Ticket or went to a sports bar. The game being broadcast on NFLN doesn’t change that.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 3.5 / 5 with 2 rating(s)
June 26th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
It’s really an issue for premium games (between good / marquee teams), some mondays, but often thursdays, saturdays, likely sunday nights in the near future.
For the most part the premium game syndrome wont touch 1300et sunday games, and wouldnt touch many sunday 1600et games.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 4 / 5 with 2 rating(s)
June 27th, 2008 at 8:02 am
This helps explain all the non-calls that helped the Giants cheat their way to a Super Bowl victory.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 1 / 5 with 2 rating(s)
June 27th, 2008 at 11:57 am
jmt57, that’s a valid point, but it kind of misses the mark.
Sunday games are broadcast for their markets. So, like you said, if a Packers fan lives in FL there’s no guarantee he’ll see his team.
The Thurs-Sat package has been a primetime game that is shown in ALL markets — similar to MNF. Originally, they were on one of the Turner stations before they moved to ESPN. Since those channels were on basic cable, everyone had access to the Thurs-Sat package of games. By keeping them on the NFLN, the league has taken them away from many cable viewers.
By going to a subscription fee, premium channel model, the NFL risks becoming as popular as boxing.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 4 / 5 with 2 rating(s)