[Elvis]

https://sports.yahoo.com/nfl-television ... 54618.html

NFL television ratings: No one is winning argument over what's going on with viewership

Charles Robinson
NFL columnist
Yahoo SportsSep 18, 2017, 4:27 PM

The quarterbacks are bad. Or the offensive lines are the problem.

Player protests are driving away viewers. Or Colin Kaepernick’s absence is sending them away.

Perhaps it’s the hurricanes.

The product is worse. But the Super Bowl was better than ever.

If you have a strong NFL viewership opinion, wait a day. It will shift, or someone will tell you how wrong you are. This is the NFL’s most consistent theme in 2017: everything is an eye-gouging argument over why the audience is changing. And the ratings, well, that’s the seesaw the league will be forced to ride all season long.

Through two weeks, nothing is certain and nobody is sure what is causing numbers to land where they are. And through two weeks there has been a perpetual argument over why the TV results are up and down. The most dominant questions: Why is the league’s growth and saturation slowing, who or what is to blame, and how will it be fixed?

It’s why people can’t talk about Kaepernick or player activism without weaving in a ratings conversation. It’s why domestic violence and league discipline can’t be dissected without considering how it impacts image and viewership. And it’s most definitely why the NFL and NFLPA will continue to brutalize each other for the next four years, running up a scoreboard of who is to blame for what problem, and how that is negatively impacting the overall product the two sides produce in unison.

As for the numbers, here’s where we’re at: Week 1 was uneven but mostly bad for the league, essentially down across the board, including the three critical prime-time slots: the Thursday night opener (Kansas City vs. New England) and both Monday prime-time games (New Orleans vs. Minnesota and Los Angeles Chargers vs. Denver). Only the first Sunday night game (New York Giants vs. Dallas Cowboys) of the season floated optimism, with a rise of around 5 percent over the same slot in 2016.

Initial Week 2 readings had scattered results, with Monday night (Detroit vs. Giants) yet to be played. Fox is reporting an 18 percent viewership jump week over week, propelled by the lightning-delayed game between the Denver Broncos and Cowboys, a contest that drew an initial 16.1 rating. Meanwhile, CBS was down slightly week over week, along with NBC’s Sunday night game between the Atlanta Falcons and Green Bay Packers.

The state of Florida remains unaccounted for in the TV ratings, due to potentially skewed numbers after Hurricane Irma.

“Sunday was a bit of a mixed bag,” league spokesman Joe Lockhart said. “You had the Fox national game that had a huge audience, particularly given that there was a weather delay that lasted for about an hour in the middle of it. I think some of the numbers were down at the [1 p.m.] game and down a little bit on the Sunday night [game]. These are the preliminary numbers. We’re going to wait and see what we get for the week when we get the final numbers. But, again, we try not to take too much out of any one week. We’ll look at this as far as the season and we’re confident that the ratings will be strong.”

The key word there is “strong.” Like last season, the numbers can fall back for the NFL this year and still be unquestionably strong. But strong doesn’t necessarily mean “up.” While the league can be confident that it will continue to do big numbers, it can’t be certain that it will continue to grow an audience that may be maxing out and flattening.

The truth here is that the NFL doesn’t know. The league’s critics don’t know. And most certainly, the heads of the broadcasting companies who paid tens of billions of dollars for the TV rights don’t know, either. That’s why this has become an annual top-of-the-agenda item for the NFL, because it is the best indicator of where the bottom line is going.

As much publicity as the league gets scouring for new markets and revenue streams, the driving force behind the money will always be television numbers. And the TV numbers will always be the best indication of the game’s saturation. Attendance numbers aside, the league needs to continue growing fan consumption at home.

This is a large reason why the NFL’s biggest move in China to date has been cutting a streaming rights deal with the country’s massive multimedia conglomerate Tencent. The NFL knows that the only way to spread football is to stimulate interest. And the only thing better than having a grassroots system of football in high school and college is to deliver the NFL product into homes at every possible turn.

The only thing more important to the NFL than the football product itself is the ratings and delivery systems. And if the ratings are down or the delivery systems aren’t growing and thriving, it means something is wrong. Either the product is off, the delivery mediums are failing, or the audience has started to reach capacity.

That’s where this argument is going. And it will sustain itself as long as the NFL can’t put out weekly news releases about how the ratings are exploding and delivery platforms are devouring all competitors. Until the audience begins to grow again consistently year over year, this is the lens that almost every debate in the NFL will be seen through.

This is all part of the perpetual seesawing argument that hangs overhead. Last week, this week and every week going forward. The NFL’s ratings are a growing mixed bag. Maybe the only lasting certainty is where the trend is headed next.

Into an argument.

[haroldjackson29]

As long as the players are willing to give up 2/3 of their salary, why not?

The tv contracts is what's paying the players. The cost of parking etc has nothing to do with it. Didn't you notice in AtL that they are selling certain concessions for 2$ all the time

[dieterbrock]

The tv contracts is what's paying the players. The cost of parking etc has nothing to do with it. Didn't you notice in AtL that they are selling certain concessions for 2$ all the time

Not true, and you know that those prices are temporary right?

How the players are paid:
"The Cap is determined through a complicated calculation system, which has changed with the latest extension of the CBA. The Cap is based on income that the teams earn during a League Year. Originally that "pot" was limited to what was known as Defined Gross Revenues (DGR), which consisted of the money earned from the national televison contract, ticket sales, and NFL merchandise sales. In 2006 the CBA was modified, and the "pot" was expanded to include total revenue. Thus, other sources of revenue, including such other items as naming rights and local advertising, were added. As was the case with the original DGR, the expanded revenue is divided equally amongst all 32 teams for purposes of calculating the salary cap."
http://www.askthecommish.com/SalaryCap/Faq.aspx

[Hacksaw]

These owner make their money either way. It's a bad poster for the NFL though.

Perhaps a bit more parity, less pussification, more team loyalty by players, fewer mom's telling their sons they can't play due to head injuries, better ref's, fewer restrictions and regulations, fewer game days like Thursday Night / Sunday Night, fewer or no more teams hopscotching around the country (aka regional loyalty), fewer multi-million dollar players getting in legal trouble, fewer New England SB's, make contracts and salaries more in line with the common man so they can better relate, etc, would be good places to start.

Boomers are getting on in age and have been there and done that. Some are losing their steam. The game isn't quite as exciting and did I mention the salaries?

[haroldjackson29]

Who cares how temporary? It proves they don't really need that money or it would never change. Divided evenly means- however the owners see fit to distribute it. They aren't separate entities. The nfl works as one large business. Again,the fans money provides nothing for players contracts or all Florida teams and various others would have folded already. There is no popularity or financial problem for the nfl....and if there is it's because the wealthy decided to do it for their own reasons. To accomplish something else. It would be quite interesting if the nfl folded. I would be trying to get old helmets like they were gladiator armor or civil war pieces lol

[Rams the Legends live on]

They want to fill the stadiums? Try 5$ parking, 10$ seats at the 50 yd line, 3$ hotdogs. and 5 $ beers. The regular Joe can then bring his whole family to a game.

Yea I agree Bubba, I wrote somewhere on here how the NFL is pricing itself out. The high water mark I believe was 2012 and has been going down since. I believe they are going about it all wrong. They are marketing to the median income and also trying to market themselves as a premium.

Marketing themselves to the median they have chosen tv to reach that market. Which tv accounts for two thirds of the revenue the NFL generates. So that is where the largest market lies. One third of the other revenues is made by game day experience, selling merchandise and etc.

So they have priced the avg Joe out and he is their largest market. While the NFL may be our largest sport in 2015 they had 12 billion in revenue. Game Stop had like 9.3 billion and is ranked like 311th for American companies. So while the big daddy for sports does not rank high as a company.

Walmart brings in in 5 hours what the avg team will make all year. Over 90% of fans when polled say they have never visited a game in person. Stadiums prices are kept at a premium and when it comes to how much money they (stadiums) make is nothing more than a rounding error. The stadium of course if owned by the owner such as we see some do, they of course have revenue avenues opened up to them that public owned may not offer.

A year after the high water mark of 2012, Goodell was paid 44.2 million. The year after 35 million so a drop of 20% in pay and last year he was paid 31.7 million. So revenue is going up but not necessarily profit. 2015 they had 12 billion in revenue but last year 2016 they had 13 billion which 7.8 billion was distributed amongst the owners and this year they are projected to do over 14 billion.

One thing that has helped the NFL is compared to other sorts the players salaries are lower than other sports on avg. However this may become challenged by the fact the NFL now no longer has a tax exempt status.

So will be interesting to watch over the next few years and see if any trends continue. Or if they will change their pricing method. Many companies recognize it is not a good idea to try and sell to the median market and the premium market, So most don't do that model because price associated in trying to market to both don't wash out well in cost of sales.

Some companies have done alright such as car companies selling at different price points of vehicles to capture a overall market. So will be interesting to see if the NFL can get over the hump and do so. Which they may be able to because a good number of owners made their money faced with such obstacles. However I am not sure of the breakdown of inherited to self made. Which could prove to be challenging since they vote issues and not everyone at the table has the same kind of business experience and acumen.

However as I said in another post I feel they have priced the median or avg Joe out. So will be interesting to see if any trends continue or if the self made owners garner the louder voice and steer it in a new direction so that they can effectively be a two tier marketed business.

[Elvis]

Boomers are getting on in age and have been there and done that. Some are losing their steam. The game isn't quite as exciting and did I mention the salaries?

I don't get the salary part. The NFL is a $14 billion dollar a year business.

I'd like the NFL a lot less if the players weren't getting a substantial piece of that pie...

[Hacksaw]

I don't get the salary part. The NFL is a $14 billion dollar a year business.

I'd like the NFL a lot less if the players weren't getting a substantial piece of that pie...

It's a real big pie and I agree it wouldn't be fair if the players slices were too thin. The salary part was more the difference between the common ticket buyer and what these elite few NFL'ers get. More so the owners actually. The cost of the game is part of the reason for lower ratings as well imo.

[Elvis]

It's a real big pie and I agree it wouldn't be fair if the players slices were too thin. The salary part was more the difference between the common man and what these elite few NFL'ers get. More so the owners actually. The cost of the game is part of the reason for lower ratings as well imo.

The reason everyone in the NFL makes so much money is because the NFL is popular and makes a ton of money. NFL stuff is expensive because it's so popular.

It seems like virtually every argument for why the NFL is maybe struggling right now boils down to this:

The NFL is losing popularity because it's so popular...

[Rams the Legends live on]

I don't get the salary part. The NFL is a $14 billion dollar a year business.

I'd like the NFL a lot less if the players weren't getting a substantial piece of that pie...

The 14 billion however is the league as a whole. Last year each team received 244 million after the split and the salary cap is now what 167 million. That is a cost of 70% for labor. In the future they may have to find ways to automate the stadiums a lot more because they still have that cost yet for those workers, upkeep, and other associated cost.

So while the players do generate the revenue that is still a high cost for their labor. So I think that in the future more owners will have to go to owning the stadium and automating what they can so they can maximize their profits.

244 million split before ya pay the players and staff and front office, office workers, maintenance personal, scouting dept and heck ya name it. Makes me wonder if this is why they don't make public how much they actually make as a owner because it will diminish some of the prestige that is associated with being a owner. Like I said once before it has been said horse racing is the sport of kings. However I think owning a football team would be the case now.

Must be a reason a good number of owners are self made now and keep active in their parent company that made them the money so they could buy a team.

Really is looking like it is more a sense of ego and pride and prestige to own a team than the actually profit they will see once ya break down all the cost compared to what they split.