Is DirecTV's NFL Sunday Ticket Doomed? By Scott Salmon @ScottSalmon48 on Sep 15, 2015, 6:45pm http://www.ganggreennation.com/2015/9/15/9334463/is-directvs-nfl-sunday-ticket-doomed
Is DirecTV's NFL Sunday Ticket Doomed?On July 13, 2015, a local bar in San Francisco filed a class-a
- Thread starter whitewolf8214
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 35
- Views 3K
- Status
What a joke. How many more of these do we need to see?
Nobody is forcing that bar to subscribe and because the Sunday Ticket package is out of network only, the bar is losing nothing that it could get otherwise. Based on all the other suits that have gone nowhere the only winner here will be the lawyers who will happily bill the bar for their services.
Nobody is forcing that bar to subscribe and because the Sunday Ticket package is out of network only, the bar is losing nothing that it could get otherwise. Based on all the other suits that have gone nowhere the only winner here will be the lawyers who will happily bill the bar for their services.
It does seem like they have a valid argument as far as a exclusivity of creating a monopoly. They do not have to be forced to subscribe to Sunday Ticket and most likely the bar will not be billed as usually with class action lawsuits the lawyers get paid from the settlement.
What other lawsuits concerning a monopoly have there been? I Googled and couldn't find anything other than this one.
People file suit against D* for one thing or another just about monthly.
As for the ST dispute, like others have already mentioned, no one is demanding the the bar owner has to get the ST.
He knows the rules. BEFORE he signed up, no reason for him to sound like D* did something that wasn't known.
nothing stopping him from starting a sat tv company and bidding on the rights
Directv and the NFL get sued every year for something or another over the NFL Sunday Ticket.
It's getting old. No settlement will be made. Nothing will come of this. The NFL has the right to choose who they want to broadcast. The price isn't that expensive if you factor in the cost of actually GOING to the game. It's not articially inflated. The new deal with the NFL would cause the price to increase a little, but it wasn't much. This stuff is ridiculous.
It's getting old. No settlement will be made. Nothing will come of this. The NFL has the right to choose who they want to broadcast. The price isn't that expensive if you factor in the cost of actually GOING to the game. It's not articially inflated. The new deal with the NFL would cause the price to increase a little, but it wasn't much. This stuff is ridiculous.
In fairness commercial subscriptions are significantly more expensive, but again, nobody is being hurt by Sunday Ticket. No local games are involved.
I don't know that it has ever made it to Court. The Players Association in 2011 accused it of being a monopoly during their dispute, but they decertified instead. It has been said when the NFL merged with and absorbed the AFL it became a monopoly. The NFL says it is a Governing body over 32 separate companies, all separately deciding salaries (They are not allowed to collude on salaries) and have their own conduct and punishment in addition to what is agreed to as a governing body.
I don't think the act of selling your services to one buyer is a monopoly, unless you are a Cable or Satellite company withholding a channel you produce from any other provider. (Comcast Sports Philly) I would say any channel(s) such as AMC could decide to sell itself to one provider if it felt that was advantageous.
Even if the NFL is a monopoly, I don't know that leads to not being able to sign a contract with the highest bidder and only the highest bidder because even if a company is not considered a monopoly they can do that.
As an example, what if the NFL was ordered to split back to the original AFL, NFL. What stops both those companies from selling only to Directv if Directv remains willing to spend much more than other companies if it is exclusive?
I don't think the act of selling your services to one buyer is a monopoly, unless you are a Cable or Satellite company withholding a channel you produce from any other provider. (Comcast Sports Philly) I would say any channel(s) such as AMC could decide to sell itself to one provider if it felt that was advantageous.
Even if the NFL is a monopoly, I don't know that leads to not being able to sign a contract with the highest bidder and only the highest bidder because even if a company is not considered a monopoly they can do that.
As an example, what if the NFL was ordered to split back to the original AFL, NFL. What stops both those companies from selling only to Directv if Directv remains willing to spend much more than other companies if it is exclusive?
Except DTV having Exclusive rights for the next 8 years, and holding the right to make a bid prior to anyone else.
Unless ATT utilizes the right to renew with the NFL. Remember, they get first dibs at it. If they don't want it, then it is a buyers market. I'm not saying it is a bad thing. That is DTVs identifier. Almost a brand, as the professional sports leader and "if you like professional football, you have to have Directv." I disagree with an antimonopoly lawsuit, as others have trademarked items as well, such as Autohop, and CABLE ISP monopolies. I was just mentioning what was wrong with the statement. There is in fact something stopping him from starting his own satellite company and bidding on the ST and that is DTVs long term contract and renewal privilege.
He can still open a Sat company if he wants, ST just won't be part of it.
I would think that when time comes, att would go along with D*s previous plan and keep it Exclusive if they can ... of course thats really up to the NFL at that point.
Yes he can, but again it was just specifically towards the second part of his statement I was commenting towards. The ST part specifically.
Everything I have read about their deal offers Directv the option to accept the new terms, or give it up, so ultimately it is up to both of them, not just one or the other. I'm going to assume that it would likely be illegal for the NFL to tell DTV they have to pay $3 billion per year, and force DTV out, then offer the open bids at something to other providers for less. That sounds like it would violate some antitrust acts there... And definitely not acting ethically. I could be mistaken about the whole thing, again, this is just from reading all the articles posted here about it, including the erroneous ones.
Directv having the NFL Sunday Ticket is not a monopoly, just a decision on the NFL's part to give Directv exclusive access. This lawsuit is going to get dismissed so quickly lol.
- Status
