Another reason to hate the NFL.

[Shadow Wolf]

NFL wants Super Bowl halftime performers to pay for the privilege | ProFootballTalk

As it has grown and grown and grown some more, the NFL has continued to find more and more and more revenue streams.
The latest could be the Super Bowl halftime show. Currently a gig the performer plays for free in order to turn a gigantic international platform into the high profile and profits that go with it, the league now wants a cut.
According to the Wall Street Journal (via SportsBusiness Daily), the NFL has asked the three artists under consideration for the Super Bowl XLIX halftime show to “contribute a portion of their post-Super Bowl tour income” to the NFL, or to “make some other type of financial contribution.” Per the report, the idea received a “chilly reception” from the representatives of Katy Perry, Rihanna, and Coldplay.
Regardless, it only takes one performer to bite the hook in order for the NFL to parlay the halftime show into even more of a moneymaker. And it’s entirely possible that the league leaked the development in order to pressure one of the three to blink, given that plenty of other performers who would gladly give up a piece of a pie they otherwise don’t have will now be calling the league to offer whatever the league wants for the privilege of playing to one of the biggest audiences in TV history.

I find this to be unacceptable. The NFL rakes in mega profits as it is, and they are asking Super Bowl half-time bands to pay-to-play. It's bad enough that they don't pay for the services provided by the bands. To reverse the basic economic model of paying for services into a situation of those providing a service paying to provide those services does not bode well for the American economic model that is already in shambles. Shame on the NFL for even thinking this is in any way appropriate.

 

[Revoltingest]

It sounds fine to me. If their half-time venue is of such great value
that performers will pay to play, then it makes economic sense to
charge for it. (I didn't even know they were doing it for free. But
then, I don't watch football.)

Note: We even live in a country which charges you to uncitizenize.
(Sept 12, it will cost $2350 to renounce US citizenship.)

 

[Buttercup]

College football all the way, baybeee! Let's Go Ducks!!!

 

[4consideration]

NFL wants Super Bowl halftime performers to pay for the privilege | ProFootballTalk
I find this to be unacceptable. The NFL rakes in mega profits as it is, and they are asking Super Bowl half-time bands to pay-to-play. It's bad enough that they don't pay for the services provided by the bands. To reverse the basic economic model of paying for services into a situation of those providing a service paying to provide those services does not bode well for the American economic model that is already in shambles. Shame on the NFL for even thinking this is in any way appropriate.

It seemed a bit odd to me when I first heard about it. After thinking about it, I don't see where there's much difference between that and the NFL getting paid by TV advertisers. Looks like, basically, the half time show has become a big commercial.

I don't watch football, so I don't care much. When I did watch it, I always used that time to do other stuff, anyway.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Eh. NFL. Sorry don't care. Love to here it trash talked though and also college football and high school football. I loathe them all equally. Football is a stupid sport, isn't it? Just a bunch of head bashing and butt patting, and they give you A's on all your exams for it. Who knew catching a ball could teach you so much about Math?

 

[ShivaFan]

Uaaaahhhh... really - I don't care what they charge for the Half-time show, just as long as it sticks to entertainment and not politics nor some avenue for some "profound statement" or used by some elected politico like Obama or Bush to "tell us something".

The reason I don't care, is because, the little I watch still if I do watch I never watch the Half-Time show.

Instead I drink soup. I dunk crackers or bread in the soup (to stay warm).

Now if the Grateful Dead would play the 1/2 Time, probably I would watch.

Or if the Blue Angels scream over the stadium.

Or if there was a parade of cute baby pigs.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Doesn't matter. Only rich pop stars play the halftime show as it is. I'm sure whatever fee it is is less than pocket lint to those people.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

College football all the way, baybeee! Let's Go Ducks!!!

:slap:
Ducks, schmucks. Go Irish!!

(heehee...that's two of your posts in a row I've brought out the slap smilie...I'm on a ROLL...)

As for the NFL halftime show, generally I think people should be paid for their performance. But as has been mentioned, this is only stars who've already made it, and it is obviously providing a lot of exposure. At the point of their careers they would be in, they can easily refuse/avoid it.

Any stars looking to get paid (a little bit) can come and play at the AFL Grand Final. We have a history of overpaying has-beens from overseas to come and deliver mediocrity. Easy money!!

 

[ShivaFan]

oh God ... is this thread going to turn into one of those "Go xyz!" threads?

I'm leaving.

Go Niners.

 

[sun rise]

My wife who's a musician had some thoughts that amount to "where the sun don't shine" to yet another group of wealthy (substitution) people want to rip off musicians because she's had it up to here with "work for free" because of the great exposure. And this tops it off - wanting not only musicians to play for free but in effect to pay to play.

We'll be watching the Puppy Bowl again this year. For any that don't know about this wonderful annual competition with the kitten halftime show Puppy Bowl: Animal Planet

 

[Buttercup]

:slap:
Ducks, schmucks. Go Irish!!

You're an Aussie and you know enough about American college football to name teams? Impressive.

One thing you MAY not know is that Oregon is ranked #3 and Notre Dame is #16. :slap:

My prediction is that the Ducks will end the season higher than the Irish as well.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You're an Aussie and you know enough about American college football to name teams? Impressive.

One thing you MAY not know is that Oregon is ranked #3 and Notre Dame is #16. :slap:

My prediction is that the Ducks will end the season higher than the Irish as well.

Actually know a bit more than just team names. I follow college basketball very closely, but I watch a little college football as well.

 

[ChristineES]

Why should the performers pay if they help bring in revenue?

 

[Desert Snake]

Hmm considering how much advertising you get from a halftime show, not sure why this is controversial.

 

[Revoltingest]

Why should the performers pay if they help bring in revenue?

Because the half time venue has value, which can be sold.
So if one performer won't pay, but another will, the payer
will likely get the gig. (I presume the NFL wants a performer
who will enhance their ability to sell advertising.)

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Eh. NFL. Sorry don't care. Love to here it trash talked though and also college football and high school football. I loathe them all equally. Football is a stupid sport, isn't it? Just a bunch of head bashing and butt patting, and they give you A's on all your exams for it. Who knew catching a ball could teach you so much about Math?

That made me realize one of my goals as a college teacher; give athletes the grades they deserve. Hopefully I never actually have to give out a bad grade, but I'm not gonna give out any free passes either.

My wife who's a musician had some thoughts that amount to "where the sun don't shine" to yet another group of wealthy (substitution) people want to rip off musicians because she's had it up to here with "work for free" because of the great exposure. And this tops it off - wanting not only musicians to play for free but in effect to pay to play.

We'll be watching the Puppy Bowl again this year. For any that don't know about this wonderful annual competition with the kitten halftime show Puppy Bowl: Animal Planet

The playing for exposure shouldn't happen often once your name is out, especially once you've reached a status of selling out venues before you was on the Super Bowl. Tom Petty and the Chilli Peppers obviously don't need the half time show to sell tickets.

Hmm considering how much advertising you get from a halftime show, not sure why this is controversial.

Musicians are screwed at every corner. Even the rich/well known musicians that play the half time show do not hold any ownership over their music. But it's not just musicians, artists in general are screwed alot. If the NFL can get away with making some of the biggest pop music artists to pay-to-play, what will this turn into for smaller bands, especially local bands who barely make any money from their music as it is?

Because the half time venue has value, which can be sold.
So if one performer won't pay, but another will, the payer
will likely get the gig. (I presume the NFL wants a performer
who will enhance their ability to sell advertising.)

That's a very slippery and very dangerous slope. This model proposes that even though you hire someone to provide a service, because the "venue" has value this value can be sold. Any venue of any sort has value, so how do you draw the line between "make the musician pay-to-play" and "make anyone pay-to-work?"