NFL messing up a good thing (Pat McAfee)

[Motorin']

17 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

Its not that he knows secrets. It's that he's completely avoided any negative topics in an effort to only promote and befriend the NFL. All he is saying is, if they are going to be petty, then maybe the very popular show will start having more discussions about the tough topics that surround the NFL.

 

I mean, that is really his only choice. He'll end up having to pay to use them. I see the "threats" as more negotiating through the media. Letting the NFL know that he has at least a little leverage in this.

 

 

 

That could be true, I guess I took his comments to mean he has insider info. But you're right, he may have just meant staying all positive vs focusing on potentially negative stories.

 

I'm still not sure he wants to make those kinds of threats. He has a lot more to lose (his footage deal) than the NFL does. 

[NewEra]

2 minutes ago, Limeaid said:

 

That is why I stated coaches and front office.  Did not state players.

Gotcha, my bad.  
 

Still don’t see the nfl doing this.  It would only make them look bad.  

[RyanC883]

2 hours ago, MAJBobby said:

Cool that is their RIGHT. He can ask how much is the upgrade and we’ll then pay it to for USE of NFL materials. 
 

Capitalism Baby. 
 

why Should NFL Let ANYONE profit off their items without that fee? 

 

he should lawyer up and call their bluff.  Argument to be made that since they have let him, they have waived enforcement, among others.  

40 minutes ago, Donuts and Doritos said:

Wonder if since other media outlets (Fox, ESPN etc) all have to pay for the rights to do this, they have to make Pat pay too? Otherwise those folks will threaten to stop paying. (It's like a copyright, if you don't enforce it you no longer have it). This is just speculation on my part as to why the NFL is doing this. 

 

I hope this is it, otherwise it’s total nonsense. 

[Mango]

45 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

Absolutely. All of these details were in the contract. And I get it. Major networks like ESPN have to abide by all the details and rules. If McAfee wants to make the money and play with the big guys, he needs to run his business appropriately.

 

But... It's just silly, and a short-sighted business move, for the NFL to not grant it's best marketer some leeway. Especially on that format.

 

Just to be clear, the base of my understanding of what is happening here is that if a network wants to show a Bills helmet next to a Jets helmet this week, it will cost them more than $4M. That seems wild. 

 

I really think this is the NFL trying to squeeze McAfee and not the PMS actually violating the terms of their licensing agreement. 

13 minutes ago, RyanC883 said:

 

he should lawyer up and call their bluff.  Argument to be made that since they have let him, they have waived enforcement, among others.  

 

I hope this is it, otherwise it’s total nonsense. 

 

The guy has a $120M FanDuel contract. I bet a letter was out the door before his show even aired yesterday. 

[MJS]

Honestly, I do not see what anyone likes about Pat McAfee and his show. It is wildly popular. I just find him and the others on the show pompous and annoying.

[DrDawkinstein]

1 minute ago, Mango said:

 

Just to be clear, the base of my understanding of what is happening here is that if a network wants to show a Bills helmet next to a Jets helmet this week, it will cost them more than $4M. That seems wild. 

 

I really think this is the NFL trying to squeeze McAfee and not the PMS actually violating the terms of their licensing agreement. 

 

Not necessarily.

 

Keep in mind, I have never seen a contract for myself, but from similar situations being discussed by other media outlets previously, NFL rights contracts are very, very specific. What you can show, when, how long, no pausing, etc. To the point that if I miss PtI on ESPN and watch the replay, they dont show the NFL clips on the replay. They strip all NFL highlights out of the show. Little stuff like that.

 

I wouldnt be surprised to find this verbiage in the existing contract and McAfee's team just didnt see it, or understand it.

 

So they had agreed to a number of stuff they could do and show and that all added up to $4M. Using logos in their own graphics wasnt part of that. Mauybe it only costs an additional $500k/year? Who knows. Sounds like we'll find out tho 

[SirAndrew]

I think McAfee promising vengeance against the NFL by telling the “truth” is kind of lame. 

[Mango]

8 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

Not necessarily.

 

Keep in mind, I have never seen a contract for myself, but from similar situations being discussed by other media outlets previously, NFL rights contracts are very, very specific. What you can show, when, how long, no pausing, etc. To the point that if I miss PtI on ESPN and watch the replay, they dont show the NFL clips on the replay. They strip all NFL highlights out of the show. Little stuff like that.

 

I wouldnt be surprised to find this verbiage in the existing contract and McAfee's team just didnt see it, or understand it.

 

So they had agreed to a number of stuff they could do and show and that all added up to $4M. Using logos in their own graphics wasnt part of that. Mauybe it only costs an additional $500k/year? Who knows. Sounds like we'll find out tho 

 

Wait, when you watch replays of the talking heads on the ESPN app, they remove the actual highlights from the show? I didn't realize. But that one actually makes a lot more sense to me than what it sounds like what is going on here. They basically have a one time use, or live only license.

[SirAndrew]

1 hour ago, Motorin' said:

 

McAfee is the one being short sighted threatening to disclose NFL secrets about CTE in retaliation for having the logos pulled. 

 

And if he knows of liability around CTE and has kept his mouth shut, but is threatening to damage the NFL over a logo despite, I don't know how he looks like a good guy. 

He’s not going to get anywhere speaking out against the NFL. It was a weird flex. If they are so immoral, he should have been discussing it before they upset him. I’ll believe he’s ready to dish the dirt when I hear it. The NFL will stop that in a hurry. 

[djp14150]

3 hours ago, Doc said:

That show makes enough money to cover the $4 million a year?

 

how many radio station/ markets are they in..get that total…say 200

multiple that by the average fee the local radio station pays to broadcast that for 3 hrs..rough estimate would be half the salary of a daytime radio DJ salary.  Say $30,000

 

thats $6M right there. Then you add in national ad revenue  ( local affiliate have sd slots too)

[Saxum]

14 minutes ago, MJS said:

Honestly, I do not see what anyone likes about Pat McAfee and his show. It is wildly popular. I just find him and the others on the show pompous and annoying.

 

Beane doesn't, listens to it and appears on it.

[EasternOHBillsFan]

2 minutes ago, Limeaid said:

 

Beane doesn't, listens to it and appears on it.

 

Well he has to do what he has to in order to attract players to Buffalo... selling his soul to be on the show is understandable.

[colin]

2 hours ago, Bruffalo said:

Yes, the great altar of capitalism.  On your knees before its greatness, don't dare look at it in the eyes, for the supply side jesus saves. 

 

Screeching libertarianism isn't representative of reality. 

 

 

a good number, if not most, libertarians would argue that this isn't actually capitalism (not in the sense of what they like anyhow).  the licensing and IP stuff is all via government control.  basically, since images aren't economically scarce no one can actually own them, so the nfl can't tell someone what to put or not put on a broadcast.

[Mike in Horseheads]

Must be like the BS the NFL pulls making non partners call the Super Bowl, "The Big Game"

[Motorin']

1 hour ago, Mango said:

 

Just to be clear, the base of my understanding of what is happening here is that if a network wants to show a Bills helmet next to a Jets helmet this week, it will cost them more than $4M. That seems wild. 

 

I really think this is the NFL trying to squeeze McAfee and not the PMS actually violating the terms of their licensing agreement. 

 

The guy has a $120M FanDuel contract. I bet a letter was out the door before his show even aired yesterday. 

 

No, they are over reacting, and it was kind of funny up to a point. 

 

They were told they can't use trademarked NFL logos, including team logos, in original graphic content they create for the show. 

 

That doesn't mean they have to remove the helmets from their desks. 

 

In film and TV clearance there's a standard of fair use where you can use a logo or trademark if the product is being used in the way it was intended, and you don't disparage the brand. 

 

Like in scenes in bars where people order a beer, you don't have to blur out the Budweiser or whatever, and when you see that that happen it's usually bc the brand didn't pay a product placement fee (or they have a deal with a different brand).

 

But you can't take branded logos and make original videos that you have monetized.

 

Pat generates his money from his views, and he can't use other people's branded logos to make content that is monetized. It's that simple. 

 

Having memorabilia on their desk isn't a violation since the memorabilia is being used in it's intended purpose. 

 

 

[Mango]

12 minutes ago, Motorin' said:

 

No, they are over reacting, and it was kind of funny up to a point. 

 

They were told they can't use trademarked NFL logos, including team logos, in original graphic content they create for the show. 

 

That doesn't mean they have to remove the helmets from their desks. 

 

In film and TV clearance there's a standard of fair use where you can use a logo or trademark if the product is being used in the way it was intended, and you don't disparage the brand. 

 

Like in scenes in bars where people order a beer, you don't have to blur out the Budweiser or whatever, and when you see that that happen it's usually bc the brand didn't pay a product placement fee (or they have a deal with a different brand).

 

But you can't take branded logos and make original videos that you have monetized.

 

Pat generates his money from his views, and he can't use other people's branded logos to make content that is monetized. It's that simple. 

 

Having memorabilia on their desk isn't a violation since the memorabilia is being used in it's intended purpose. 

 

 

 

I am not referring to their desks. I mean when they talk about when they talk about the Bills vs. Jets and both of their logos are put on screen. Or when Rodgers comes on on a Tuesday and the screen shows his name and a Packers helmet in the corner as a graphic. 

 

I am under the impression that NFL logos cannot be used in these instances on the PMS. 

 

Also, why after week 8 of this year? It doesn't make sense. 

Edited November 1, 2022 by Mango

[Motorin']

2 minutes ago, Mango said:

 

I am not referring to their desks. I mean when they talk about when they talk about the Bills vs. Jets and both of their logos are put on screen. Or when Rodgers comes on on a Tuesday and the screen shows his name and a Packers helmet in the corner as a graphic. 

 

I am under the impression that NFL logos cannot be used in these instances on the PMS. 

 

Exactly, but in the segment where they told the audience that they couldn't use logos in graphics they took every helmet, poster, trinket off their desks that included a team logo. It was kind of funny. 

 

And to the original point, the 4 million was for highlight footage. They didn't say how much it would cost for logo use. It might be way less than the cost of the highlights. But it wasn't included in the highlights fee.

Edited November 1, 2022 by Motorin'

[1ManRaid]

5 hours ago, MAJBobby said:

Pay the fee or don’t use NFL products. That simple. Stop crying about it Simp. 

 

I guess you've never heard about this little thing called Fair Use.  Literally thousands of content creators and news outlets legally use the NFL's content without issue, and the one they go after is the one paying them millions of dollars a year just to cover them.

[C.Biscuit97]

To be fair, I haven’t listen to him enough but I don’t really get the PM love. He seems like kinda of a spaz and he is still a punter. I think pardon my take is far better than him. 

[Motorin']

1 minute ago, 1ManRaid said:

 

I guess you've never heard about this little thing called Fair Use.  Literally thousands of content creators and news outlets legally use the NFL's content without issue, and the one they go after is the one paying them millions of dollars a year just to cover them.

 

The way McAfee was using trademarked logos to create original monetized content doesn't fall under Fair Use, and he's not a news organization. News channels have different rights under Fair Use than entertainment shows.

 

And you're right, the NFL could issue a cease and desist to any content creator using NFL logos. I received one of those letters from the Bills legal team that forced a now defunct Bills fan site to change its name and stop using the Bills logo a long time ago.