5 minutes ago, mattwill said:

With the exception of the ticket sales and jersey sales, what you have listed are all ancillary biproducts downstream from the entertainment on the field. The NFL dosn't get the revenue from food sales, and in many cases the stadiums are municipally owned. Bottom line the amount of money each year that is transferred from a person being entertained is just a small fraction of the NFL's annual revenues. The biggest fraction comes from elsewhere and those revenues arent transferred to the NFL for entertainment.

The example that you have provided regarding the Heidi Game is very illustrative. Do you know how much money the NFL lost when the entertainment it was providing got interrupted? The answer is $0. Which is clear evidence that entertainment isn't what the NFL is selling.

OK if you say so LOL. If there was no entertainment there would be no ancillary items. The stadiums are municipal to build venues for the entertainment much like movie theaters. I really don't know what your opinion is,but to the average fan it's ALL based on entertainment with others taking advantage of the market share of said entertainment. I'm done parsing words on this topic

9 minutes ago, mattwill said:

With the exception of the ticket sales and jersey sales, what you have listed are all ancillary biproducts downstream from the entertainment on the field. The NFL dosn't get the revenue from food sales, and in many cases the stadiums are municipally owned. Bottom line the amount of money each year that is transferred from a person being entertained is just a small fraction of the NFL's annual revenues. The biggest fraction comes from elsewhere and those revenues arent transferred to the NFL for entertainment.

The example that you have provided regarding the Heidi Game is very illustrative. Do you know how much money the NFL lost when the entertainment it was providing got interrupted? The answer is $0. Which is clear evidence that entertainment isn't what the NFL is selling.

The monetary value (or lack thereof) makes no difference at all. Entertainment CAN be free of charge. Doesn't change the fact it is entertainment. Just that the NFL exploited it for monetary gain OK I'm done with this

1 minute ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

OK if you say so LOL. If there was no entertainment there would be no ancillary items. The stadiums are municipal to build venues for the entertainment much like movie theaters. I really don't know what you opinion is,but to the average fan it's ALL based on entertainment with others taking advantage of the market share of said entertainment. I'm done parsing words on this topic

Agreed. The entertainment is like the automobile assembly factory. It is a complex tool that assembles the product. But no one pays the automobile companies for their factories. What they pay for is access to the end product produced by the factory. In the case of the NFL, the end product is the audience that the entertainment assembles. What the NFL is paid most of its revenues for is access to that audience.

2 minutes ago, mattwill said:

Agreed. The entertainment is like the automobile assembly factory. It is a complex tool that assembles the product. But no one pays the automobile companies for their factories. What they pay for is access to the end product produced by the factory. In the case of the NFL, the end product is the audience that the entertainment assembles. What the NFL is paid most of its revenues for is access to that audience.

You don't produce an audience, they come of their own free will and part with their money willingly. The audience assembles to witness the entertainment provided,they are nor produced JMO. The product the NFL provides is entertainment OK now I really AM done

3 minutes ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

The monetary value (or lack thereof) makes no difference at all. Entertainment CAN be free of charge. Doesn't change the fact it is entertainment. Just that the NFL exploited it for monetary gain OK I'm done with this

You are correcct and using my example above. The fact that the auto companies don't receive any money for their factories doesn't change the fact that they are factories. However, if the auto companies just built the factories, they would go bankrupt very quickly. They need a stream of money to be a viable business. As was said in Jerry Maguire, "Follow the money!" The money matters more than anything else.

Just now, GreenbleedinNC said:

You don't produce an audience, they come of their own free will and part with their money willingly. The audience assembles to witness the entertainment provided,they are nor produced JMO. OK now I really AM done

When you step back and look at all the money that members of the audience spend their money as a result of watching a game, what companies benefit from that spending?

The audience itself doesn't pay the NFL for access. Who pays the NFL?

1 minute ago, mattwill said:

You are correcct and using my example above. The fact that the auto companies don't receive any money for their factories doesn't change the fact that they are factories. However, if the auto companies just built the factories, they would go bankrupt very quickly. They need a stream of money to be a viable business. As was said in Jerry Maguire, "Follow the money!" The money matters more than anything else.

There was no money in the beginning(as you pointed out with the Heidi bowl). What they televised was entertainment which was later exploited for monetary gain. The initial NFL product was entertainment. The heidi bowl proved to them there was a market to exploit

Just now, mattwill said:

When you step back and look at all the money that members of the audience spend their money as a result of watching a game, what companies benefit from that spending?

The audience itself doesn't pay the NFL for access. Who pays the NFL?

Corporate greed

2 minutes ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

There was no money in the beginning(as you pointed out with the Heidi bowl). What they televised was entertainment which was later exploited for monetary gain. The initial NFL product was entertainment. The heidi bowl proved to them there was a market to exploit

BTW the players didn't make squat. If I recall it was $300.00 a game

Just now, GreenbleedinNC said:

There was no money in the beginning(as you pointed out with the Heidi bowl). What they televised was entertainment which was later exploited for monetary gain. The initial NFL product was entertainment. The heidi bowl proved to them there was a market to exploit

You are right, the initial NFL product up until just after World War II was entertainment, just as the Gladiator Contests in Rome were. However, in the 1950's the entertainment product, while still existing for the people who actually attended the game, was eclipsed by a different and eventually much much bigger product ... access to the audience the NFL was assembling. Where did the revenue from that audience access product come from?

Note: the NFL just got a huge amount of revenue from assembling an audience that didn't see the pre-1950's product.

2 minutes ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

BTW the players didn't make squat. If I recall it was $300.00 a game

That is correct. And it was because the NFL had very limited revenues, so it had to control costs.

Regarding the assembling of an audience, here's a little tidbit ...

The 2025 NFL Draft drew a larger TV audience than the 2024 NBA Finals. The first round of the NFL Draft averaged 13.6 million viewers. To compare, the 2024 NBA Finals reached a peak viewership of 12.2 million.

The NFL gets paid a lot of money for access to that audience it has assembled.

8 minutes ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

Corporate greed

What corporations?

Further, those corporations can only be greedy if they have some source of revenue to offset the money they are paying the NFL.

1 minute ago, mattwill said:

You are right, the initial NFL product up until just after World War II was entertainment, just as the Gladiator Contests in Rome were. However, in the 1950's the entertainment product, while still existing for the people who actually attended the game, was eclipsed by a different and eventually much much bigger product ... access to the audience the NFL was assembling. Where did the revenue from that audience access product come from?

Note: the NFL just got a huge amount of revenue from assembling an audience that didn't see the pre-1950's product.

You asked me what the product was, it was and still IS entertainment. It continues due to revenue from that entertainment. A few heidi bowl ads paid the players for that entertainment. The exploitation of same is another story,but is all the result of entertainment. At Woodstock musicians were paid a few hundred dollars to perform. There was no income from that. However the managers of those artists got cheap exposure so they could later charge hundreds of THOUSANDS later for the same performers at different venues. NFL was the same. Monetary exploitation of entertainers. I'm off this topic

11 minutes ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

There was no money in the beginning(as you pointed out with the Heidi bowl). What they televised was entertainment which was later exploited for monetary gain. The initial NFL product was entertainment. The heidi bowl proved to them there was a market product to exploit sell.

FYP

Just now, mattwill said:

FYP

The product provided was entertainment and still is

1 minute ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

You asked me what the product was, it was and still IS entertainment. It continues due to revenue from that entertainment. A few heidi bowl ads paid the players for that entertainment. The exploitation of same is another story,but is all the result of entertainment. At Woodstock musicians were paid a few hundred dollars to perform. There was no income from that. However the managers of those artists got cheap exposure so they could later charge hundreds of THOUSANDS later for the same performers at different venues. NFL was the same. Monetary exploitation of entertainers. I'm off this topic

The ads money didn't go to the NFL. Who paid the NFL?

Just now, GreenbleedinNC said:

The product provided was entertainment and still is

Who pays the NFL the money? Do they pay the NFL because they are entertained? Those corporations aren't even vaguely interested in being entertained.

Just now, mattwill said:

The ads money didn't go to the NFL. Who paid the NFL?

Who pays the NFL the money? Do they pay the NFL because they are entertained? Those corporations aren't even vaguely interested in being entertained.

Welcome to my ignore list

2 minutes ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

The product provided was entertainment and still is

For the people who buy a ticket to attend the game you are correct. But what proportion of the audience actually attends the games?

58 minutes ago, mattwill said:

With the exception of the ticket sales and jersey sales, what you have listed are all ancillary biproducts downstream from the entertainment on the field. The NFL dosn't get the revenue from food sales, and in many cases the stadiums are municipally owned. Bottom line the amount of money each year that is transferred from a person being entertained is just a small fraction of the NFL's annual revenues. The biggest fraction comes from elsewhere and those revenues arent transferred to the NFL for entertainment.

The example that you have provided regarding the Heidi Game is very illustrative. Do you know how much money the NFL lost when the entertainment it was providing got interrupted? The answer is $0. Which is clear evidence that entertainment isn't what the NFL is selling.

Matt... dial down the Wharton school and all the anal technicalities.

The NFL makes money because people are entertained by the game.

Are we really getting into those technicalities of ticket sales and everything else?

The NFL makes money because people find it entertaining... that's why Cornhole or ping pong doesn't make as much money.

You need to get technical to say football is the product? Really? Then why don't other football leagues make as much?

The whole idea is that we find the NFL entertaining otherwise why would we even be on this site?

25 minutes ago, mattwill said:

For the people who buy a ticket to attend the game you are correct. But what proportion of the audience actually attends the games?

So you aren't entertained ...only when you go in person? The people who watch the Superbowl...they aren't doing it to be entertained?

2 minutes ago, joemas6 said:

Matt... dial down the Wharton school and all the anal technicalities.

The NFL makes money because people are entertained by the game.

Are we really getting into those technicalities of ticket sales and everything else?

The NFL makes money because people find it entertaining... that's why Cornhole or ping pong doesn't make as much money.

You need to get technical to say football is the product? Really? Then why don't other football leagues make as much?

The whole idea is that we find the NFL entertaining otherwise why would we even be on this site?

All true, but how much revenue does the NFL get from our participation on this site? None.

Follow the money. The NFL gets most of its revenue from the networks. Do the networks care about the entertainment? No. They care about the size of the audience and the demographics of the audience. So they purchase the rights to access to that audience. Once they have acquired the audience rights, they then turn around and sell those rights to adverisers who want to let that audience know about their products/services.

The entertainment is the tool for assembling the audience.

29 minutes ago, mattwill said:

For the people who buy a ticket to attend the game you are correct. But what proportion of the audience actually attends the games?

There is a crappy game on TV on a Thursday or Monday night. You don't watch, instead you just check the score later. Why is that? Because you weren't entertained.

You own a bar... the bar gets crowded for games. Why is that? Perhaps because it's entertainment that people can have while they are at the bar?

How is sports not entertainment? I played basketball last night because it's fun and entertaining. If it wasn't Why would I play, I'd be doing something else. 🤔

5 minutes ago, joemas6 said:

So you aren't entertained ...only when you go in person? The people who watch the Superbowl...they aren't doing it to be entertained?

Sure they are entertained. But the people who watch the Super Bowl (not in the stadium) don't pay for that entertainment. Follow the money.

1 minute ago, joemas6 said:

There is a crappy game on TV on a Thursday or Monday night. You don't watch, instead you just check the score later. Why is that? Because you weren't entertained.

You own a bar... the bar gets crowded for games. Why is that? Perhaps because it's entertainment that people can have while they are at the bar?

How is sports not entertainment? I played basketball last night because it's fun and entertaining. If it wasn't Why would I play, I'd be doing something else. 🤔

Playing sports is entertainment. Watching sports inperson is entertainment. The NFL's revenues marginalized entertainment a long, long time ago,