NFL = No Fun League

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

This is pathetic...

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/football/nfl/specials/playoffs/2006/02/01/bc.fbn.superbowl.church.ap/index.html?cnn=yes

[boutons_]

A church's role is to show alcohol-free pro games?

Can't people get together in their own homes to have crowd to watch a game?

What about parents drinking in their homes watching the game with their kids present?

[T Park]

NFL could'e handled it alot Better.

Could've offered to let em do it if they said "Big Game Party" and what not.

[NorCal510]

what the fuck that is gay

[E20]

NFL you guys are fucking greedy ass cheapskate bitches. GTFO.

[rr2418]

What are they (the NFL) going to do, go to the church and see if they are going to show it? I think they should just take that sign down and show it anyway, because I think the NFL is going to be worrying about more important things like the game itself!

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

While I agree with the general sentiment, there is that whole "charging a fee to attend" to answer to.

And to answer the comeback, you charge for the beer and food, not showing the game.

[Extra Stout]

A church's role is to show alcohol-free pro games?

Can't people get together in their own homes to have crowd to watch a game?

What about parents drinking in their homes watching the game with their kids present?
boutons, I know you hate Christians and all, and are eager to support anybody opposing them on anything, but this is a really bad marketing decision by the NFL.

You would think somebody at the NFL would be thrilled that their league and the Super Bowl had gotten so ingrained into the culture of a bunch of evangelical Christians that they wanted to have a party at their church to watch it.

There are churches out there that have had Monday night devotionals/watching parties.

It was a whole little NFL subculture in the evangelical church being set up. HUGE marketing opportunity.

But now, to increase Nielsen ratings in the short term, they're going to blow that all up. They are lawyering up against their fans instead of finding a way to partner with them. Those Christians are going to find something else to do when they meet besides watch the NFL.

This is typical bad American-style management --> completely miss or torpedo long-term growth opportunities in order to improve results in the short term. They take their customers for granted, and then start alienating them.

Did the new commissioner use to work for GM?

[Extra Stout]

In short, this is an example of killing the golden goose. I wonder if it's a coincidence this only is brought up as an issue now that Tags has retired? Perhaps this new guy is not up to the task?

[cornbread]

A church's role is to show alcohol-free pro games?

Can't people get together in their own homes to have crowd to watch a game?

What about parents drinking in their homes watching the game with their kids present?

You seem to have totally missed the point. It's about community.

[Spurminator]

The NFL is lucky that this happened too late for the boycott machine to get rolling. If this happened a month ago, you can bet they'd have seen a Super Bowl ratings dip.

[Extra Stout]

The NFL is lucky that this happened too late for the boycott machine to get rolling. If this happened a month ago, you can bet they'd have seen a Super Bowl ratings dip.
I'll be curious to see whether there is an effect anyway. I know I won't be watching now.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

"It just frustrates me that most of the places where crowds are going to gather to watch this game are going to be places that are filled with alcohol and other things that are inappropriate for children," Newland said. "We tried to provide an alternative to that and were shut down."

Right. And you were going to do that by charging members of your congregation to come? And that makes sense? Sounds like he's talking out of both sides of his mouth.

I see nothing wrong with what the NFL did.

[Spurminator]

It's one thing to object to charging admission. It's another thing altogether to ban free indoor public viewings based on an arbitrary maximum screen size.

[j-6]

"It just frustrates me that most of the places where crowds are going to gather to watch this game are going to be places that are filled with alcohol and other things that are inappropriate for children," Newland said. "We tried to provide an alternative to that and were shut down."

Right. And you were going to do that by charging members of your congregation to come? And that makes sense? Sounds like he's talking out of both sides of his mouth.

I see nothing wrong with what the NFL did.

Me neither. They got in trouble for being a Baptist uberchurch that was advertising - and charging for - an alcohol free party using the term 'Super Bowl'. If it was just for the parishoners, free, and the only mention was a small blurb in the church bulletin, we wouldn't be hearing about this. Fall Creek's own legal team told them not to throw the party after the NFL got wind of it.

[BeerIsGood!]

"But the NFL objected to the church's plans to use a projector to show the game, saying the law limits it to one TV no bigger than 55 inches."

I have an HD projector that displays the game at 125 inches. Am I breaking an NFL law? I love being such an outlaw :dramaquee

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

I love finding quotes:


"Between 40 and 50 percent of our church on any given Sunday is under the age of 18," Newland told BP. "Our kids don't have anyplace to go watch it in a party-type atmosphere, unless it's a very small party. We wanted to provide a place for our kids and our teenagers to watch the game.

He was doing it for the kids...and charging them for it. :lol

[BeerIsGood!]

I love finding quotes:



He was doing it for the kids...and charging them for it. :lol

Even God needs money to showcase a football game to a large number of people. I thought someone as intelligent as you would have known that... :lol



Damn that devil's brew and the millions of people who use it responsibly.

[Spurminator]

http://www.fallcreekbaptist.com/facilities.asp

Judging by the size of their building as shown on their website, I would guess that this church has no more than a thousand members. I grew up in a congregation that size, and we would usually have about 50-75 people show up for an event like this.

It's unbelieveably stupid from a business and logic standpoint for the NFL to make a big deal of this. This could be a huge PR blunder for them.

[Extra Stout]

I love finding quotes:



He was doing it for the kids...and charging them for it. :lol
The church asked attendees to donate money to pay for snacks.

This was not exactly a fund-raising business venture.

[Extra Stout]

http://www.fallcreekbaptist.com/facilities.asp

Judging by the size of their building as shown on their website, I would guess that this church has no more than a thousand members. I grew up in a congregation that size, and we would usually have about 50-75 people show up for an event like this.

It's unbelieveably stupid from a business and logic standpoint for the NFL to make a big deal of this. This could be a huge PR blunder for them.
Wow -- I had assumed this was a pretty large megachurch.

This is a medium-sized neighborhood church.

Wow.

This is going to end badly for the NFL once the news cycle comes around. More than a few team owners are going to flip out.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

I would think a potluck SB party would have been a better idea for a church group instead of charging admission to pay for food. And "charging admission" hardly sounds like donating money.

Whoever was running the party planning clearly didn't know what they were doing. At all.

[Spurminator]

From the sound of it, "charging admission" was the NFL's interpretation, not the church's wording.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

Possibly, but why should they handle this differently than say if NAMBLA did the same thing? They do it for the kids, too...

[SequSpur]

I agree with the NFL.

[Extra Stout]

I would think a potluck SB party would have been a better idea for a church group instead of charging admission to pay for food. And "charging admission" hardly sounds like donating money.

Whoever was running the party planning clearly didn't know what they were doing. At all.
The NFL chose to interpret soliciting donations as "charging admission." But that's a red herring. The church agreed not to accept any money, but the NFL put the kibosh on it anyway because officially, by broadcast copyright law, they can sue anybody who allows a public viewing of their telecast on a television screen larger than 55".

And while I understand that Christians are horrible bloodsucking idiots who are ruining America, and therefore the NFL must be in the right, that same copyright law also applies to the guy with a 61" HDTV set who invites a couple dozen friends over to watch the game.

And God help you if you ask them to help pay for the beer.

[Extra Stout]

Possibly, but why should they handle this differently than say if NAMBLA did the same thing? They do it for the kids, too...
Christians = NAMBLA?

You're definitely not a bigot.

[Extra Stout]

Oh, and even if your TV isn't 55" or larger, if you have a Dolby surround system with more than 6 speakers, that is against the law too.

The NFL, if it so chooses, has every right to shut down Super Bowl parties in any of this venues. They may take the copyright degradation very seriously.

But this is going to be an absolute PR nightmare for them.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

Christians = NAMBLA?

You're definitely not a bigot.

So, you think the NFL should decipher between the two? What about LAGA? Veterans Against the Iraq War(VAIW)?

It's not the NFL's job.

It's much easier for them to enforce their own licenses, laws, etc. across the board, equally. They don't want to start granting exceptions for fear of future run-ins/lawsuits. Remember, the church is completely in the wrong here, not the NFL.

BTW, you made my point. The only reason you think people should care is because of the word "church". Substitute any other organization that you don't agree with or are affiliated with and you would probably side with the NFL.

Atheists Unite!

[Extra Stout]

So, you think the NFL should decipher between the two? What about LAGA? Veterans Against the Iraq War(VAIW)?

It's not the NFL's job.

It's much easier for them to enforce their own licenses, laws, etc. across the board, equally. They don't want to start granting exceptions for fear of future run-ins/lawsuits. Remember, the church is completely in the wrong here, not the NFL.

BTW, you made my point. The only reason you think people should care is because of the word "church". Substitute any other organization that you don't agree with or are affiliated with and you would probably side with the NFL.

Atheists Unite!
Wait... what exactly would be the problem if any of those groups threw a party? I can understand the concern about unlicensed and uncontrolled use of the logo and wordmark, but why should the NFL care if a couple of hundred homosexuals circulate a newsletter saying they're going to watch the game in a conference room on a projection screen with snacks? Why shouldn't they be able to?

I want to make sure I'm not arguing against some strawman there.

Of course, according to copyright law, the NFL has the right to regulate where people can watch the game, and on what kind of A/V equipment. Technically they can tell a church or any other group that they can't partake of their product. That is the law. However, if they enforced their rights strictly, it would piss off their fan base to the point where it does severe damage to their business.

So, as a legal team, it is important to pick their battles, and balance the protection of their intellectual property against their public image and their relationship with their customers.

It is extremely common for churches to have Super Bowl parties. Tens of thousands do. Each one probably hosts a couple of hundred or more. You're talking several million people who watch the Super Bowl that way. And now the NFL is telling them to go screw themselves.

Do you think those people are going to say, "Gee, sorry, guess I'll just watch at home?" Or do you think a significant number are going to get irritated and just not watch the game? Do you think advertisers will be thrilled to hear that several million fewer people --whether Nielsen-recorded or not-- will be watching their commercials?

And what do you think it is going to help the NFL to be perceived as anti-Christian? Do you think people are going to care about arguments about the fine points of law on this? Probably 35% of the country is evangelical Christian. Are those 105 million or so people going to be more or less likely to attend NFL games, watch them on TV, or buy NFL merchandise when they read in the newspaper that the NFL is attacking some neighborhood church over a Super Bowl party?

Is the marginal intellectual property protection really worth the damage this is going to do to public relations? This isn't about right and wrong, this is about good business, and it strikes me as jaw-droppingly stupid to alienate such a wide swath of their fan base.

[BeerIsGood!]

Wait... what exactly would be the problem if any of those groups threw a party? I can understand the concern about unlicensed and uncontrolled use of the logo and wordmark, but why should the NFL care if a couple of hundred homosexuals circulate a newsletter saying they're going to watch the game in a conference room on a projection screen with snacks? Why shouldn't they be able to?

I want to make sure I'm not arguing against some strawman there.

Of course, according to copyright law, the NFL has the right to regulate where people can watch the game, and on what kind of A/V equipment. Technically they can tell a church or any other group that they can't partake of their product. That is the law. However, if they enforced their rights strictly, it would piss off their fan base to the point where it does severe damage to their business.

So, as a legal team, it is important to pick their battles, and balance the protection of their intellectual property against their public image and their relationship with their customers.

It is extremely common for churches to have Super Bowl parties. Tens of thousands do. Each one probably hosts a couple of hundred or more. You're talking several million people who watch the Super Bowl that way. And now the NFL is telling them to go screw themselves.

Do you think those people are going to say, "Gee, sorry, guess I'll just watch at home?" Or do you think a significant number are going to get irritated and just not watch the game? Do you think advertisers will be thrilled to hear that several million fewer people --whether Nielsen-recorded or not-- will be watching their commercials?

And what do you think it is going to help the NFL to be perceived as anti-Christian? Do you think people are going to care about arguments about the fine points of law on this? Probably 35% of the country is evangelical Christian. Are those 105 million or so people going to be more or less likely to attend NFL games, watch them on TV, or buy NFL merchandise when they read in the newspaper that the NFL is attacking some neighborhood church over a Super Bowl party?

Is the marginal intellectual property protection really worth the damage this is going to do to public relations? This isn't about right and wrong, this is about good business, and it strikes me as jaw-droppingly stupid to alienate such a wide swath of their fan base.

I see your point and agree that the NFL is picking a bad battle here, but IMO there is no way there will be any kind of backlash against the NFL for this. If there is any, it won't be a 10th of the magnitude of what you're describing. The NFL isn't coming across as anti-religion, and the NFL really doesn't care if a few people get upset. They are the only game in town and people are hooked from birth. They won't feel an impact and they know it.

[Extra Stout]

I see your point and agree that the NFL is picking a bad battle here, but IMO there is no way there will be any kind of backlash against the NFL for this. If there is any, it won't be a 10th of the magnitude of what you're describing. The NFL isn't coming across as anti-religion, and the NFL really doesn't care if a few people get upset. They are the only game in town and people are hooked from birth. They won't feel an impact and they know it.
If this event were an isolated incident that did not recur, then the impact would be minimal. If this is going to be a pattern, I would expect the impact to be similar to what happened to the RIAA.

[Extra Stout]

I see your point and agree that the NFL is picking a bad battle here, but IMO there is no way there will be any kind of backlash against the NFL for this. If there is any, it won't be a 10th of the magnitude of what you're describing. The NFL isn't coming across as anti-religion, and the NFL really doesn't care if a few people get upset. They are the only game in town and people are hooked from birth. They won't feel an impact and they know it.
Oh, and if you were right, there would be no reason for the NFL to have a public relations department. The reasons these things don't spiral out of control is because they do damage control.

The NFL didn't get where it is by assuming they were entitled to customers, and they won't stay where they are if they are so arrogant as to assume people will buy their product regardless of what they do. That kind of arrogance has led to the downfall of many a company (ask GM).

[BeerIsGood!]

Oh, and if you were right, there would be no reason for the NFL to have a public relations department. The reasons these things don't spiral out of control is because they do damage control.

The NFL didn't get where it is by assuming they were entitled to customers, and they won't stay where they are if they are so arrogant as to assume people will buy their product regardless of what they do. That kind of arrogance has led to the downfall of many a company (ask GM).

They definitely need a PR department to handle major issues, but I do not think this qualifies. They can't go around insulting Jesus or anything like that, but small issues seem to bounce off them and leave them unscathed. They pretty much avoided the steroids issue that slammed baseball even with the whole Panthers issue.

[Extra Stout]

You know, I think the NFL might actually be wrong on this one.

Their case stands upon a church being considered an "establishment."

Establishment is defined as,


a store, shop, or any similar place of business open to the general public for the primary purpose of selling goods or services in which the majority of the gross square feet of space that is nonresidential is used for that purpose, and in which nondramatic musical works are performed publicly. in U.S. Code Title 17, Sec. 101.

An establishment is limited to the 55" rule. (U.S.C. 17 Sec. 110 (5)(B) i.)

Is a church a store, shop, or place of business open for the primary purpose of selling goods or services, or is it a nonprofit place of worship?

If a church is not an establishment, then it has a copyright exemption for:
communication of a transmission embodying a performance or display of a work by the public reception of the transmission on a single receiving apparatus of a kind commonly used in private homes, unless —

(i) a direct charge is made to see or hear the transmission; or

(ii) the transmission thus received is further transmitted to the public.(U.S.C. 17 Sec. 110 (5)(A))

Showing the program on TV is defined as a "communication of a transmission embodying a performance of a work." Having the TV on in a venue open to the public is a "public reception of the transmission."

The only question left would be whether a projector is "a single receiving apparatus of a kind commonly used in private homes." Well, you can buy them at Best Buy. They are called "home theater projectors." That would imply their common use is in private homes.

Then, the only remaining requirements on the church would be:
1) Not to charge to see the transmission (asking for donation for snacks would be OK), and
2) Not further transmitting the broadcast to the public, i.e. via closed-circuit TV, or loudspeakers external to the building, or some other means.

If I am correct, the NFL will be firing several attorneys next week.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I'm just curious if they're going to go sue Best Buy and Circuit City, who all plan to have it on in their stores on all their TVs (some of which happen to be > 55 inches)...

[Extra Stout]

I'm just curious if they're going to go sue Best Buy and Circuit City, who all plan to have it on in their stores on all their TVs (some of which happen to be > 55 inches)...
According to the law, yes that would be copyright infringement.

Where the NFL can really get in PR trouble is if, now that they have gone after the churches, they go lax for businesses.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

Wait... what exactly would be the problem if any of those groups threw a party? I can understand the concern about unlicensed and uncontrolled use of the logo and wordmark, but why should the NFL care if a couple of hundred homosexuals circulate a newsletter saying they're going to watch the game in a conference room on a projection screen with snacks? Why shouldn't they be able to?

I want to make sure I'm not arguing against some strawman there.

Of course, according to copyright law, the NFL has the right to regulate where people can watch the game, and on what kind of A/V equipment. Technically they can tell a church or any other group that they can't partake of their product. That is the law. However, if they enforced their rights strictly, it would piss off their fan base to the point where it does severe damage to their business.

So, as a legal team, it is important to pick their battles, and balance the protection of their intellectual property against their public image and their relationship with their customers.

It is extremely common for churches to have Super Bowl parties. Tens of thousands do. Each one probably hosts a couple of hundred or more. You're talking several million people who watch the Super Bowl that way. And now the NFL is telling them to go screw themselves.

Do you think those people are going to say, "Gee, sorry, guess I'll just watch at home?" Or do you think a significant number are going to get irritated and just not watch the game? Do you think advertisers will be thrilled to hear that several million fewer people --whether Nielsen-recorded or not-- will be watching their commercials?

And what do you think it is going to help the NFL to be perceived as anti-Christian? Do you think people are going to care about arguments about the fine points of law on this? Probably 35% of the country is evangelical Christian. Are those 105 million or so people going to be more or less likely to attend NFL games, watch them on TV, or buy NFL merchandise when they read in the newspaper that the NFL is attacking some neighborhood church over a Super Bowl party?

Is the marginal intellectual property protection really worth the damage this is going to do to public relations? This isn't about right and wrong, this is about good business, and it strikes me as jaw-droppingly stupid to alienate such a wide swath of their fan base.

Bear with, I've had a few drinks stasera...

I don't think the NFL cares if gays, Christians, Muslims, etc. get together and have a party in the name of the Super Bowl. What they don't want is these groups using the licensed name of their cash cow to promote said get together on their web sites, the most important criteria IMO, and then asking for donations/charging admission. I think this has more to do with the quickness and 24 hour availability of information rather than the NFL vS. small church group or LAGA, etc.

I have no doubt that if this church promoted their party on a leaflet rather than the intraweb, this wouldn't even be a story and this party would have gone on as planned.

And the talk of several million people boycotting the SB because of this is laughable. Seriously, did you say million? Honestly, they'd be lucky to have a several thousand. Unless, of course, some high-ranking religious leader told them that the NFL is the debil, then, and only then, would you see those type numbers.

I mean, I've heard a lot of vociferous people in this thread and not one is planning on not watching the SB because of this.

[BIG IRISH]

I'll be curious to see whether there is an effect anyway. I know I won't be watching now.

I wasn't planning on watching it in the first place, and this just convinced me
that I was making the correct decision. NFL is about as exciting a MLS.

[MannyIsGod]

Meh, who cares.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

Some churches ignoring NFL warning

Web Posted: 02/03/2007 01:17 AM CST

Abe Levy
Express-News

At least two San Antonio churches plan to ignore an NFL warning that showing the Super Bowl to large audiences on big screens would violate federal copyright laws.

Another church, which worships in a former cinema with a 19-by-10 foot screen, feels caught in an ethical dilemma and hasn't decided what it will do Sunday.

"It's kind of ridiculous," said Associate Pastor George Fike of Bandera Road Community Church, which plans to defy the NFL. "But in the litigious society we live in, it doesn't surprise me. It really disappoints me."

The churches learned this week that the NFL bans any "mass out-of-home viewings" on screens 55 inches wide or larger of the Super Bowl, except for sports bars, considering it a copyright violation.

Now several churches and one movie theater in San Antonio are scrambling to adjust their plans or risk a possible lawsuit if the NFL wants to press its point.

For years, some churches, recognizing the widespread appeal of the game, have held Super Bowl watch parties to replace Sunday night services while creating a family-friendly environment for members and their friends.

The league did little to spread the word to congregations about the likely copyright infringement until it noticed that an Indiana church had planned a "Super Bowl Bash."

After a letter arrived from the NFL, Fall Creek Baptist in Indianapolis canceled the event. As word spread, churches nationwide are up in arms. Some scrapped Super Bowl plans altogether, acting with an abundance of caution because of the ethical standard they're judged by as houses of worship.

But what infuriates many is that the league exempts bars and related business that regularly show sporting events on TV.

Since most Super Bowl viewers are going to watch the game at home or with friends anyway, why ban a church that offers a more preferable atmosphere to the bar scene?

"I just don't feel it's right," said Steve Perumalla, a staff pastor for World Center, which put its Super Bowl plans on hold. "If you're going to allow Buffalo Wild Wings, why don't you allow us to do it?"

The league defended its stance as necessary to protect its product.

"We have contracts with our (TV) networks to provide free over-the-air television for people at home," NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said in an Associated Press report. "The network economics are based on television ratings and at-home viewing. Out-of-home viewing is not measured by Nielsen."

The NFL letter to Fall Creek Baptist cited the church's plans to charge admission and use "Super Bowl," which is protected by license.

After the church vowed to make the event free and not to use the words, the NFL still said the church was in violation because it planned to show it on a large screen.

Santikos Palladium, a new cineplex at The Rim shopping center in north San Antonio, also had to scale back its plans to show the game.

Instead of megascreen viewing in a large auditorium, the game will be shown on six 37-inch plasma TVs and two 50-plus inch screens.

The movie theater had partnered with AT&T to put on the event, called "The Big Game on the Big Screen," said Richard Cieplechowicz, Santikos' director of operations.

But AT&T set it straight.

"Our goal was to show it in the auditoriums, but AT&T said no," said Cieplechowicz. "They're tied in with the NFL and know what we can and can't do."

Radio spots were changed to remove the promise of a movie-size screen.

And the $25 tickets now are free.

For World Center Church, a roughly 100-member congregation that meets at the former Ingram Square 8 cineplex, the news has jeopardized its plans.

More than 100 e-mailed invitations went out in December for its Super Bowl watching event. The church bought the former cinema on the city's Northwest Side with the idea in part of showing sporting events on TV for the public.

Already, it has shown Spurs games and the Alamo Bowl and has plans to show the NCAA men's basketball tournament among other major events.

"If it's illegal, we're not going to do it," said Steve Perumalla, an associate pastor. "But if there's some way around it, we want to do that."

At Bandera Road Community Church, the show will go on.

Via cable feed, the church will project the game onto two large screens in an area called "the hub." Church youth already use this area for its large-screen video games and a mechanical bull. The church said it has shown college football games there too.

For Wayside Chapel Evangelical Free Church, it has concluded its obligations were met by discussing the matter with Time Warner Cable.

Church officials said a staff pastor informed Time Warner Cable of their plans to show the game in a fellowship hall on a megascreen. The cable provider had no objections, church administrator Don Vinez said.

Time Warner extended a cable line from a church-owned house on its campus to the hall.

"We're paying them, and they pay the NFL," Vinez said. "They know what we are using it for, and we pay the usual monthly service fee. We would not be a very good witness otherwise."

An official with Time Warner said the cable company equipped the church with cable service, but it is up to the church to gain permission from the NFL.

"They are going to have to determine from the NFL whether they have that right to do so," said Jon Gary Herrera, vice president of public and government affairs for Time Warner Cable San Antonio.

Vinez said the NFL is "making a lot out of nothing. We believe we have protected the issue."

[email protected]

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA020307.01A.superbowl.1bb3bd6.html

[Clandestino]

bars pay a lot higher fees than homes do...

these churches defying the laws seem contradictory to what God teaches. hypocrytes. we know it is wrong, but we don't care.

[Guru of Nothing]

I see a business opportunity - to manufacture and sell oversized 55" measuring sticks.

Seriously, don't blame the NFL, blame their "official" sponsors. They are the ones driving this, ain't no two ways about it. It's genius on their part that they remain anonymous while the league gets the black eye.

[Guru of Nothing]

^^^^

I would call them Sponser Bowl Sticks.

[AlamoSpursFan]

I was gonna drink a bunch of beer and get good and hammered while watching the game.

But now that I think about it, I'm gonna go watch it at a church instead.

:lol

[Bump_]

bump