by Jeremiah Tittle

This story can not be more disturbing, but it is a reality. The food served in stadiums is reliably toxic. As if paying the exorbitant costs for the tickets, the parking, and the concessions wasn’t bad enough. Insult has been added to injury with the e coli to prove it.

While Sports Fans Coalition continues to bring to light the overwhelming number of abuses sports franchise owners, leagues, and organizations wreak upon their fanbases, it’s often about money. SFC follows the money to discover that those in power all too often pull a bait-and-switch with our tax dollars to fatten their pockets, build luxurious new stadiums crying ‘victim’ all the way to the bank.

Last night at the book release party for BAD SPORTS: How Owners Are Ruining The Games We Love, the author SFC board member Dave Zirin mentioned that the inspiration for the book came from Washington Redskins owner Dan Snyder. Amongst the many abuses to DC sports fans, Snyder is guilty of being so money-hungry that his idea to begin selling beer INSIDE FedEx stadium restrooms is a clearly disgusting violation of health codes.

Kudos to our friends at Outside the Lines on ESPN for investing the time and energy to investigate this new abuse of sports fans. Sports fans deserve better.

Still feel like you owe your franchise owner something? Read the latest article from Dave Zirin at www.EdgeofSports.com.

Jeremiah Tittle is the Managing Editor of SportsFansCoalition.org. Reach him at Jeremiah@SportsFansCoalition.org.

By Scott Kornberg

Even with the country in its worst recession since the Great Depression, 18 NFL teams have increased ticket prices for the upcoming season. While USA Today proposes that the main motivation of ticket price increases is for teams to stay competitive, it shows that teams continue to overlook the needs of their blue-collar fans.  The economy may be slightly better than it was last year, but its still not enough for sports fans to rationalize spending such a large portion of their income on football tickets.

A perfect example of a team misunderstanding their blue-collar fans is the Minnesota Vikings. While they continue to sell the league’s cheapest nosebleeds at $15, the Vikings raised prices on 85% of their tickets, and are raising ticket prices for the second time in three seasons.

The Houston Texans and Pittsburgh Steelers are also raising prices heavily on tickets, with an average increase of 6.67% and 7%, respectively. Both teams, with rabid fan bases that routinely sell out games, are banking on the fact that fans will pony up extra money in the recession to watch football. Both teams do not understand that to raise prices in this unstable economic climate, they are pricing out some of their blue-collar fans.

The only way for teams in the NFL to stay competitive is to create as much revenue for themselves as they can. However, when teams attempt to increase revenue at the expense of fans, it shows that teams do not understand the economic issues that many of their fans face. As teams continue to raise prices every two to three years, they continue to price out more and more of their working class fans. As a non-profit entity with anti-trust exempt status, the NFL should own up to its responsibility to the public and provide affordable seats for their blue-collar, low-income tax-paying fans.

Scott Kornberg is a sportscaster for WMUC Sports (www.wmucsports.com). He hosts his own sports talk show, and announces baseball and softball games for the University of Maryland. He covers Maryland’s football and basketball writing for www.turtlesportsreport.com part of the scout.com network.

by Scott Weiss

Amidst all the hoopla surrounding the Giants moving into their new stadium and New York/New Jersey securing the 2014 Super Bowl are stories like this that the Giants don’t want you to hear.  Several months back, I had the opportunity to speak to a life long Giants season ticket holder who represented the many disgruntled diehards of Big Blue. 

Jim shared with me that his family has had 6 season tickets (originally purchased by his father) since 1956. He remembers going to see the Giants play the Jaycee Classic at Palmer Stadium in Princeton, New Jersey when he was 7 years old. In the old stadium, their 6 seats were on the 30 yard line, 16 rows up behind the Giants bench. In the year 2000, the seats cost $45 a piece, last year they cost $100 a piece, and hold on to your hat, in the new stadium the Giants are asking $700 a piece. Not only that, but they are also asking for $20,000 per seat for the seat license fee. Needless to say, Jim and his family have been forced to give up all 6 seats because of the exorbitant cost. Instead, the family has decided to go for 6 seats in the upper deck ($1000 seat license fee and $95 per ticket each). The family was required to put 20% down in August 2008, another 40% down in August 2009, and the remaining 40% balance in March 2010 toward the seat license fee. He said that the Giants were not even releasing the seat location until early in 2010. Jim said that he was unsure if the family would even accept the tickets at the end of the day. Meanwhile, the Giants got to hold onto to their money for a year and a half.

So, when Giants fans should be celebrating their team’s move to a new stadium, most are nursing their wounds from being fleeced by their greedy ownership.  Maybe I missed something, but when did attending a professional sporting event become the privilege of a select few?  It’s time for fans to gain some respect from the sports establishment, and SFC can take us there.

Scott Weiss is the Local Chapter Chair for SFC-New York/New Jersey.  He has been involved in the sports fans advocacy movement since 2000.  He is a life long fan of the Mets, Jets, Knicks, and Rangers.

Become a fan of SFC-NY-NY on Facebook.

Follow SFC-NY-NY on Twitter.

by Jeremiah Tittle

While PSL’s (personal seat licenses) in football are a big money maker and predictably frustrate fans to no end, MLB hasn’t caught on to this practice yet has implimented a mutation of the sports fan cash grab which has raised a few eyebrows since its announcement yesterday.

This hideous new policy infects how baseball fans purchase postseason tickets.  You’re now allowed to purchase “reservations” to buy tickets for your teams home games.  The problem is, the reservation is 1) non-refundable, even if your team misses the playoffs or doesn’t need to play that game 2) doesn’t count against the face value cost of the ticket and 3) Automatically charges you for the tickets that you’ve reserved, for that game if and when your team makes the playoffs.  (Plus there’s a service fee, for the reservation.)
 
Personally I find this practice galling, and can only imagine the slippery slope this leads us down (i.e. Cubs did a Pre-Sale this year where you could buy tickets for a 20% markup before they went on sale to the public). 

Read the full article here or continue reading below.  Then, feel free to take a shower to wash off the greed-laden slime encountered along the way. There’s nothing like quoting racists and post-season performers alike to inspire fans of losing clubs to pay just in case their teams punch their ticket to October baseball.

Much like the marketing philosophy behind PSL’s, MLB asked itself, ‘How do we get fans to pay, and then, pay again?  Furthermore, how do we get them to pay for absolutely nothing?’  Much like the house sets the rules in a casino, MLB is guaranteeing many sports fans will lose their shirts on this new policy while Selig & co. stuff their coffers. 

It would be funny if it wasn’t so hypocritical that gambling is the number one taboo with signs posted in every Major League locker room around the country. For sports fans who can’t resist this temptation, it’s time to double down. 

Jeremiah Tittle is the Managing Editor of SportsFansCoalition.org. Reach him at Jeremiah@SportsFansCoalition.org.

By Mark Newman / MLB.com
06/30/10 7:00 PM ET

Eight Major League Baseball clubs will celebrate hard-fought, much-deserved trips to the postseason this fall. Then amid all that civic pride, fans will compete with the masses as demand exceeds supply and tickets become hot commodities.

You probably know that feeling. This time there is a way to handle it proactively.

MLB.com is offering you the opportunity now to buy tickets at the face value price for your favorite team. Postseason Ticket Reservations is a new feature intended to broaden potential access to these valuable seats, ensuring you that if your team plays in a game you reserve, you get to buy a face-value ticket and go to the game.

Let’s take the defending National League champs as an example. If you purchase a National League Division Series Home Game 1 reservation for the Phillies and they qualify for the postseason, your selected game will occur and a reservation would allow you to purchase a ticket for the first home Division Series game at Citizens Bank Park (either Game 1 or Game 3 of the Division Series, depending on whether the Phillies have home field advantage in the series).

The cost for each transaction is $10 for the Division Series, $15 for the League Championship Series and $20 for the World Series. The maximum purchase for each game is two reservations per household per team per series. So it would cost $90 now if you wanted to reserve two tickets for one game of all three possible postseason rounds, for example.

Just select the team for which you would like to purchase a reservation. Then select the series and home game, and purchase the reservation. If your selected team plays in the postseason game for which you’ve purchased a reservation, you will be guaranteed the opportunity to buy tickets for that game at the face value price.

Think of it as investing in futures. Sure, there is some degree of chance involved. Competitive balance is great in 2010, and there will no doubt be frantic finishes throughout the standings. Your team might be one of the 22 that goes home after the final scheduled regular season games are played on that Sunday, Oct. 3. Then again, it might win a clincher.

“I never could stand losing,” Hall of Famer Ty Cobb once said. “Second place didn’t interest me. I had a fire in my belly.”

“What are we out at the park for, except to win?” asked Leo Durocher, who won two World Series as a player and another as a manager.

How optimistic are you?

Emotions will run high for playoff clubs. So will ticket costs. With Postseason Ticket Reservations, you can spend a little now to avoid the possibility of a large expenditure later. It is a new option for 2010, and available for all fans right now.

by Jeremiah Tittle

Success on the field of play so often leads to success in the owner’s box. It is not the rule however. Stu Sternberg, the principal owner of the Tampa Bay Rays will attest to that. Since the Rays can’t pack Tropicana Field with Dickie V’s fellow ‘Amazing Rays’ fans the year after the team’s appearance in the World Series, Sternberg has no qualms about dropping the “air of uncertainty…will continue to linger” line in a press conference (press release below) after meeting with St. Petersburg Mayor Bill Foster yesterday.

The first line of the release identifies Sternberg’s efforts to extort funding from St. Petersberg to stay afloat although its clear this is not enough. While our friends in Santa Clara have identified the downfalls of being chosen by a professional sports franchise as the ideal site for their new stadium, it is not so often the case that an owner comes out and says that the entire region – including residents who live outside of the stadium’s zip code – will need to fork over cash to keep them in town.

For SFC, we’ve been there, done that. These are clear threats to not only the local politicians, but all the Tampa Bay Rays fans who’ve supported the team through the lean years, the hotter-than-hot day games, and, yes, that even includes Dickie V whose tears would flow like a two-year-old’s if the team were to leave the region for more solid financial footing.

Jeremiah Tittle is the Managing Editor of SportsFansCoalition.org. Reach him at Jeremiah@SportsFansCoalition.org.

RAYS WANT TO EXPLORE ALL POTENTIAL NEW BALLPARK OPTIONS IN TAMPA BAY REGION

ST. PETERSBURG, FL—Following a meeting with St. Petersburg Mayor Bill Foster, Tampa Bay Rays principal owner Stuart Sternberg said the team wants to explore all potential new ballpark options within Tampa Bay, including those outside St. Petersburg and Pinellas County.

“The future of Major League Baseball in Tampa Bay depends on finding the optimal site for a new ballpark,” said Sternberg.  “It is my conviction that if baseball is to survive and flourish in Tampa Bay for the long-term, we must rise above municipal boundaries and work together with a common interest.”
Added Sternberg, “We will consider any potential ballpark site in Tampa Bay, but only as part of a process that considers every ballpark site in Tampa Bay.”
Sternberg said he believes baseball can succeed in Tampa Bay and that he is committed to doing all he can to keep the team in the region.

“When I assumed control of the Rays almost five years ago, it was commonly assumed that winning would change everything at Tropicana Field.  Everyone believed that with a winning team on the field, fans would fill the stands.  That has not been the case.”

Sternberg continued, “Our ability to compete and, quite frankly, to survive rests on our ability to attract people and businesses to our ballpark.  Our customers are our fans.  And like any other business, we need to be in a location that is convenient for our fans to reach us.”

In discussing the Rays future, Sternberg confirmed that he wants the team to remain in Tampa Bay but for that to happen a regional discussion needs to begin soon.

“Baseball in the Tampa Bay area does not belong to Stu Sternberg, just as it doesn’t belong to St. Petersburg or Tampa, Pinellas or Hillsborough.  It is a regional asset.  It belongs to our fans throughout the region.  For this asset to be preserved, a comprehensive process to explore a new ballpark must begin.  That process needs to consider all possible locations throughout Tampa Bay – meaning Tampa and Hillsborough as well.”

Sternberg said being able to explore all possible stadium options to keep the team in Tampa Bay was “the right thing for our fans and for all the residents of Tampa Bay.” 

Until that discussion began in earnest, he continued, the team cannot and will not make a decision on a future ballpark in Tampa Bay and the air of uncertainty over the future of Major League Baseball in the area will continue to linger.

“The Rays are a valued member of our regional community, and that’s exactly how we want things to remain,” Sternberg said.  “We appreciate all the support we have received from our loyal base of fans and supporters in both turning around this franchise and in trying to figure out how to keep it here in Tampa Bay.”

This is a very interesting video. 

Keep out of earshot of small children.

by Jeremiah Tittle

After a lot of grassroots organizing and countless hours trying to battle the miseducation campaigns waged by the San Francisco 49ers, Santa Clara Plays Fair came up short in trying to convince the people of Santa Clara – led like sheep to the slaughter at the polls earlier this month – that putting a new stadium in downtown Santa Clara would bankrupt the city or at least its taxpayers.

According to one of the organizers, the 49ers spent what one San Jose State poly sci professor called a ‘crushing’ amount of money. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom said it was the most spent per voter in the history of the U.S. – in excess of $300 - and that the 49ers blacklisted both he and Santa Clara residents from telling the other side of the story on local TV and radio airwaves leading up to the vote.

Now that the Santa Clara voters have approved measure J which would clear the way for Candlestick Park’s destruction with an eye toward downtown Santa Clara as the new site for a stadium, loads of articles have suddenly appeared in the media regarding the risks to Santa Clara – the risk of seat licenses and naming rights particularly.  SCPF has been trying to get that info into the news for an entire year but the media turned a blind eye. Now that the 49ers won, reporters are coming out of the woodwork to speculate on how risky the funding is for this project.

The day after the election, the San Jose Mercury News published a correct pie chart of the stadium construction costs that looks like the SCPF pie chart (numbers all come from the Term Sheet).  They should have been publishing that all along.

An additional hinderence is the lawsuit filed by Great America (Cedar Fair).  The city is trying to breach its contract with the company to lease the same piece of property to the 49ers.  The city doesn’t want to give them a rent reduction even though they must close on game days.  Maybe the good people of Santa Clara have an ally.  Or maybe there will be a settlement and the green ‘all systems go’ light will stay shining brightly.

Our friends at Santa Clara Plays Fair are  going to try to hold the city and the NFL team to its words, keeping the campaign promises in the final document. They made more promises than a politician the day before a primary – that conflict with the Term Sheet, mind you, which is non-binding.

Time will tell if these efforts to hold the city of Santa Clara, the city of San Francisco, the NFL, and the 49ers accountable. Rest assured, the good people at Santa Clara Plays Fair will continue to hold them accountable every step of the way, and Sports Fans Coalition supports their efforts 100% understanding that unchecked power will lead to abuse.

Jeremiah Tittle is the Managing Editor of SportsFansCoalition.org. Reach him at Jeremiah@SportsFansCoalition.org.

June 14, 2010

Federal Communications Commission

445 12th Street SW

Washington. DC 20554

RE: Petition for Rulemaking to Amend the Commission’s Rules Governing

Retransmission Consent, MB Docket No. 10-71

To the Commission:

The record in this proceeding reveals a battle between broadcast media conglomerates and the pay-TV companies that distribute their programming.  The Commission needs to protect a group of people who pay their bills and contribute to ratings but have become collateral damage in this corporate smack-down:  sports fans.

Sports fans have become pawns in retransmission consent disputes.  When a broadcaster wants to gain leverage in a retransmission consent negotiation, it threatens to take away games from sports fans.  At the beginning of 2010, sports fans across the country narrowly missed losing the Sugar Bowl, the Fiesta Bowl, the Orange Bowl, and the NFL playoffs before FOX finally agreed to come to terms with Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks.[1]  In 2004, fans were caught in the middle of a major clash between EchoStar and Viacom/CBS in which fans’ access to the Super Bowl and March Madness was at risk.[2]

The Commission should protect fans from media conglomerates’ brass-knuckled business tactics and prohibit broadcasters from blacking out sports during retransmission consent negotiations.

SPORTS FANS COALITION

Sports Fans Coalition, Inc. (“SFC”) is a non-profit advocacy organization established last year to give sports fans a voice in public policy debates impacting fans’ access to professional and collegiate sports.  We have local chapters in major markets around the U.S., including New York City/New Jersey; Philadelphia, PA; Portland, OR; and New Orleans, LA.  We have testified before legislatures at the state and federal levels and have appeared on sports talk radio stations in every region of the U.S., from Southern California to Southern Ohio, Wisconsin to Tennessee, Colorado to North Carolina.  SFC is a member-driven organization, with all control vested in a duly elected Board of Directors consisting of seasoned professionals from the sports, business, government, legal, and non-profit communities, including a noted sports writer, a former public-company CEO, and former officials of the Bush and Clinton White Houses.[3] 

A common thread throughout our public policy agenda is the bedrock principle that when fans pay a price for their games through public goods, like tax dollars used to build a stadium, or special exemptions from laws passed to facilitate the sport, the fans deserve a fair return on that investment.

FANS HAVE BECOME A POLITICAL FOOTBALL

When it comes to retransmission consent disputes, the fans who are vital to the success of the game and who have contributed to its success through multiple public and private expenditures are treated like a fumbled pigskin.

Without sports fans, there would be no sports media economy.  The fans buy the tickets, watch the games, pay for their sports tiers, purchase their sports packages, and wildly support their teams.  That support is reflected in the public goods granted by government to keep the games going.  Broadcasters, who receive their FCC licenses from the public at no cost, acquire television rights from professional sports leagues, who negotiate those rights under a special federal antitrust exemption enacted just for that purpose,[4] or collegiate leagues, who enjoy non-profit tax status and often federal and state subsidies.[5]  The televised games often are played in stadiums and arenas built with taxpayer dollars or regulatory waivers.[6]  In addition to the public goods spent on sports, the fans themselves pay for sports programming with the legitimate expectation that they will watch the games for which they pay. 

Despite fans’ public and private contributions to sports, however, they are rewarded with threats and gamesmanship during retransmission consent disputes.  The recurring threat of blackouts during these disputes causes significant uncertainty, frustration, anxiety, and confusion for sports fans.  Fans must scramble to make alternate plans when disputes threaten to disrupt or block access to major sporting events.  For example, as the FOX disputes went down to the wire heading into New Year’s Day this year, fans did not know whether to go ahead with viewing parties.

Compounding the threat to fans is the practice by media conglomerates of tying broadcast carriage rights with non-broadcast channels.  This means, for example, that not only are games carried on one of the “Big 4” broadcast networks at risk, but so are games on cable/satellite sports channels.

In the past, if a broadcaster blacked out its signal from a pay-TV provider, fans could use their over-the-air antennas to watch a game on a broadcast station.  Not so today.  The federal government just finished a major publicity campaign leading up to the digital transition in which it reassured fans and the rest of the public that by subscribing to cable or satellite, viewers could watch digital broadcasts.  Those public service announcements did not add, “…and be sure to keep a spare digital antenna in your closet in case your games are taken away during a contract dispute.”  Fans shouldn’t be forced to purchase additional equipment—like digital converter boxes or antennas—just to prepare for the possibility of a blackout.

And in the event a blackout actually occurs, unprepared fans (or fans in areas without access to over-the-air signals) may end up missing the sporting event entirely.  The game, once played, cannot be replayed; the excitement for fans of a live sports broadcast is lost forever.

Sports fans do not care who “wins” in these disputes or how they get resolved.  Fans simply want to avoid being held hostage as broadcasters battle over fees with pay-TV providers.

“NOTICE” IS FRENCH FOR “SOAK THE FANS”

Some commenters in this proceeding suggest that the viewing public will be protected if given advance notice that a network feed may be withdrawn because of a payment dispute.[7]  But such notice would not actually serve sports fans’ interests.  It doesn’t do any good to tell fans that a game scheduled to be aired a month later might be unavailable.  That message – that a broadcaster may deprive fans of a big game in the future – only makes the situation more confusing.   

Taking steps to install a digital antenna and converter box—even assuming a fan can get them to work and over-the-air signals are available—is a major hassle that most fans will not undertake merely because there is a possibility of a blackout down the road. 

The prospect of switching to another service provider is equally problematic.  Switching takes time and money and may force the sports fan to give up other service features that are desirable (such as other sports packages).  And there is no assurance that, upon switching, the new video distributor won’t be subject to the same blackout risks a short time later.  Switching back and forth among providers every time there’s a fee dispute with a broadcaster is obviously untenable.

In short, receiving notice of a pending dispute is not helpful absent certainty as to the outcome.  Even then, fans aren’t looking to jump through hoops to watch a game; they just want access over cable and satellite to the same sporting events that are shown over the air for free.

PROHIBIT BLACKOUTS OF SPORTING EVENTS

From the fans’ perspective, the best solution would be a rule that prohibits broadcasters from pulling their signals—and blocking access to sporting events—in the first place.  The FCC has a long history of laying down ground rules for what is and is not permissible behavior during a retransmission consent negotiation.  Cable providers, for example, may not take down broadcast signals during a Nielsen ratings “sweeps” period.  This rule is designed to protect ratings harm to broadcasters during a negotiation.[8]  Why not protect sports fans, too?

Broadcasters have an obligation to serve the public interest, and the FCC can enforce that obligation by preventing them from withdrawing, or threatening to withdraw, popular sports programming from the cable or satellite services at the expense of sports fans, who do not want to be dragged into these fights.

If a broadcaster is willing to broadcast a game over the air for free, there is no reason why it should block access for fans who pay for a cable or satellite subscription.  If sports fans can look forward to big games without the stress of wondering whether payment disputes will disrupt access, they will reward the television networks and distributors by being loyal viewers.

Sports fans across the United States ask that the Commission bring an end to the personal fouls imposed on fans during retransmission consent fights.  Let’s put the fans on a level playing field for once and keep the games on.

Sincerely,

Sports Fans Coalition

[2]   See Robert Manor, Viacom, EchoStar Settle Things, Chicago Tribune, Mar. 12, 2004, available at http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-03-12/business/0403120344_1_echostar-communications-corp-dish-network-chief-executive-charlie-ergen (reporting that “Viacom early in the talks threatened to withhold the Super Bowl” from EchoStar’s subscribers); R. Thomas Umstead, Kicking Dish in the Pants, Multichannel News, Mar. 14, 2004, available at http://www.multichannel.com/article/59130-Kicking_Dish_In_The_Pants.php (reporting that several members of Congress wrote letters to the parties expressing concern that their constituents would “lose access to CBS coverage of the National Collegiate Athletic Association men’s basketball tournament,” and that “March Madness is going to turn into March Anger” if Viacom pulled its CBS signals).

[3]  See www.sportsfanscoalition.org.  We also have a non-controlling Advisory Board comprised of non-profit, academic, and corporate advisors.

[4]  See 15 U.S.C.§ 1291, Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 (granting professional sports leagues an  antitrust exemption for the collective negotiation of over-the-air broadcast rights to FCC-licensed broadcasters).

[5]   National Collegiate Athletic Association, NCAA’s Tax-Exempt Status, http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/ public/NCAA/Key+Issues/Commercialism/NCAA+tax+exempt+status (“ The NCAA is a nonprofit, higher education association that is exempted from federal income tax by section 509(c)(3) of the federal tax code.”).

[6]   See Tom Ferrey, South Bronx Neighborhood Taking Hit from New Stadium, ESPN The Magazine, Sep. 19, 2008, available at http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3598021 (reporting that “with the state chipping in for garages and the federal government allowing the aggressive use of tax-free construction bonds, the total public subsidy has grown to $656 million” for the new Yankees Stadium); Patrick McGreevy, Environmental Exemptions OKd for Football Stadium in City of Industry, L.A. Times, Oct. 15, 2009, available at http://articles.latimes.com/ 2009/oct/15/local/me-stadium15 (reporting that “the California Senate approved a measure . . . that exempts the [L.A. football stadium development] project from state environmental laws”).

[7]   See, e.g., LIN Comments at 14; NAB Comments at 62.

[8]   47 C.F.R. § 76.1601; Implementation of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992; Broadcast Signal Carriage Issues, Report and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 2965 ¶¶ 108-09 (1993) (implementing the “sweeps” rule).

by Scott Weiss

Can anything be more of a slap in the face to sports fans than a seat license fee?  To me, this is the ultimate in disrespect shown to fans.  Thousands of dollars for the privilege to sit in an incredibly over priced seat to your favorite NFL team’s games.  Well, somehow, the NFL has concluded that this practice is totally acceptable.  Even worse, football fans have gone along with it.   

The seat license travesty is presently playing out for fans of the Jets and 49er’s.  The overly generous billionaire owner of the Jets, Woody Johnson, has decided to cut seat license fees for the remaining 18,000 unsold seats by up to 50%.  Depending on the section, PSL’s will go from $5,000 to $2,500, $4,000 to $2,500, and $15,000 to $10,000.  The goal is to sell all of the remaining 18,000 seats before the start of the regular season.  The Jets also reminded everyone that if the seat licenses are not sold, that individual game tickets for these seats will not be sold, and that the games would be subject to local blackouts.  My blood is boiling just thinking about this nonsense as I write this article.

The latest entry into the seat license arena is the 49er’s, who just received voter approval for a new stadium in Santa Clara.  An internet article on FanHouse reported that, “Under the terms of the deal, Santa Clara will contribute $114 million of taxpayer money to help fund the proposed $937 million stadium, a package that will include $42 million in redevelopment funds and a hotel guest tax. A Santa Clara stadium authority is expected to contribute as much as $330 million by adding a ticket surcharge and selling bonds, naming rights, vendor rights and seat licenses. The 49ers say they will fund the remaining $500 million for the project, and have promised Santa Clara residents through a fiercely negotiated “term sheet” that the franchise will be responsible for any construction cost overruns and revenue shortfalls if and when the stadium is built and opens for business.” 

How in the world can voters (sports fans) approve a new stadium when part of the deal is that they will get slammed with ticket surcharges and seat license fees?  Am I missing something, or is this total craziness? How many reasons do we need for a powerful, organized voice of sports fans?  The time for SFC to burst on the scene to level the playing field for fans has never been better.

Scott Weiss is the Local Chapter Chair for SFC-New York/New Jersey.  He has been involved in the sports fans advocacy movement since 2000.  He is a life long fan of the Mets, Jets, Knicks, and Rangers.

Become a fan of SFC-NY-NY on Facebook.

Follow SFC-NY-NY on Twitter.

by Sarah Moon

On Friday, the Oregon State Board of Education on Friday approved Nike and University of Oregon’s proposal to build a huge 80,000-square foot complex for the football team. Because the project will be built under the auspices of a private corporation, the Nike subsidiary of the UO foundation, Phit LLC, the project will not be subject to the state’s “Sunshine Laws” regulating public disclosure of costs and contracts nor will it be put out to competitive bidding, as is normally required for facilities built on public lands. However, tax payers remain responsible for maintenance and staffing of the new football facility, the costs of which could be enormous.

Approval was rushed through the State Board, with only six of the 12-member board voting on the project. UO president Richard Lariviere warned the board that unless the project received approval including all of Knight’s terms and conditions requiring no-bid contracts and zero public disclosure on Friday (after only discussing it for the first time that day), the project would be off the table and future donations to the college were at risk, “If we don’t accept this gift, what will be the negative consequences for the university’s education and research mission? Probably not much — immediately, in the short-term. But they could be really, really profound over the longer term. Really profound.”   

This is not the first project at the University of Oregon that Phil Knight and Nike have insisted be built with no public oversight or disclosure. At least two other project at the school have been financed and built in this way, under the direction and funding of Phit with UO and the State of Oregon being responsible for maintenance and staffing of the new facilities. The relationship between Knight and the University of Oregon is unprecedented for public colleges and universities—even projects funded with T. Boone Pickens’ $300 million in contributions to Oklahoma State University were conducted under that state’s guidelines for contracting and open records laws. In Oregon, however, we simply have no idea what the long-term costs of Knight’s generosity are to the state, because of the Nike founder’s insistence on secrecy.

While Knight has certainly ensured his legacy to University of Oregon, we Oregonians must ask what Knight’s legacy will cost us.

Sarah Moon is SFC-Portland’s Local Chapter Chair

Visit the SFC Portland page here.

Become a fan of SFC-Portland on Facebook.

Follow the Local Chapter on Twitter.