- 23,873
- 11,325
The Phillies game isn't on local TV today, it's only on MLB tv. That's just not right. Americans should not have to live this way.
The discussion centers around the issue of local blackouts for sports broadcasts, specifically regarding the Phillies game not being available on local TV and only airing on MLB TV. Participants express their frustrations and opinions on the implications of such blackouts, touching on themes of capitalism, revenue generation, and the experience of attending games versus watching them on television.
Participants do not reach a consensus on the implications of blackouts or the fairness of the current broadcasting arrangements. Multiple competing views remain regarding the motivations behind blackouts and the relationship between taxpayer funding and broadcast rights.
Some participants express uncertainty about whether the Phillies' stadium is funded by taxpayer money, which influences their views on broadcasting rights. There are also unresolved assumptions about the impact of televised games on attendance at live events.

binzing said:Ha, team sports suck, soccer being the exception...Americans put way too much emphasis on this crap, IMO.
Oh, wait, they'd probably fill in the time slot with another reality show.turbo-1 said:That's capitalism at work, Russ, not communism. Black-outs are driven by revenue.
turbo-1 said:In the US, the sports franchises support black-outs because they don't want locals to see the games for free. The franchises want to sell the broadcast rights to cable carriers and/or force fans to attend the games, pay for tickets, and buy food, drink, and trinkets at ridiculously inflated prices. The motivation in Poland may have been different, but I doubt it.
But the point is for the public (taxpayers) pay at the gate so the owners of the park pay back the bonds, and make a big profit. So the taxpayers pay themselves back. Brilliant!Moonbear said:When taxpayer money isn't helping fund these ballparks, they can restrict viewing any way they want. As long as taxes help fund them, though, they should be REQUIRED to televise the games over networks freely available to the public. If the pay channels don't like that arrangement, let THEM fund the parks and take them off the taxpayer payroll.
Astronuc said:But the point is for the public (taxpayers) pay at the gate so the owners of the park pay back the bonds, and make a big profit. So the taxpayers pay themselves back. Brilliant!
But was the Phillie's stadium financed with taxpayer money?
What you do is go to the ballpark, then watch it on closed circuit tv in your private skybox while you are fed gourmet food by waiters. (yes, it's good to have friends with skyboxes).Moonbear said:I don't think showing a game on TV stops people from going to the ballpark. It's a totally different experience to watch live at the ballpark than to watch on TV (TV puts on commercials for the boring parts).
Evo said:What you do is go to the ballpark, then watch it on closed circuit tv in your private skybox while you are fed gourmet food by waiters. (yes, it's good to have friends with skyboxes).![]()
Not all that uncommon, Moonie! I used to take clients fishing, skiing, etc (we don't have any major sports teams in Maine) and many of them preferred to hang out, enjoying food and drinks and chatting to one another instead of engaging in the activity that (supposedly) brought us together. Stephen King (yeah, that guy!) owns a couple of radio stations here in Maine and every once in a while he puts up his dugout box seats at the Fenway up as prizes for some contest on the stations. Skybox? Pshaw!Moonbear said:I haven't gone that fancy yet, but I did go to a game once where we had a private section and all-you-can-eat hot dogs (with all the fixins) and beer (we had our own private "bartender"). I watched maybe 5 min of the game before spending the rest of the day hanging around the food and drinks and talking with everyone else getting food and drinks and not watching the game. I couldn't even tell you which team won.![]()