goskins10 Posted April 27, 2014 Share Posted April 27, 2014 http://sports.yahoo.com/news/49er-fan-sues-nfl-50m-165920735--nfl.html A 49ers fan is suing the NFL because he tried to buy tickets to the 49ers/Seahawks playoff game but since his Credit Card did not have an address in the Washington State immediate area he was not allowed to buy the tickets. His premise is that: '''The practice of withholding the sale of tickets from the public at large and allowing only credit card holders limited to certain areas is a violation of the Federal Consumer Fraud Act and/or common law,'' Tickets were only sold to people with the following addresses: Washington, Oregon, Montana, Idaho, Alaska and Hawaii, as well as the Canadian provinces of British Columbia and Alberta. So even if from San Francisco you could not buy tickets with a CC directly from ticket master. Click the link above for more info. Now I get if he really wanted to go that bad, there are the StubHubs of the world. But still, if you are considered anti-trust exempt and as such pay no taxes, then you should not be able to limit who can or cannot purchase tickets to the game, especially when the limitation is conviently stacked heavily in the home teams favor. I doubt he wins this outright but it could bring some light to the anti-trust laws in terms of the NFL which at the very least change how the NFL operates. Not sure myself if that's good or bad but my first instinct is that the NFL should pay taxes just like everyone else. People are making money hand over fist. The idea that we should bribe them to stay in business because of the other revenue they create is garbage. This may have been a legitimate concern 40 to 50 yrs ago, but it's not now. What do you think? Should teams be able to limit who can buy the tickets simply by geographic or should everyone have equal access? More importantly, does the NFL still deserve anti-trust exemption based on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenjikuronin Posted April 27, 2014 Share Posted April 27, 2014 I see no problem with this. Teams should have the right to restrict their ticket sales to fans within their designated media markets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soljaofjesus Posted April 27, 2014 Share Posted April 27, 2014 I see no problem with this. Teams should have the right to restrict their ticket sales to fans within their designated media markets. No Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goskins10 Posted April 28, 2014 Author Share Posted April 28, 2014 I see no problem with this. Teams should have the right to restrict their ticket sales to fans within their designated media markets. Even though by not paying local or federal taxes everyone from every state has helped subsidize all thee teams? Shouldn't we all have equal access or require teams to pay taxes? It's like Augusta and the Masters. While I don't agree with the politics, as long as Augusta is filly i dependently funded with no tax breaks or subsidies, they should be able to include or exclude whoever they want (Not opening a discussion about The Masters politics, just making a point). But as soon as you accept assistance, in this case by not being required to pay taxes on an enormous industry fully capable of paying those taxes, shouldn't you lose rights of exclusivity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor 36 Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 Even though by not paying local or federal taxes everyone from every state has helped subsidize all thee teams? Shouldn't we all have equal access or require teams to pay taxes? It's like Augusta and the Masters. While I don't agree with the politics, as long as Augusta is filly i dependently funded with no tax breaks or subsidies, they should be able to include or exclude whoever they want (Not opening a discussion about The Masters politics, just making a point). But as soon as you accept assistance, in this case by not being required to pay taxes on an enormous industry fully capable of paying those taxes, shouldn't you lose rights of exclusivity? I agree 100%. But, let's also look at this from the other end of the fandom perspective as Redskins faithful, for those peple who don't seem to think this is that big of a deal. If you do not live in the DMV or a few of the surrounding states, but are a huge Redkins fan and want to attend a playoff game at FedEX, but were denied tickets because you live in South Carolina, how could anyone be okay with that? That is absolutely ridiculous and illiegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veretax Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 I can see early ticket buys to be restricted... I do not see why they should be restricted entirely. Call it priority of issuance versus, selecting the fans who show up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueTalon Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 The whole thing is silly. The guy wasn't barred from entry, he wasn't prevented from getting a ticket. Lots of Niners fan somehow made it to the game, but somehow this guy thinks he should get $50M because he wasn't resourceful enough to get his own ticket? And it's not like the Seahawks were the first to ever try this abominable practice, it happens a lot. IIRC the Broncos did it too for their conference championship game. I don't understand how or why the NFL has tax exempt status, but it's really not relevant here. If anything, the public funding angle would tend to support the local local ticket sales, as it is Seattle and Washington State taxes that are the source of any public funds for our stadium. If the Redskins get to host a playoff game, I wouldn't bat an eye if they chose to restrict their ticket sales geographically. It might suck for some of you fans who live out of the area, but I think you would manage to find a way to get tickets if you really wanted them. And even if the ticket sales were open to everyone, there's still no guarantee you would get any -- for all you know, a mob of Cowboy fans might beat you to the virtual ticket window. As Redskins fans, there's nothing that gives you any more right to Redskins tickets than fans of any other team, unless you're a season ticket holder. They can't discriminate by fandom, or by anything else, but it is perfectly reasonable for tickets to directly sell to their local market area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paloosa Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 It is just another person trying to get rich off of someone else. He could have gotten a ticket at many outlets and the restriction of tickets for people who live in the area is a policy in every arena in the NFL including Candlestick Park. It is just a way this guy can get rich quick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goskins10 Posted April 29, 2014 Author Share Posted April 29, 2014 Talon - You Said: "The guy wasn't barred from entry, he wasn't prevented from getting a ticket. Lots of Niners fan somehow made it to the game, but somehow this guy thinks he should get $50M because he wasn't resourceful enough to get his own ticket?" I agree he could have gone if he really wanted to and said so in my post. The point is he was barred from purchasing at face value for no other reason than where he lived. You said: "And it's not like the Seahawks were the first to ever try this abominable practice, it happens a lot. IIRC the Broncos did it too for their conference championship game." You say it's abonimable yet says there is nothing wrong with it. Not sure I understand that. You Said: "I don't understand how or why the NFL has tax exempt status, but it's really not relevant here. If anything, the public funding angle would tend to support the local local ticket sales, as it is Seattle and Washington State taxes that are the source of any public funds for our stadium." I would agree if Seattle was the only team in the game. But San Fransisco also played and therefore their taxes also went to subsidize the games also. You Said: "As Redskins fans, there's nothing that gives you any more right to Redskins tickets than fans of any other team, unless you're a season ticket holder." That's the exact point. By restricting the zip codes you are giving those people an advantage over others therefore giving you more right to a ticket than others. It needs to be 100% open. If I call or show up first, I should get the tickets. The goal is not to protect one fan base over another, it's to make sure that someone who profits from not paying taxes does not then discriminate agaisnt the very people they are taking the money from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueTalon Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 The point is he was barred from purchasing at face value for no other reason than where he lived. That's no different than a lot of product that are available somewhere but not elsewhere. You want to place a bet in Las Vegas? You have to actually be in Las Vegas, or get someone who is there to place a bet for you. There are a lot of retail chains that exist in some places in this country and not other places. You going to pop a cork those things? You say it's abonimable yet says there is nothing wrong with it. Not sure I understand that. I was being sarcastic. It's a common practice, and I don't have a problem with it. I would agree if Seattle was the only team in the game. But San Fransisco also played and therefore their taxes also went to subsidize the games also. Um, no. People visiting Seattle from out of state would be contributing taxes from the money they spend there, but San Francisco does nothing to subsidize games in Seattle. Positing that is every bit as ridiculous as me saying Seattle tax money subsidizes games at Fedex. That's the exact point. By restricting the zip codes you are giving those people an advantage over others therefore giving you more right to a ticket than others. It needs to be 100% open. If I call or show up first, I should get the tickets. The goal is not to protect one fan base over another, it's to make sure that someone who profits from not paying taxes does not then discriminate agaisnt the very people they are taking the money from. So people who pay absolutely no taxes that go toward running and maintaining the stadium should have equal priority to those who do pay those taxes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbws Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 ... I doubt he wins this outright but it could bring some light to the anti-trust laws in terms of the NFL which at the very least change how the NFL operates. Not sure myself if that's good or bad but my first instinct is that the NFL should pay taxes just like everyone else. ... The NFL as a governing authority does not pay taxes. The member teams and employees of those teams do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goskins10 Posted May 1, 2014 Author Share Posted May 1, 2014 The NFL as a governing authority does not pay taxes. The member teams and employees of those teams do. That's true. But there are tax exemptions. We have no idea how much that is. The point here still is to restrict someone by zip code is garbage. If the Redskins played in say Jacksonville, you are OK that if you go to buy tickets, simply because you don;t live near there? There is already a built in advantage which is perfectly fine, and that's getting there. And if tickets sell out, fine. But if you are willing to pay to get there and get online to buy tickets I think you should be able to regardless of where you live. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goskins10 Posted May 1, 2014 Author Share Posted May 1, 2014 I thought this was an interesting topic and worth some discussion. Not sure why the need to resort to sarcasm and arrogance calling the other persons views ridiculous. I will respond to the last set of responses. If you want to go back to this being an adult discussion then I am glad to continue. That's no different than a lot of product that are available somewhere but not elsewhere. You want to place a bet in Las Vegas? You have to actually be in Las Vegas, or get someone who is there to place a bet for you. There are a lot of retail chains that exist in some places in this country and not other places. You going to pop a cork those things? Actually, you do not have to be in Las Vegas to place a bet there.d There are offsite betting in most of the country. Here one site but there are many others - http://www.onlinesportsbetting.net/usa/las-vegas.html. Also, if those retail chains had online services you would be able to purchase from anywhere. This is the very reason many retailers have gone out of business. They did not set up thier online purchasing quick enough or well enough. Um, no. People visiting Seattle from out of state would be contributing taxes from the money they spend there, but San Francisco does nothing to subsidize games in Seattle. Positing that is every bit as ridiculous as me saying Seattle tax money subsidizes games at Fedex. Another responder pointed out that there were not as much subsidies going to the NFL as I thought. But there are some meaning that anyone who pays taxes (including people that hate football) support the game at a certain level. So people who pay absolutely no taxes that go toward running and maintaining the stadium should have equal priority to those who do pay those taxes? This is an incorrect statement. You said yourself the person coming from SF would be supporting the team with their dollars. Also, as I said above, while it might not be as much as I thought, but there is outside tax payer money being used to help subsidize some parts of each team. If there was no anti trust exemption, they would all have to pay more. If nothing else, this may shed some light on exactly how much that helps the NFL. Maybe its nominal. If so, then get rid of the exemption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eaglesfandan Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 I think he actually argues against himself in his point. He points out that since stadiums are built with public subsidies, the NFL shouldn't be able to dictate who gets to go to the games. The obvious retort for the NFL based on his point is that the stadiums are built with LOCAL tax money, not federal. All the more reason to make sure that the local people who are paying for the stadium get first dibs on going to the games. I remember hearing in local news last year around this time that during the entire offseason and spring training the Washington Nationals ticket office was regularly refusing Pennsylvania residents from buying Nationals vs Phillies tickets. For first time in forever the Nationals were being picked to be a contender and they weary of all their home games looking like a home game for the Phillies ever since their new ballpark opened in 2008. Remember, the Phillies were really good from '06-'11 and good team fans travel well, especially when it's only a 2.5 hour drive to a city that has both baseball and loads of tourist stuff. Anyway, the point here is ticket sale manipulation happens everywhere... and IMO all teams should reserve the right to influence how their tickets are priced and how they are made available to the public. Not saying it's right, wrong, fair or anything... just saying it makes sense if local economy and support is given preference. It happened in Denver last season too. Forty Whiner ambulance chaser needs to take a fing number and get in line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.