NFL fines 49ers quarterback $10,000 for wearing Beats headphones during press conference

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 63
    chadbagchadbag Posts: 1,800member
    As has been mentioned, they ought to have a whole bunch of players wear them to the press conferences and on the sidelines during games.
  • Reply 42 of 63
    chadbag wrote: »
    As has been mentioned, they ought to have a whole bunch of players wear them to the press conferences and on the sidelines during games.

    Of course they could always strike out of solidarity.
  • Reply 43 of 63
    calicali Posts: 3,494member
    NFL what are you doing!

    That's like banning steroids!!
  • Reply 44 of 63
    So what.
  • Reply 45 of 63

    I think we can extrapolate the picture and conclude that the Pink 5c is selling well - and not only to women. I bet Bret Hart has a Pink 5c.

     

    I wonder if the fine will be tax-deductible, given that NFL is a non-profit organisation and he is donating to them...

  • Reply 46 of 63
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson View Post

     

    He got fined a couple of years ago for wearing a San Francisco Giants cap at an NFL press conference.

     

    You'd think he'd learn.

     

    However, with the news cycle this will generate, and the number of times the words "Colin Kaepernick" and "Beats Headphones" will be said in the same sentence during those news reports, it will be well worth Apple paying the fine every time a star player does this.  $10k for the amount of air time this will generate is spectacularly cheap advertising.

     


    No he didn't. It was Alex Smith who was fined for wearing a SF Giants hat as a 49er in 2012 during the Giants World Series run.

  • Reply 47 of 63
    dewmedewme Posts: 4,543member

    Why is this worthy of AppleInsider coverage? 

     

    These exclusivity deals are no different than product placement deals in TV and movies. The NFL and all such professional sports endeavors are simply performances put on for our entertainment. A big part of the monetization model and resultant payments made to organizations and performers is based on advertising. The venues (stadiums) and performers (athletes) are simply a part of "the show" and are integral elements of the overall advertising facade paid for by sponsored advertising. Whenever the performers are on camera in an official capacity, like post performance interviews, it's considered part of "the show" and they are required to adhere to the the contractual requirements that are a part of the terms and conditions of their employment. What they do on their own time and outside of the terms of their employment contract is up to them, but whenever they are acting in an official capacity these performers are simply another vehicle for delivering advertising. If you want to this model taken to the extreme watch a NASCAR port race interview with one of their performers. Not only are they slathered in visual advertising, but everything they say and do on camera (like a quick swig of a certain brand soft drink) is purposely orchestrated for maximum advertising effect.

     

    If you ask me I'd say that these "sports" performers have an incredibly sweet and lucrative deal and have little to complain about. If they want to promote their own causes in a venue that is bought and paid for by someone else they should be heavily fined just as they are (incredibly) heavily compensated for their performance. It's a business.

  • Reply 48 of 63
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    john.b wrote: »
    Clearly an organization such as the NFL that can sign exclusive league-wide endorsement deals such as the Bose or Microsoft Surface contracts have long since evolved into a solely commercial enterprises.

    Ironically it's their blackout policy that will wind up getting the exemption pulled, but AFAIC, a win is a win.

    Agreed. I understand why exemption was granted so many years ago, but they haven't needed protection for a long time now.
  • Reply 49 of 63
    john.bjohn.b Posts: 2,740member
    gqb wrote: »
    Hmmm...
    Jerk monopolists and Bose vs Popular athlete with a big youth fan base and Beats.
    Wonder which brand won this round of the advertising war?

    To be fair to the Bose brand, they DO have the "fat old bald guy on an airplane" demographic locked up...

    ;)
  • Reply 50 of 63
    dewme wrote: »
    Why is this worthy of AppleInsider coverage? 

    These exclusivity deals are no different than product placement deals in TV and movies. The NFL and all such professional sports endeavors are simply performances put on for our entertainment. A big part of the monetization model and resultant payments made to organizations and performers is based on advertising. The venues (stadiums) and performers (athletes) are simply a part of "the show" and are integral elements of the overall advertising facade paid for by sponsored advertising. Whenever the performers are on camera in an official capacity, like post performance interviews, it's considered part of "the show" and they are required to adhere to the the contractual requirements that are a part of the terms and conditions of their employment. What they do on their own time and outside of the terms of their employment contract is up to them, but whenever they are acting in an official capacity these performers are simply another vehicle for delivering advertising. If you want to this model taken to the extreme watch a NASCAR port race interview with one of their performers. Not only are they slathered in visual advertising, but everything they say and do on camera (like a quick swig of a certain brand soft drink) is purposely orchestrated for maximum advertising effect.

    If you ask me I'd say that these "sports" performers have an incredibly sweet and lucrative deal and have little to complain about. If they want to promote their own causes in a venue that is bought and paid for by someone else they should be heavily fined just as they are (incredibly) heavily compensated for their performance. It's a business.

    The NFL currently enjoys a non-profit designation for some bizarre reason.

    Although I don't believe in or support the income tax (I support the apolitical www.FairTax.org and the shutdown of the IRS), there is this, which is growing in support: https://www.change.org/p/congress-revoke-the-tax-exempt-status-of-the-national-football-league
  • Reply 51 of 63
    malaxmalax Posts: 1,598member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     

     

    Problem is the NFL is also considered a non for profit organization......

     

    Really?  Really!!!!


    Yep.  And the tax code specifically call out "professional football league" as a subcategory under 501(c)(6).:

     

    Quote:


    Section 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code provides for the exemption of business leagues, chambers of commerce, real estate boards, boards of trade and professional football leagues, which are not organized for profit and no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual.

     

    A business league is an association of persons having some common business interest, the purpose of which is to promote such common interest and not to engage in a regular business of a kind ordinarily carried on for profit. Trade associations and professional associations are business leagues. To be exempt, a business league's activities must be devoted to improving business conditions of one or more lines of business as distinguished from performing particular services for individual persons. No part of a business league's net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual and it may not be organized for profit to engage in an activity ordinarily carried on for profit (even if the business is operated on a cooperative basis or produces only enough income to be self-sustaining).



     

    The argument is that the NFL is like a chamber of commerce--just a way for business people to work together to improve their businesses overall.  On the face of it, it seems ridiculous that the NFL could be considered in any way "not for profit" and therefore exempt from certain taxes.  On the other hand, as soon as the revenue (from TV deals, from licensing, etc.) gets transferred from the NFL to the teams themself, it is subject to tax.  So one could argue that it would be unfair that tax that revenue twice.

     

    Of course the real reason the exemption is there is because it's very very easy for NFL owners to wine and dine Congressmen to ensure that that provision of the tax code remains.  At they don't even have to shell out a lot of money to do so.  What politician in Texas (for example) would pass of the chance to share the media spotlight with the Cowboys at every opportunity?

  • Reply 52 of 63
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

     

    The NFL is a monopoly that should be broken up.

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law




    Apple should just pay the fine for Colin Kaepernick and would it still be one of the cheapest and most effective AD's ever.

     

    ?This is a good thing that has happened to Beats/Apple!

  • Reply 53 of 63
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,834moderator
    The NFL is a monopoly that should be broken up.

    Broken up by... ? Shouldn't private companies be allowed to do whatever they want? Whenever big companies merge creating a potential monopoly, people say it's not the business of some public 3rd party to get involved e.g the EU in the Apple/Beats merger but when a private company tries to monopolise advertising by limiting it to a business partner, that's not ok. Remember the article about Comcast and Time Warner:

    http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/162030/comcast-to-purchase-time-warner-cable-future-apple-tv-partnership-uncertain#post_2471640

    "I hate to tell you, but it is by the hand of government (and ours is a corporatist government) that monopolies are created, not by competition. AT&T should've gobbled up T-mobile, because they will not survive much longer unless they merge with another company. Government should stand down and get out of the protectionism racket and let real competition winnow out the weak companies and allow market forces to play out.

    A corporation cares about profitability. A well-run corporation listens to their customers because happy customers make for greater long-term profitability. A monopoly cannot exist in a vacuum. It requires the protection of law to suppress competition. Without external forces preventing competition, monopoly positions simply cannot last."

    So can't we let market forces play out here?

    It is funny how reminiscent it is of Samsung trying to pay people to use their phones and then they go back to their iPhones. These companies don't seem to realise that you can't buy brand loyalty.
  • Reply 54 of 63
    Marvin wrote: »
    Broken up by... ? Shouldn't private companies be allowed to do whatever they want? Whenever big companies merge creating a potential monopoly, people say it's not the business of some public 3rd party to get involved e.g the EU in the Apple/Beats merger but when a private company tries to monopolise advertising by limiting it to a business partner, that's not ok. Remember the article about Comcast and Time Warner:

    http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/162030/comcast-to-purchase-time-warner-cable-future-apple-tv-partnership-uncertain#post_2471640

    "I hate to tell you, but it is by the hand of government (and ours is a corporatist government) that monopolies are created, not by competition. AT&T should've gobbled up T-mobile, because they will not survive much longer unless they merge with another company. Government should stand down and get out of the protectionism racket and let real competition winnow out the weak companies and allow market forces to play out.

    A corporation cares about profitability. A well-run corporation listens to their customers because happy customers make for greater long-term profitability. A monopoly cannot exist in a vacuum. It requires the protection of law to suppress competition. Without external forces preventing competition, monopoly positions simply cannot last."

    So can't we let market forces play out here?

    It is funny how reminiscent it is of Samsung trying to pay people to use their phones and then they go back to their iPhones. These companies don't seem to realise that you can't buy brand loyalty.

    My point being that there should be no government allowance for sports monopolies. It's insane. And giving these organizations non-profit status is just outrageous.
  • Reply 55 of 63
    dewmedewme Posts: 4,543member
    This story has nothing at all to do with Apple or the Beats brand. If the player showed up wearing ANY brand of headphone other than Bose he would have been fined the same amount due to the business relationship between the NFL and Bose. Making it into anything other than this or dragging Apple or Beats into the dialog is slow news day chaff.
  • Reply 56 of 63
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,834moderator
    My point being that there should be no government allowance for sports monopolies. It's insane. And giving these organizations non-profit status is just outrageous.

    But if they'd interfered in a merger that would create the NFL monopoly, you'd complain about it and suggest it would sort itself out; when they don't interfere in scenarios where it clearly hasn't sorted itself out, you complain about their lack of action preventing it. There's nothing they could do that would make you happy and they will get the blame in every case. Private companies can't be blameless in every monopoly or action that comes as a result of it. Monopolies are an inevitability of unregulated competition.
    dewme wrote:
    This story has nothing at all to do with Apple or the Beats brand. If the player showed up wearing ANY brand of headphone other than Bose he would have been fined the same amount due to the business relationship between the NFL and Bose. Making it into anything other than this or dragging Apple or Beats into the dialog is slow news day chaff.

    It has an indirect implication for Apple. The NFL has millions of viewers. If famous players are forced to wear Bose headphones, not only do fans see what they wear but the products are getting tens of millions of views that Beats aren't getting. The effect of indirect marketing can be huge even with things you wouldn't think twice about:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/kate-middleton/10988817/Kate-effect-sends-loom-band-sales-soaring.html

    Kate Middleton just wore that bracelet at an event and sales of the bands went up 19x:

    "Her appearance has led to a 1900 per cent increase in sales of the bands at Hobbycraft, which predicts the craze will continue in the build up to Christmas and has already ordered more stock to cope with anticipated demand.
    Anna Protherough, Senior Buyer for Kids at Hobbycraft said: “We began stocking the kits since they originally launched last year and since the Duchess of Cambridge was seen wearing one, they have been flying off our shelves.”"

    http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/10/10/bose-making-mass-shipments-of-headphones-to-nfl-players/
  • Reply 57 of 63
    boredumbboredumb Posts: 1,418member
    cancelled

  • Reply 58 of 63
    AKG MH-50's eat Bose AND Beats for lunch.

    G
  • Reply 59 of 63
    john.bjohn.b Posts: 2,740member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by junkdrop1 View Post



    AKG MH-50's eat Bose AND Beats for lunch.

     

    LOLWUT? I think you have your manufactures and model numbers mixed up!  <img class=" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" /> 

  • Reply 60 of 63
    john.bjohn.b Posts: 2,740member

    FWIW, Colin was wearing the same pink Beats Studios after tonight's game as last week, but with piece of white tape over the Beats logo.   8-) 

Sign In or Register to comment.