The pay-to-play suggestion got a chilly reception from the candidates' representatives, these people said.
...It is unclear how much money the NFL was seeking, and whether it would likely have amounted to more or less than the extra income the chosen performer might stand to generate from the exposure. No decision has been made yet and it is possible another act could be selected.
The article pointed out performers typically get a concert/CD/download boost following a Super Bowl appearance, but established acts like the trio mentioned have less to gain. But its not like the NFL doesn't make any money on the halftime show itself - last year, the performance (115M viewers) outdrew most of the game (112M viewers avg).
Just add it to the NFL's list of already-outrageous Super Bowl demands.
Just add it to the NFL's list of already-outrageous Super Bowl demands.
If true that the NFL is going to be charging Super Bowl halftime perfomers to 'pay to play' - see
ReplyDeletehttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/08/19/nfl-wants-super-bowl-halftime-performers-to-pay-for-the-privilege/ - then why should the NFL stop there? Shouldn't they also charge the coaching staffs of each team participating in the Super Bowl? There is no doubt that getting to a Super Bowl is a huge revenue enhancer for coaches at all levels when they negotiate their next contracts, and there should be tiered charging - the winning team's coaches should be charged more than the losers.
And next collective bargaining agreement with the players, it certainly can be negotiated that the players should also pay to play in the Super Bowl, for similar reasons.
This is an awesome motivating article.I am practically satisfied with your great work.You put truly extremely supportive data. Keep it up. Continue blogging. Hoping to perusing your next post LBK全好貸會員登入
ReplyDelete