The FCC is "weighing whether to ban TV stations" from saying the term "Redskins," according to Brendan Sasso of the NATIONAL JOURNAL. George Washington Univ. professor John Banzhaf last month "filed a petition with the agency," claiming that the name "violates federal rules barring any indecent content on broadcast television." FCC Chair Tom Wheeler yesterday noted he is reviewing the filing and said, "We will be dealing with that issue on the merits, and we will be responding accordingly." He said that he "personally finds the term offensive and urged the team to change the name." But he "didn't say whether he thinks it is illegal." Banzhaf in his petition "urged the agency to ban use of the 'racist, racially derogatory word." Sasso noted an FCC ruling that the name is "'indecent' would put enormous pressure on the NFL team to pick a new name" (NATIONALJOURNAL.com, 9/30). Wheeler said, "Things change over time. I’m a history buff. There are lots of names and descriptions used over time that are inappropriate today. I think the name attributed to the Washington football club is one of those." Banzhaf originally petitioned ESPN Radio 980 DC's right to use the name, and the WALL STREET JOURNAL's Gautham Nagesh noted while Wheeler has been "critical of the team’s name, it would be a significant step for the agency to strip" the station of its broadcast license for using the name. The fact that Wheeler has "taken up the issue is evidence of how far opponents of the name have come over the past year" (WSJ.com, 9/30). However, FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai said, "As a supporter of the First Amendment, I don't think the government should ban the use of the Washington Redskins team name from the airwaves" ("Squawk on the Street," CNBC, 10/1).
HEADING TO THE HILL: In N.Y., Josh Kosman notes the FCC's decision to end its blackout rule is "just the beginning of the league’s Washington headache." It is "expected to be followed on Capitol Hill" by a bill "aiming to create federal oversight of the NFL." There also is a move by lawmakers to "do away with the tax-exempt status enjoyed by the NFL and other pro sports organizations." Finally, there is a "push from some in Congress to do away with the NFL's anti-trust exemptions" (N.Y. POST, 10/1). Pai said the agency's ruling was a "long time coming, but members of the public and ultimately the FCC came to the realization this 40-year-old rule simply wasn't serving the public interest. It was serving the private interest of team owners" (Squawk on the Street, CNBC, 10/1). In DC, Brian Fung noted the FCC's vote yesterday "doesn’t mean that blackouts are going away immediately." The NFL "still has blackout rules written into individual contracts with regional sports broadcasters." In general, these deals "last until the beginning of the next decade." In new contracts, the NFL would "have to renew those blackout provisions over the objections of the federal government." But the FCC’s message yesterday "was clear: If the NFL chooses that path, it will be the only one bearing the brunt of consumer ire, particularly from low-income Americans and the disabled who can’t make it or have a harder time getting to the games" (WASHINGTONPOST.com, 9/30). In N.Y., Edward Wyatt notes the rule will "officially be repealed 30 days after a notice of the FCC’s action is published in the Federal Register, which generally takes about two weeks." So it will "probably be about six weeks before the blackout rule is voided" (N.Y. TIMES, 10/1).
TRYING TO SAVE FACE? In San Diego, Matt Calkins writes the NFL’s public image "couldn’t be much worse right now, but this opportunity couldn’t be much better." From "domestic-violence scandals, to child-abuse cases to incessant brain injuries -- the league is drowning in hot water." The league can "help heal this black eye" by eliminating blackouts. While it is "certainly a business’ right to maximize profits amid willing customers, at some point, you have to consider the possibility that fans will be too turned off to keep turning out" (SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE, 10/1). In Florida, John Torres writes the NFL's blackout rules "are archaic and need to go." In recent years, owners like the Dolphins' Stephen Ross have "been forced to purchase then give away blocks of tickets in order to let hometown fans ... watch the game on television." NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell "needs some good press." He "needs to change his stance and abide by the commission's ruling" (FLORIDA TODAY, 10/1). ESPN's Keith Olbermann said the blackout rule was "made in the football Stone Age," and it "only hurts local fans, in some cases it killed local teams" ("Olbermann," ESPN, 9/30).
FADE TO BLACK: In San Diego, Michael Gehlken notes blackouts in recent years have "affected San Diego more than most markets," as 10 Chargers games were blacked out from '10-13. Just hours after yesterday's vote, the team "announced about 3,000 general tickets are unsold for Sunday's game versus the Jets." The Chargers "avoided a blackout last Sunday versus the Jaguars," but it "took some help." With about 5,000 "unsold tickets at the 72-hour deadline, the team solicited help from local sponsors" (SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE, 10/1). Meanwhile, the DAYTON DAILY NEWS noted the Bengals have "not had a home game blacked out since Nov. 25, 2012, a span of 13 games, although many times the team has had to ask for a 24-hour extension to sell its remaining tickets, including last season’s Wild Card playoff game" against the Chargers. Both home games this year against the Falcons and Titans "would have been blacked out had the Bengals not opted in to the NFL’s 85-percent plan for the first time" (DAYTON DAILY NEWS, 10/1).
