Sign in to follow this  
Esperado

NFL doesnt pay musicians, or its taxes.

Recommended Posts

it was brought to my attention that the NFL doesnt pay performers during halftime, saying that it compensates them in exposure. who else is utterly disgusted by this, and is there anything that can be done about it?

i think that if the musicians are exempt from pay, so are the players, and all nfl employees for the duration of the superbowl. surely the exposure compensates all the costs right?

To salt the wound, theyre tax exempt.

not sure if this is community or off topic since it does involve music.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we talking the major celebrities like Bruno Mars, Madonna, etc.?

Because if anything, Janet Jackson got a LOT of exposure, and SHE'S the one who paid for it, iirc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are we talking the major celebrities like Bruno Mars, Madonna, etc.?

Because if anything, Janet Jackson got a LOT of exposure, and SHE'S the one who paid for it, iirc.

well yes, but regardless of how famous they are or whether they volunteer, or even pay to be at halftime, it doesnt matter. as someone said, it sends the wrong message about how to treat artists. the company rakes in so much money from doing pretty much nothing that it could easily, and should, pay artists at least SOMETHING.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im pretty sure that they are probably aware of the fact that they wont be paid when they sign the contract. Its not like they do their thing then the executives say "oh sorry you aint getting paid" they know what they are getting to.

Taxes - whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could personally care less if a top-selling artist with millions and millions of dollars in the bank already doesn't get paid for 12-20 minutes of performance or however long halftime is. What confuses me is how the "exposure" hook works there, as that is also a pretty useless thing as they get a lot of exposure too. I'm not sure how that gets the AAA talent either.

They probably get top viewing experience at least - like you saw at one point the cameras pointing to Paul McCartney, Michael Douglas, etc. Spending 4 hours partying with them at the biggest game of the year ever has got to be worth $1 million or so. *shrug*

Now if they didn't pay the stagehands who get those stages set up and torn down on field in fucking MINUTES, I'd be livid from here to kingdom come.

Edited by Meteo Xavier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over a billion people saw bruno mars perform last night.

I'm sure he's fine with the huge resurgence in record sales he's getting right now, especially since he knocked it out of the park with that performance.

Plus he got to go to the Super Bowl for free. Even celebrities like doing fun things, you know.

What blows my mind is how little you guys seem to understand the gravity of the Super Bowl. They're playing AT THE SUPER BOWL. That's legitimately the biggest live venue that anyone can ever play. You'd give up that opportunity just because you don't get paid? Even though you're already a millionaire? Come on.

Edit: As of this moment in time Bruno Mars' CD from TWO YEARS AGO is the top selling CD on iTunes. Two of the singles from that CD are #6 and #7 on the top 10 singles list. I'm pretty sure he got his money for the performance.

Edited by The Derrit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that's the point. Of course he'll get his money in the end, because it's that one guy. I wouldn't mind if he was paid a thousand, a million, a bazillion, as long as he gets paid directly for his service. I believe that encouraging "exposure" as a reasonable payment for live performance is the best way to slowly but surely kill the profession of musician (performer).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What blows my mind is how little you guys seem to understand the gravity of the Super Bowl. They're playing AT THE SUPER BOWL. That's legitimately the biggest live venue that anyone can ever play. You'd give up that opportunity just because you don't get paid? Even though you're already a millionaire? Come on.

Edit: As of this moment in time Bruno Mars' CD from TWO YEARS AGO is the top selling CD on iTunes. Two of the singles from that CD are #6 and #7 on the top 10 singles list. I'm pretty sure he got his money for the performance.

Agreed. Also all of the free commercials put on by Pepsi to advertise the half time show. It's not like the super bowl half-time acts are forced to do this. They agreed upon it. And huge name artists have done this for decades.

From: http://business.time.com/2014/02/02/bruno-mars-red-hot-chili-peppers-super-bowl-halftime-show/

"The huge exposure regularly leads to a big sales boost for artists. Album sales for Beyonce and Destiny’s Child jumped 40 percent the week after last year’s Super Bowl. The bump has been even more pronounced for older bands like the Who, whose Greatest Hits album more than doubled in sales after their halftime show in 2010."

Personally I believe they should be compensated. And they are, just in an indirect way.

Edited by avaris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it was brought to my attention that the NFL doesnt pay performers during halftime, saying that it compensates them in exposure.

Welcome to the music industry. We stopped making money 20 years ago.

In all honesty, as everyone else is saying, as much as this seems like some serious bs, they get HUGE celebrities to perform anyway, and those celebrities are already making a buttload of money off of their albums and tours, and the exposure of this in front of millions of people probably just caught everyone's attention and he's probably making even MORE money right now off of his singles and albums and concert tickets.

The performance was mediocre for me. There were some really great moments like the beginning with the drum sequence and then "Treasure" was really quite good and heck, Red Hot Chili Peppers you guys. But I've seen better. But that's my opinion and it's sorta off-topic, so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're at a point in your career when you're playing at the Super Bowl, money is not the issue. The Half Time show is basically one huge advertisement for any artist lucky enough to play at the show. Compensation doesn't make sense to me considering these artists already have so much money, and will make even more thanks to the sales boost from playing at the show.

Also, not every live performance by musician involves compensation. Musicians do perform specifically for exposure, and some just do it for fun. Playing at the Half Time show is a combination of the two.

I believe that encouraging "exposure" as a reasonable payment for live performance is the best way to slowly but surely kill the profession of musician (performer).

How will encouraging exposure as payment kill the music profession? Playing at Half Time without compensation has been going on for decades, yet the profession of music performers hasn't been killed. People will always be willing to pay to go see live performances of their favorite artists.

Edited by Cash

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think that's the point. Of course he'll get his money in the end, because it's that one guy. I wouldn't mind if he was paid a thousand, a million, a bazillion, as long as he gets paid directly for his service. I believe that encouraging "exposure" as a reasonable payment for live performance is the best way to slowly but surely kill the profession of musician (performer).

That's true at the level where a performer is a) not well known enough and B) not skilled enough to succeed or profit from the exposure they get.

The super bowl is neither of these things. It's you that's missing the point.

Edited by The Derrit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I might be overreacting at this point. I know that it's not a problem for Super Bowl performers, I'm not that stupid. ;)

I think I'm just scared of the long-term impacts that this attitude towards live performers could be. I mean, if all music shows paid artists exclusively in exposure, would this system still work? I dunno.

Sorry for over-thinking, I tend to do that too much. :tomatoface:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I mean, if all music shows paid artists exclusively in exposure, would this system still work? I dunno.

Probably not, but that isn't the case. I'm betting it will never be the case.

By the way, no need to apologize. Thinking is a good thing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the specific case of the Super Bowl, you have artists who will still have tons of money without getting paid and the exposure is well worth it so it's not that big of a deal. The problem is the principle here and the potential for setting precedent. It's entirely possibly (and likely) that venue owners will hear about it and think "Oh, that's how professionals run things. Cool, that saves me money AND helps out the artists! Win win!" when obviously, that couldn't be further from the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem is the principle here and the potential for setting precedent. It's entirely possibly (and likely) that venue owners will hear about it and think "Oh, that's how professionals run things. Cool, that saves me money AND helps out the artists! Win win!" when obviously, that couldn't be further from the truth.

Sure, but how many venues are actually doing this?

I don't have any experience related to playing at venues, but I can't imagine it would be in the venue's best interest to no longer pay musicians. I would think most artists would go play at others venues that would actually pay them. Live musicians attract customers, it doesn't make much sense in my mind for a venue owner to risk cutting of that attraction.

Besides, artists have been playing at Half Time for decades, and, to the best of my knowledge, no precedent has been set (correct me if I'm wrong).

Edited by Cash

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty sure Bruno Mars was sponsored by Pepsi for the show, so even if he wasn't paid by the NFL, he assuredly got paid by someone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the specific case of the Super Bowl, you have artists who will still have tons of money without getting paid and the exposure is well worth it so it's not that big of a deal. The problem is the principle here and the potential for setting precedent. It's entirely possibly (and likely) that venue owners will hear about it and think "Oh, that's how professionals run things. Cool, that saves me money AND helps out the artists! Win win!" when obviously, that couldn't be further from the truth.

Except nobody is going to do that. The super bowl has been doing this for years and years and nowhere else has suddenly decided not paying musicians is a good business model. Can you imagine the outrage that would come of that from a fanbase?

It might be kind of like the outrage in this thread but actually substantiated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the specific case of the Super Bowl, you have artists who will still have tons of money without getting paid and the exposure is well worth it so it's not that big of a deal. The problem is the principle here and the potential for setting precedent. It's entirely possibly (and likely) that venue owners will hear about it and think "Oh, that's how professionals run things. Cool, that saves me money AND helps out the artists! Win win!" when obviously, that couldn't be further from the truth.

This is precisely what I had in mind. I couldn't have worded it better :)

I'd also like to add that I know performers who literally got ripped off by being barely paid for their work because the employer felt that he was the one offering a service to the performers by letting them play. I've mostly heard it happening at unofficial/small-scale gigs, like bar or restaurant gigs and such, but the problem is still very noticeable and definitely real to me. It's simply not noticeable to everyone (yet).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Generally speaking, working for "exposure" is an empty promise because that "exposure" doesn't actually net you anything. This hearkens to all that stuff you always read about never working for free and devaluing your profession when you give away work, etc., etc.

The Super Bowl, however, is an exception to this, because the Super Bowl is arguably the most watched entertainment program in the US every single year. Working for "exposure" at an event on the level of the Super Bowl translates into real monetary gain. The kind of attention you get by working as an entertainer during the Super Bowl halftime show is higher than any other concert you could ever perform.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"We're giving you exposure, why should we pay you?" Thats what the Super Bowl are saying and its that mentality that is destroying the industry. ANY venue can make the argument that they're worth as much as the money you'd earn indirectly from sales after, so by saying this about the Super Bowl, you're giving every venue in the world that same ammo.

We are currently living in a world where everyone torrents or streams music for $5 a month. You're lucky if someone actually buys your music these days - many people only get money from gigs and some of you lot are saying that we shouldn't get paid for gigs on top of this? You're all saying "Why should we get paid at all? We're getting EXPOSURE!" :P

Exposure is pointless if you can't earn any money from it and it feels like we are slowly coming into some strange acceptance that we don't DESERVE money for it... or as much as we should, at the very least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Generally speaking, working for "exposure" is an empty promise because that "exposure" doesn't actually net you anything. This hearkens to all that stuff you always read about never working for free and devaluing your profession when you give away work, etc., etc.

The Super Bowl, however, is an exception to this, because the Super Bowl is arguably the most watched entertainment program in the US every single year. Working for "exposure" at an event on the level of the Super Bowl translates into real monetary gain. The kind of attention you get by working as an entertainer during the Super Bowl halftime show is higher than any other concert you could ever perform.

To add to this, exposure on the level of the Super Bowl is clearly worth it - beside the exposure, all expenses are paid for, and often companies sponsor the performers anyway. If it has a negative impact, it's only on those too naive to understand what's going on, because the performers are getting an excellent deal out of it. If smaller-time venues/companies try to swindle artists by mentioning "exposure" and citing the Super Bowl as an example, it's up to the artists to realize that exposure doesn't work the same way on a much smaller scale. There's nothing inherently wrong with getting exposure instead of a fee though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To add to this, exposure on the level of the Super Bowl is clearly worth it - beside the exposure, all expenses are paid for, and often companies sponsor the performers anyway. If it has a negative impact, it's only on those too naive to understand what's going on, because the performers are getting an excellent deal out of it. If smaller-time venues/companies try to swindle artists by mentioning "exposure" and citing the Super Bowl as an example, it's up to the artists to realize that exposure doesn't work the same way on a much smaller scale. There's nothing inherently wrong with getting exposure instead of a fee though.

To add even more on to this, there are similar deals that work on a much smaller scale. When Razor released their "Christine" thingy-ma-bob they used one of Zircon's songs in it. Not sure if he was supposed to be comped for that or if it came from his free vault but the exposure from just that video is probably worth not having to be paid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this