"The cornerstone of the NFL's philosophy is free, over-the-air TV broadcasts," McCarthy said. "That helps to generate the massive TV deals."
Also, satellite provider DirecTV pays $700 million annually for its exclusive Sunday package of games.
Hence, it is unlikely the NFL will follow the NCAA and Major League Baseball by offering its games as live video streams.
Jonathan Taplin, a former Merrill Lynch executive and now a professor at the University of Southern California, thinks that is a big mistake.
"Why not put the games online?" he asked. The popularity "would be through the roof. They could sell NFL product and gear. They can offer it worldwide on NFL.com, so if you're in Singapore, you can watch a live game.
"The biggest opportunity is for the NFL to collect a tremendous amount of data and charge for subscriptions and advertising," he added. "The advertising on interactive platforms, where the advertiser knows who is watching, is much more powerful than on TV."
Other issues on the table include highlight packages and original video content, the deep statistics and data the NFL collects each game and fantasy football rights, McCarthy said.
The fantasy aspect is intriguing, said Jeff Marshall, senior vice president and managing director for Chicago digital media agency Starcom IP. It is "possibly an angle that hasn't been fully ferreted out yet," he said.
"Once you get past TV sports advertising, fantasy sports is one of the highest-generating revenue aspects of sports," Marshall said.
According to a survey released in March by the Fantasy Sports Trade Association, more than $3 billion is spent annually by players in fantasy leagues. Those figures don't include revenue generated by advertisers trying to attract those players.
----------
ebenderoff@tribune.com