NFL Officials Think Trump Can Help Them Win Legal Battle With CRTC


The legal batter over the CRTC’s new Super Bowl advertisement policy may soon be getting attention from the United States President Donald Trump.

Jocelyn Moore, the NFL’s D.C.-based senior vice president of government affairs, said U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and Trump are taking steps to protect the intellectual property of the football commission. In a statement, she said:

“We feel like the president has outlined a very strong enforcement agenda. We’ve had a number of conversations since the last administration and leading into this administration around this issue.”

The NFL has a contract with Bell to air the entire football season in Canada, including the Super Bowl. Using a technique called simultaneous substitution, local Canadian advertisements were shown in place of the US-based ads.

In 2015, the CRTC decided to no longer use this technique because it violates copyright protections under NAFTA. In a statement, Moore said:

“This is a question for us of uncertainty to feel like the Canadian government has stepped into the middle of a contract between two businesses. And more importantly, they’ve singled out us. It applies to us and no other program or entity.”

Bell loses money by not being able to sell ads during the Super Bowl, and Moore said that the CRTC’s decision also caused a 40 percent drop in viewership.

[via USA Today]


  • Bill___A

    We should have an end put to simultaneous substitution. We should be able to choose where we watch our television and although Canadians probably should choose a Canadian channel, it should be up to each individual and not forced. Admittedly Bell got caught in the middle of this one, but seriously, this one single show caused dozens of jobs to be cut at Bell? One single show shown once…a year… We should also be able to choose which channels come on our cable package, and ALL local channels that want to be included in the basic package must NOT collect fees from the cable company. If they can send it to me over the air without extra money, they should not be able to charge me for getting it through the cable company. I never thought i would become a cord cutter but I am seriously considering it.

  • Brenda

    Am I missing something here or is this illogical? The CRTC rules against something (simultaneous substitution) because it violates NAFTA copyright. The NFL (the copyright holder) wants Trump to intervene against the CRTC to protect their copyright. And Moore’s statement makes as much sense as one of Trump’s tweets. In fact it sounds like something Trump would write. These people are running the government and corporate boardrooms of the U.S.?

  • Brenda

    If everyone knew what’s available when you combine streaming services with the Internet (with or without VPN) and with an OTA antenna, most would be cutting the cord too. I challenge all you cord cutters to go out and convince at least two friends or family members to do so by showing them what’s on and then helping them with the technology. People aren’t sticking to cable because of the quality programming. They’re doing so because all you have to do to watch something is press one button on the remote.

  • ticky13

    Bell and Rogers could easily stop providing American OTA channels on their cable systems if simsub went away. They have no reason to carry them and aren’t being paid by anyone to do so.