Screengrab via CJ Fogler on X
By Andrew Bucholtz on

One of the most universally disliked broadcasting changes in a while came last Sunday when NFL RedZone broke from their long trend of “commercial-free football” to show ads. That drew massive backlash for the league, the show, and host Scott Hanson, who opened the show with his usual “seven hours of commercial-free football” despite the upcoming ads, and apologized for that later in the week.

However, a NFL spokesperson described the ads (there were four ads over the course of the seven-hour broadcast) as a “test.” And given the backlash that test drew, and the eventual apology from Hanson, it seemed at least possible the NFL would pivot away from the commercial plan. But the pivot that happened Sunday was a different one. Indeed, it saw Hanson instead open the show with “seven hours of RedZone football”:

Hanson said in his apology that he regretted using “commercial-free” last week when that wasn’t the case, saying “I had a tough decision to make, and I made the wrong decision, and I’m sorry. …Being a great host means being accurate, being truthful, and having integrity.”

But while that’s a smart and reasonable move from him, especially given the backlash the opposite tack drew last week, Hanson’s statement here meant many were upset long before any ad aired Sunday.

Update: And, oddly enough given Hanson’s remark, the league didn’t actually run ads on RedZone Sunday. But Michael McCarthy of Front Office Sports reported they may still do so down the road. Our initial post with the reaction from many fans to Hanson’s comment, on the assumption it was setting up ads, continues below:

Here’s some of that reaction from fans:

Apart from complaints, though, there isn’t a ton of action upset viewers can take. Yes, they could cancel RedZone (especially for next season), but the NFL is gambling that the cancellation numbers will be low enough that they’ll be offset by the increased ad revenue. And yes, while fans might be mad that the league promised “commercial-free football” and then didn’t deliver it, Mike Florio noted at Pro Football Talk that the chances of a successful class-action lawsuit here seem unlikely, especially after the NFL changed some terms and conditions this summer:

The NFL distributed in August 2024 a new set of Terms and Conditions that beef up efforts to force claims to arbitration and to waive the ability of consumers to band together and file a class action.

Armed with the apparent ability to beat back a class action, there’s no legal disincentive to disregarding the vow that RedZone entails commercial-free football. Which allows the NFL to do all sorts of things that impact the individual consumer in a way that would never justify the expense of chasing the NFL around for justice.

Which also allows the NFL to authorize the decision of RedZone host Scott Hanson to issue a public apology for the bait-and-switch. If the NFL feared class-action liability over the RedZone ruse, they never, ever would have allowed Hanson to say, “I’m sorry.”

At least Hanson isn’t promising “commercial-free football” and not delivering it any more, even if he did actually deliver commercial-free football Sunday. But it looks like there may be more Red Zone commercials ahead. And that intro change certainly seems to possibly point to that.

[Awful Announcing on X]

About Andrew Bucholtz

Andrew Bucholtz has been covering sports media for Awful Announcing since 2012. He is also a staff writer for The Comeback. His previous work includes time at Yahoo! Sports Canada and Black Press.

View all posts by Andrew Bucholtz