STXBob, while I share your attitude toward Coldplay, and I agree that when somebody is making money out of a performance, some portion of that money should flow to the performer, what New Tricks has to say is correct.
If you were running the NFL, you'd explore every avenue open to you to increase revenue. Looked at the other way, you'd be silly to ignore a potential source of revenue.
And while the NFL does not charge for airtime, they do charge broadcasters for the right to broadcast, and the broadcasters in turn recoup their expense from advertisers in turn.
Bonus question: Who do the advertisers recoup the money from?
The NFL trying to make money is only a moral question if you want to debate the morality of capitalism. That may be a discussion worth having, but handwringing over a specific example, not so much.
Oh, I'm not denying that there's a great deal of money involved. Neither do I deny that the NFL is run like a business.
I'm happy to have a debate on the morality of capitalism if you really want one. To my mind, anyone who could excuse a supposed non-profit's massive profiteering, monopolism, and outright racketeering should exchange their clearly dysfunctional morals for some which actually work.
The NFL, which rakes in some
9.5 BILLION dollars annually, is officially a non-profit organization. The NFL earns more than the YMCA, Red Cross, Salvation Army, and Catholic Charities
combined. Commissioner Roger Goodell in 2011 reaped a salary of $30 million. But it's a 501(c)6, because in 1966 it bought enough legislators to rewrite the tax code to its benefit when the NFL combined with the AFL.
The NFL is one of the greatest profit-generating commercial advertising, entertainment and media enterprises ever created. Oh, sure, they show a technical loss every year, but then $9.5 billion can buy very, very clever tax accountants.
The NFL charges the networks an arm and a leg for the privilege of broadcasting the game. Then the networks charge advertisers an arm and a leg for the airtime. Then the advertisers charge more for their products, so
we end up paying the tab. But guess what? Because the NFL is a 501(c)6,
we pick up the tab in the first place. The lost tax revenue amounts to us paying the NFL to charge the networks to charge the advertisers to charge us. Just another example of the fat cats double-dipping at our expense.
Goodell is a plutocrat through and through. That's why they don't have a problem exploiting their "human resources." Plutocrats don't want to pay their workers. They want to make money off the backs of the workers, to profit from their labor, but don't want to pay them what they're worth, or indeed anything at all. This halftime performance horsepuckey goes out the other side of that. This is like my grandfather paying Standard Steel to go shovel borings in the machine room. It's insane.
But let's leave that aside. Let's instead explore why the NFL should pay halftime entertainers. As I've said over and over, the artists are professionals. Nobody has yet even bothered to explain why a professional doing his job shouldn't be paid. Further, they are providing a customer a thing of value. The performance is a commodity. If they have to pay someone to accept their commodity, it reverses the value of that commodity. It becomes valueless. That's dangerous as hell for artists and performers, and it trickles all the way down to you and me.
Let's take the venue's argument to its logical conclusion: "If you pay to play (or play for free), you'll get lots of exposure, and you'll hit it big." If you're playing the Super Bowl, you've already hit it big! It's not like you're a popular nightclub which label talent scouts sometimes visit. You're the f***ing SUPER BOWL. You're not just providing a venue which gets me exposure. You're making MILLIONS off this one gig. That's the only explanation I've seen so far why the performers shouldn't get paid, and that dog clearly don't hunt. Shell out, Goodell.
As you might expect, I think the issue is worth hand-wringing. A trend toward pay-to-play - even free playing "for the exposure" - works against people like you and me. If it takes hold, how many professional musicians will it ruin? I think my time, effort, knowledge, skill, and investment in equipment is worth something.
/rant
Rise up, comrades! Let the blood of the plutocrats and bourgeoisie run in rivers down the gutters of Gorkiy Park! Let the proletariat rise!
If only I could find a picture of Lenin holding a pair of drumsticks... ;-D
but I do know the basic of business. The pay to play is a pretty simple concept at this level of an event. A lot of people personalize this but, a major act is a major business. If they think their advertising budget would be well spent by playing at the super bowl, they will pay it. 
