Thread: London NFL Team Would Bring Britain $255 Million Annually

That according to a new study the NFL commissioned from British accounting firm Deloitte. Presumably the NFLs cut would be pretty hefty as well; the League would get no travel or concessions revenue, but would get to sell broadcast contracts and merchandise, and each of eight visiting teams would get a share of the gate. http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11...-million-boost

The study does note logistics could prove impractical, and that exporting the NFL might alienate and provoke a backlash from "the NFLs core audience." But at this point it's STARKLY clear the owners couldn't care less about their core audience: Ever since the mid-forties, the NFL's counted on being the only game in town, and pretty much gotten away with it, but it's milked that as much as possible at this point and is eagerly seeking new virgin markets full of tens of millions with large disposable incomes the NFL's not getting a dime of—yet....

It still needs multiple teams to mitigate the huge logistical issues and develop both a fan and player base overseas; don't be surprised if the Glazer family moves their Bucs into the same stadium as their (far more successful) Man U. Tampa DID win a SB, but only after a generation of embarrassing futility, then quickly sank right back into it. I'm unconvinced Florida has enough people to support two teams, but THREE? When the only one that's EVER pulled its weight competively OR financially is Miami?

For that matter, NO expansion team since the late sixties has EVER pulled its own weight; Seattle was perennial garbage until two seasons ago, and right now looks like it's just following in Tampas one-year wonder footsteps before resuming its bottom-feeding birthright. Same with the Falcons, Jags, resurrected Browns and Texans, though at least Atlanta and Houston are markets large enough to at least sell a respectable number of tickets each week. In terms of both revenue and talent, the US could do with at least 4 less teams, and Britain could do with at least 4 more.

I'm equally sure the owners SHOULD do this and WILL screw it up as bad as (or worse than) WLaugh, but it's coming soon: Just a question of when. The report will be presented at next years owners meeting.

Follow the $$$$....

In any business or political venture, but ESPECIALLY this one. I forget where I read it, but supposedly the Jags basically haven't made a dime since Day One, and that was right at 20 years ago. Considering what that town's been through in sports and in general over the past few decades, plus what the original teams departure did, I doubt the reborn-but-hopeless Browns have either. There's only so many ways to divide a fanbase in even as populous and wealthy a country as the US before one hits marginal returns, and the NFL was probably there after '78, but revenue-sharing helped conceal it.

Meanwhile, there's just as much money in nearly twice as many hands across the Pond, and no risk making any of them paying fans of a new team is just creating a new motive to spend money the NFL was ALREADY getting. No problem with all the biggest media markets and stadium venues being filled by existing NFL teams. And when the revenue stream all goes into one big pot split 32 ways, it doesn't matter if they're in the US, the UK or on Mars. If there were half a billion people and a $16 trillion GDP on Mars, a small market 4-12 team with a half empty stadium would be on its way already.

Yeah, but what is that in dirty British money?

The Jags owner also owns Fulham, so there's another football-football connection.

I still think it's a dumb idea though. I like my NFL on one continent. If the Jags/Bucs/whoever are deemed not successful enough to continue in their respective places, there are plenty of other cities in the US who are worthy of a football team before a London one.

Originally Posted by aberdien

The Jags owner also owns Fulham, so there's another football-football connection.

I still think it's a dumb idea though. I like my NFL on one continent. If the Jags/Bucs/whoever are deemed not successful enough to continue in their respective places, there are plenty of other cities in the US who are worthy of a football team before a London one.

Just curious, what other cities? Everyone seems to bring up LA, but I'm not sure they need another team in California. I wouldn't mind if Oakland moved. It seems like all the large areas are pretty much covered. It seems like if another state got a team, it would be one that already has multiple teams, such as NY, Cali, and Texas.

I think they should put a team in Las Vegas - think on the money that would generate between football, gambling, general tourism.

Vegas is half the reason the CO river is drying up. **** em. Way over expanded beyond their means.

I would like to see the next team in Canada, or London to be honest.

Originally Posted by dbfan2007

Just curious, what other cities? Everyone seems to bring up LA, but I'm not sure they need another team in California. I wouldn't mind if Oakland moved. It seems like all the large areas are pretty much covered. It seems like if another state got a team, it would be one that already has multiple teams, such as NY, Cali, and Texas.

It's a question I've considered often in this context, and the only major media markets and potential season ticket buyers who come to mind are L.A. and San Antonio (if <20 million New Yorkers and Floridians can support 3 teams, surely >26 million football-crazed Texans can.) After that, pretty much every city that could support an NFL team already does, and we don't need anothe Jax. A big part of the NFLs problems is trying to shoehorn NFL franchises into places that just can't sustain them. Moving the Jags to Bismarck, ND doesn't solve the problem, just relocate it.

Toronto! Toronto! Toronto!

Originally Posted by dbfan2007

Just curious, what other cities? Everyone seems to bring up LA, but I'm not sure they need another team in California. I wouldn't mind if Oakland moved. It seems like all the large areas are pretty much covered. It seems like if another state got a team, it would be one that already has multiple teams, such as NY, Cali, and Texas.

Oklahoma City sure didn't have trouble supporting a basketball market, so there's one option. I just find it hard to believe that there isn't another American city that can support a team.

NBA attendance averages only ¼ the NFLs, but they have 5X more games to stoke interest. Their annual revenue's also only a small fraction of the NFLs, so an impressive NBA profit would be a pitiful NFL profit. That's the biggest driver here: "Good enough" ISN'T good enough for NFL owners who have by far the worlds most profitable pro sport, yet still aren't satisfied: They want MORE, and OKC's not more.

What major US cities other than L.A. and San Antonio lack a team? There were 30 cities with METRO populations >2 million in the 2010 census: Los Angeles (which somehow counts twice) is the largest of the mere FIVE who lack NFL teams, and the ONLY one in the top 20: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tistical_Areas Go much smaller and we're talking places half the size of Denver (OKC's a perfect example.)

Salt Lake?

Originally Posted by ShaneFalco

Salt Lake?

Less than HALF Denvers population, in a state with HALF Colorados. Enough for the NBA, where 20,000 tickets is decent turnout, but not the NFL, where anything <60,000 is low. The Broncos practically own the Mountain West, partly because the closest other teams are SD, Arizona, Dallas and KC, which is in turn because Denver's the only Mountain West city big enough to support a team. Splitting that relatively sparse regional population between the Broncos and some other team's a bad idea, especially when people already complain the "small market" Broncos don't get coverage like teams in media meccas do.

It's all about marketability, and nearly every US city that has much also has an NFL team already; even if the Jags and some other team moved to L.A. and San Antonio, there still wouldn't be enough large media and population centers to support 32 NFL teams. Certainly not on the scale 15 million Londoners plus the rest of England or even the whole UK could. I still think the best approach would be to move 4 and create 4 other teams in a UK Division and a Continental Division, either in conjunction with the NFL are by relegating the worst small NFL teams to a European league to be integrated once developed.

That development's required for attendance, ratings, merchandise and local talent. No one will watch—much less PAY to watch—the least talented foreigners play a foreign game, knowing they don't dare get attached to any local teams few and relative "stars" since "the best of the worst" will go home to play REAL football the instant any NFL team notices they never should have left. At least initially, the NFL must offer European athletes WFL- and USFL-sized contracts, or Europes best athletes will stick with FIFA, rugby or even basketball, where they don't need full time jobs as Europes CURRENT pro football players do.

All that's why the owners' latest American Expeditionay Force will fare no better than their last: Because the NFL's seeking a fat cash cow to reinvigorate flattening scandal-ridden profits, not a huge INVESTMENT, however big or likely the eventual return. More simply, they're looking to MAKE money, not SPEND it, but can never do the first before the second: They must create a market for US football before they can exploit it, and a contract with Sky Sports plus a few London games/year's not nearly enough for that. This needs FAR more than London to work, but the NFL's talking to NO ONE ELSE.

It's a shame, because it's a good idea in principle however impure the NFLs motive, but the owners just don't have the necessary brass nor patience. The NFLs never did: It took Lamar Hunts insurgency and all the visionary competitive innovations Al Davis applied as Commissioner to force the NFLs hand. The AFLs owners were willing to run in the red for years until competing offers to star players and stitching their names on the back of jerseys for TV audiences drove salaries so high Rozelle and the NFL owners decided merger was financially better that competition. Todays NFL owners are just that, not AFL owners.

It's morbidly fascinating: There are SO MANY ways this could work were NFL owners willing to invest the needed time, money and effort—but they're not, so they're going to fall flat on their faces (again.)