NFL: NFL Considering Expansion

[BMWallace]

The NFL is currently embroiled in a legal dispute with the city of St. Louis over the relocation of the Rams. Reporting of that case is leaning towards the NFL losing the suit and could be on the hook for damages of more than $1B. One of the potential "payout" options would be an expansion team in St. Louis.

Along with that, there are talks of expanding to 36 teams and an 18 game schedule. Some of the expansion candidates to go with St. Louis are Toronto, London, Mexico City, and San Antonio. I also wouldn't be surprised to see San Diego, Portland, Oklahoma City, and Salt Lake City brought up in discussion as well.

[Twitter] ESPN Radio St. Louis

 

[CloneGuy8]

Having a team in London would be a logistical nightmare

 

[KnappShack]

The NFL is currently embroiled in a legal dispute with the city of St. Louis over the relocation of the Rams. Reporting of that case is leaning towards the NFL losing the suit and could be on the hook for damages of more than $1B. One of the potential "payout" options would be an expansion team in St. Louis.

Along with that, there are talks of expanding to 36 teams and an 18 game schedule. Some of the expansion candidates to go with St. Louis are Toronto, London, Mexico City, and San Antonio. I also wouldn't be surprised to see San Diego, Portland, Oklahoma City, and Salt Lake City brought up in discussion as well.

[Twitter] ESPN Radio St. Louis

If Mexico City FT was a stock I would buy the hell out of it.

 

[Cyched]

San Antonio probably needs to happen before any of the other options

 

[cyfanatic]

San Antonio probably needs to happen before any of the other options

But would Jerry allow that?? I would think he would have his hand out there for the rest of the owners fill with even more cash before he would support SA as a location for a new franchise.

 

[Mr Janny]

Having a team in London would be a logistical nightmare

Agreed. I know that the league wants it, but damn would it be hard to accommodate.

I'm not opposed to expansion at all, but I have a hard time seeing that work.

 

[xboxfever]

If Mexico City FT was a stock I would buy the hell out of it.

No player is going to want to move to Mexico. They would lose every player once they are eligible for free agency. They would have a nightmarish time signing free agents. Mexico City and London would be horrendous for the players.

 

[Sigmapolis]

Having a team in London would be a logistical nightmare

Agreed. I know that the league wants it, but damn would it be hard to accommodate.

I'm not opposed to expansion at all, but I have a hard time seeing that work.

The NFL and established pro leagues have been slow to expand because expansion does not grow the pie on the most significant revenue source for the league -- that is, of course, the TV money.

Most pro leagues divide the TV money out evenly or close to it. The Jacksonville Jaguars get the same check from the television partners as do the Dallas Cowboys despite the obvious and titanic difference in fan bases between the most popular teams in the largest cities and the least in the smallest ones.

Going to 36 just means you slice the TV money into 1/36th into 1/32th. That is roughly an 11% decrease for each of the existing franchises. Sure, they might make some of that up in expansion fees (at least for the cities that have to pay one, unlike St. Louis that might get a free one), but that's lot of money gone.

This is why I think London will happen. Adding a team to San Antonio doesn't bring in more TV money. People there are already watching the Cowboys or Texans or the national games just fine. Having a team in London, though, which can be "Europe's team," could be pretty lucrative for the television deals.

The NFL always figures out the logistics when there is money involved. I'm sure it could work somehow -- have the London team spend one month over there playing home games, then one month in North America playing road games, then cycle through that again until you've completed the whole season.

 

[Peter]

Toronto would be interesting. Is American football popular in Canada?

 

[SCNCY]

Having a team in London would be a logistical nightmare

Agreed. Mexico City and Toronto would be fine, but crossing the pond, no thanks.

 

[SCNCY]

Toronto would be interesting. Is American football popular in Canada?

Canada has their own football league, CFL. When I see their games on TV, their stadiums aren't that full. But maybe they prefer NFL over CFL.

 

[Sigmapolis]

Toronto would be interesting. Is American football popular in Canada?

Canada has their own football league, CFL. When I see their games on TV, their stadiums aren't that full. But maybe they prefer NFL over CFL.

The government of Canada threatened to give the CFL a legal monopoly on professional football in Canada the last time anybody tried to put an American football team in the Great White North.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Football_Act

They might do so again. Canada takes maintaining a culture that is distinct from the U.S. a high priority. Saying "that would just make us the 51st state!" is a pretty grave political insult up there.

An NFL team in Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal would kill the CFL immediately.

Not sure the Canadians would go for it.

 

[cymonw1980]

Having a team in London would be a logistical nightmare

Agree.

I think they should stick to 17 game schedules and have teams play one game in places like Mexico City, London, Ireland, Germany, etc. Also, add a 2nd bye week to the season. that comes before your Thursday night game so that you have plenty of time to rest before. The other could come before your international game.

This way everyone plays same number of Home/Away/Neutral site games, there would be no short weeks to prep for Thr games, and everyone would get a 2nd bye week for recovery during the season.

Seems like it should be a no brainer.

 

[3GenClone]

Rams’ Kroenke Offers $100M Settlement; Ex-Panthers Owner A Wild Card

Rams owner Stan Kroenke’s inability to settle the relocation from St. Louis lawsuit has frustrated other NFL owners as the January trial approaches.

frontofficesports.com

If you read this article it says the owners have little interest in sharing revenues with a 33rd team, let alone expanding to 36. The reason this idea is being floated is because all 32 teams are listed as defendants in the lawsuit, and it sounds like there is a worry among owners of documents becoming public if the case goes to trial. It sounds like the NFL is on the hook for $1 billion to the city of St Louis. I wouldn't be surprised if there are rumors about St Louis hosting pre-season games next year as the NFL tries to play nice with STL.

 

[Dandy]

The NFL is currently embroiled in a legal dispute with the city of St. Louis over the relocation of the Rams. Reporting of that case is leaning towards the NFL losing the suit and could be on the hook for damages of more than $1B. One of the potential "payout" options would be an expansion team in St. Louis.

Along with that, there are talks of expanding to 36 teams and an 18 game schedule. Some of the expansion candidates to go with St. Louis are Toronto, London, Mexico City, and San Antonio. I also wouldn't be surprised to see San Diego, Portland, Oklahoma City, and Salt Lake City brought up in discussion as well.

[Twitter] ESPN Radio St. Louis

St Louis and Toronto make sense. St Louis as a sorry and Toronto has all the other major sports. Hard pass on London. Soft pass on Mexico City. Don't need ANOTHER California or Texas team. Salt Lake City and Oklahoma City are the good maybes. Don't give San Diego a team back, their fan base never showed up to home games.

 

[cyfanatic]

The NFL and established pro leagues have been slow to expand because expansion does not grow the pie on the most significant revenue source for the league -- that is, of course, the TV money.

Most pro leagues divide the TV money out evenly or close to it. The Jacksonville Jaguars get the same check from the television partners as do the Dallas Cowboys despite the obvious and titanic difference in fan bases between the most popular teams in the largest cities and the least in the smallest ones.

Going to 36 just means you slice the TV money into 1/36th into 1/32th. That is roughly an 11% decrease for each of the existing franchises. Sure, they might make some of that up in expansion fees (at least for the cities that have to pay one, unlike St. Louis that might get a free one), but that's lot of money gone.

This is why I think London will happen. Adding a team to San Antonio doesn't bring in more TV money. People there are already watching the Cowboys or Texans or the national games just fine. Having a team in London, though, which can be "Europe's team," could be pretty lucrative for the television deals.

The NFL always figures out the logistics when there is money involved. I'm sure it could work somehow -- have the London team spend one month over there playing home games, then one month in North America playing road games, then cycle through that again until you've completed the whole season.

The TV money could/WOULD increase because it is likely that adding those teams would create another time slot for TV...maybe even a Saturday night game every week. The league would open that time slot up for bids and cash the check. Expanding the league to 36 would not just be adding more games to the times that the league is already playing.

 

[cydsho]

They really should look at putting a NFL team in Detroit. Oh wait......

 

[Sigmapolis]

The TV money could/WOULD increase because it is likely that adding those teams would create another time slot for TV...maybe even a Saturday night game every week. The league would open that time slot up for bids and cash the check. Expanding the league to 36 would not just be adding more games to the times that the league is already playing.

The league already has enough inventory. They could hypothetically...

Thursday (1) (evening)
Friday (1) (evening)
Saturday (1/2/2/1) (morning/early afternoon/late afternoon/evening)
Sunday (1/2/2/1) (same)
Monday (2) (Monday night doubleheader)

= 16 games, which is how many games you play in a full week without byes

They don't need to expand the league or the # of games to creep into new time slots.

There has to be something else -- e.g., avoiding the fine for yanking a franchise away from St. Louis or wanting to make more TV money in Europe -- driving the economics of these decisions.

 

[cyfanatic]

The league already has enough inventory. They could hypothetically...

Thursday (1) (evening)
Friday (1) (evening)
Saturday (1/2/2/1) (morning/early afternoon/late afternoon/evening)
Sunday (1/2/2/1) (same)
Monday (2) (Monday night doubleheader)

= 16 games, which is how many games you play in a full week without byes

They don't need to expand the league or the # of games to creep into new time slots.

There has to be something else -- e.g., avoiding the fine for yanking a franchise away from St. Louis or wanting to make more TV money in Europe -- driving the economics of these decisions.

That is true but it seems that the NFL enjoys having a "slate" of games on Sunday afternoons (no matter how uninspiring they may be...such as this week's schedule)! With the larger slate of games on Sundays it does allow for the schedulers to be more creative in giving teams various schedules to "recover" from an odd week in a schedule. I get that they could add a Saturday night game or whatever night/day they want as is but adding teams and then expanding the time slots could at least be an equalizer if not more profitable.

I remember growing up and once the Monday night game was over there was no football until Saturday on TV. Now...not quite that way. I definitely could see the NFL add another night to its schedule.

 

[cyrocksmypants]

Why do pro leagues always recycle the same cities? “Oh, it didn’t work these other two times, but I’m sure THIS time it will work out and be successful!”