USFL 2023 Season

[Sykotyk]

4 minutes ago, Sodboy13 said:

Well, that's gross revenue, not net profit.

But was the Fox money an investment in the company (USFL) or a rights fee for broadcasts?

 

Because if they Fox partly owns the league and puts the games on TV at no cost to themselves, it's hard to say that the investment is a failure. Because we wouldn't know whether Fox considers it a win or not for the TV revenue.

 

Go look at MLS rights fees to see how much live TV is coveted now compared to anything else. It's staggering how even the XFL 2001 would've been highly sought for their numbers when in 2001 they were a laughingstock of television. Today, a million live eyeballs would mean commercial space is going to be seen compared to every other form of entertainment that either gets skipped, or outright bypassed by subscriptions being ad-free.

 

Fox doesn't care about the league. They care about TV ratings and a measuring contest against the other networks for ratings.

[Cruhawk7975]

My understanding has been that the USFL had a multiphase plan to scale the league up. IIRC, the MOU they signed with Birmingham outlined the rough trajectory: 

 

• Year 1 - all 8 teams in Birmingham hub
• Year 2 - “up to 4” teams in Birmingham 
• Year 3 - all teams in home markets  

 

Who knows if  they’ll they’ll stay w the timeline, but right now they are on pace. Fox is the majority owner of the league and NBC does pay a rights fee to Fox for it. 
 

 Both said they were satisfied with the USFLs overall metrics last year, and the USFL said last fall that  they’ve already sold the majority of  ad space for their games in 2023.  It’s also worth mentioning that since they own it they can vertically integrate the league into Fox Corp itself and leverage the infrastructure and companies it already owns, along with synergy possibilities with FoxBet, Tubi, Fox Sports, Fox Broadcasting, and all of the affiliate TV stations owned by the company. 
 

Fox is already getting what it wants out of this league: relatively cheap sports programming that can draw competitive ( if  not amazing)  tv ratings and sell some ads during otherwise quiet timeslots that it outright controls. Different business model then other leagues, which given the fact that it’s back and growing it’s physical presence, just might work as long as they don’t hemorrhage money like AAF and XFL 2020 did.
 
 

[MJWalker45]

9 hours ago, Cruhawk7975 said:

My understanding has been that the USFL had a multiphase plan to scale the league up. IIRC, the MOU they signed with Birmingham outlined the rough trajectory: 

 

• Year 1 - all 8 teams in Birmingham hub
• Year 2 - “up to 4” teams in Birmingham 
• Year 3 - all teams in home markets  

 

Who knows if  they’ll they’ll stay w the timeline, but right now they are on pace. Fox is the majority owner of the league and NBC does pay a rights fee to Fox for it. 
 

 Both said they were satisfied with the USFLs overall metrics last year, and the USFL said last fall that  they’ve already sold the majority of  ad space for their games in 2023.  It’s also worth mentioning that since they own it they can vertically integrate the league into Fox Corp itself and leverage the infrastructure and companies it already owns, along with synergy possibilities with FoxBet, Tubi, Fox Sports, Fox Broadcasting, and all of the affiliate TV stations owned by the company. 
 

Fox is already getting what it wants out of this league: relatively cheap sports programming that can draw competitive ( if  not amazing)  tv ratings and sell some ads during otherwise quiet timeslots that it outright controls. Different business model then other leagues, which given the fact that it’s back and growing it’s physical presence, just might work as long as they don’t hemorrhage money like AAF and XFL 2020 did.

I think originally they wanted all teams in Birmingham for the first two years, then everyone in their specific market by year 3. But that did change once the XFL came back and they needed to get further outside of Birmingham due to low attendance for the teams that weren't Birmingham.  Even if Fox is willing to burn $150 million dollars, they want to make it appealing to viewers, and there's no way they are trying the CGI fans in that stadium. 

 

 

[gosioux76]

11 hours ago, Sykotyk said:

But was the Fox money an investment in the company (USFL) or a rights fee for broadcasts?

 

Because if they Fox partly owns the league and puts the games on TV at no cost to themselves, it's hard to say that the investment is a failure. Because we wouldn't know whether Fox considers it a win or not for the TV revenue.

 

Go look at MLS rights fees to see how much live TV is coveted now compared to anything else. It's staggering how even the XFL 2001 would've been highly sought for their numbers when in 2001 they were a laughingstock of television. Today, a million live eyeballs would mean commercial space is going to be seen compared to every other form of entertainment that either gets skipped, or outright bypassed by subscriptions being ad-free.

 

Fox doesn't care about the league. They care about TV ratings and a measuring contest against the other networks for ratings.

 

This is it. It's exactly that simple. 

 

I'm still kind of flummoxed how people still make a big deal out of the league's poor in-game attendance in its first year. Its business model was never predicated on putting butts in seats. It was a made-for-TV league whose entire value proposition, as @Sykotyk pointed out so clearly, was to provide pro football programming to FOX. 

 

That will likely change in coming years as the league makes its gradual shift into its home markets, but it would be doing so under a more stable foundation as a TV league. 

 

In a way, it's no different than what NBC does with the barnstorming pro Lacrosse league. It's harder to see the comparison, though, because people get so tripped over the fact that the USFL teams represent cities, where the lacrosse ones don't.  

 

[Skycast]

14 hours ago, Cujo said:

 

Whyy don't they name them the Canton Maulers and Ohio Generals?

 

This league is setting itself up for failure. i just dont understand how this is a smart business model. Just comes off as them being cheap and really lost.

 

Seriously, what don't people understand about this?

 

Name the first spring league in a long, long time to complete a season, crown a champion and come back for a second season? Yup, the USFL. Everything else has failed.

 

Many reasons have  already been said in other responses to you, but it baffles me how folks can't understand the business end of these things. But essentially it's play in namesake cities from day one, lose a buttload of cash and probably fold or have a plan such as this one, slowly spread things out, stay afloat, make money and keep playing year after year.

 

Personally as a football fan I'll take the slow and steady approach to actually have a league that has a good chance of sticking around.

[McCall]

15 hours ago, Cujo said:

 

Whyy don't they name them the Canton Maulers and Ohio Generals?

Are football fans in Pittsburgh gonna become Maulers fans if they go by Canton or Ohio? Probably not. Call them Pittsburgh, and that's their team. That's who they're gonna latch on to. Then, in year 3, if they put each team in their own home city, you've established your fanbase ahead of time.

[GDAWG]

 

Gores owns the NBA's Pistons and Gilbert owns the NBA's Cleveland Cavs.  Both wanted to bring an MLS team to Ford Field at one point.  

[Luigi74]

1 hour ago, McCall said:

Are football fans in Pittsburgh gonna become Maulers fans if they go by Canton or Ohio? Probably not. Call them Pittsburgh, and that's their team. That's who they're gonna latch on to. Then, in year 3, if they put each team in their own home city, you've established your fanbase ahead of time.

I think only a handful of people in the Greater Pittsburgh Area even know there's a new Maulers, having a team with Pittsburgh in the name but playing in Canton isn't going to establish a fan base, it's just going to confuse people.

I'm not sure if the USFL couldn't make a deal with Highmark Stadium or they thought it was too small, but if it was their choice to not play there they made a mistake. 5,000 fans in a unique stadium located in the city the team is named after makes more sense than playing in-front of 5,000 fans in a 25,000 seat stadium over 100 miles away, if they can even draw 5,000 fans in Canton.

[GDAWG]

27 minutes ago, Luigi74 said:

I think only a handful of people in the Greater Pittsburgh Area even know there's a new Maulers, having a team with Pittsburgh in the name but playing in Canton isn't going to establish a fan base, it's just going to confuse people.

I'm not sure if the USFL couldn't make a deal with Highmark Stadium or they thought it was too small, but if it was their choice to not play there they made a mistake. 5,000 fans in a unique stadium located in the city the team is named after makes more sense than playing in-front of 5,000 fans in a 25,000 seat stadium over 100 miles away, if they can even draw 5,000 fans in Canton.

 

They might have not wanted Highmark Stadium.  They may have wanted Acrisure.  

[Skycast]

32 minutes ago, Luigi74 said:

I think only a handful of people in the Greater Pittsburgh Area even know there's a new Maulers, having a team with Pittsburgh in the name but playing in Canton isn't going to establish a fan base, it's just going to confuse people.

 

People are smarter than you think. They might be confused for a hot second, but anyone that has any ounce of curiosity and isn't already in the know about such things will Google what the deal is and quickly be educated on the smart business decisions they league is making to ensure longevity the best they can. The majority won't give a hoot about spring football anyway and will simply move along with their day.

 

I grew up in the Tampa area (been in Colorado for over 26 years) and still have many friends down there. You'd be shocked at how many people that live in Orlando and Tampa didn't have a clue they had a team in the AAF or XFL 2.0 even when they were playing locally. Those of us spring football nerds are definitely in the minority, even among football diehards.

[McCall]

43 minutes ago, Luigi74 said:

I think only a handful of people in the Greater Pittsburgh Area even know there's a new Maulers, having a team with Pittsburgh in the name but playing in Canton isn't going to establish a fan base, it's just going to confuse people.

I'm not sure if the USFL couldn't make a deal with Highmark Stadium or they thought it was too small, but if it was their choice to not play there they made a mistake. 5,000 fans in a unique stadium located in the city the team is named after makes more sense than playing in-front of 5,000 fans in a 25,000 seat stadium over 100 miles away, if they can even draw 5,000 fans in Canton.

5,000 fans a year does not make for a successful franchise/league. They need 15k-20k. 

 

I posted this in the XFL thread, but it shows the average attendances for the AAF (red) and XFL2020 (blue). Every team averaged way higher than 5,000 fans, including the league that folded for financial reasons during it's first season. 

TEAM	AVG ATT.	GAMES
St. Louis	28,541	2	XFL 23
San Antonio	27,721	4	XFL 23
Seattle	25,616	2	XFL 23
Orlando	19,648	3	XFL 23
San Diego	19,154	4
Houston	18,230	3	XFL 23
Dallas	17,163	3	XFL 23
DC	16,179	3	XFL 23
Tampa Bay	15,183	2
New York	14,875	2
Birmingham	14,307	4
Los Angeles	13,124	3
Memphis	12,944	4
Atlanta	10,895	4
Arizona	9,932	4
Salt Lake	9,067	4

 

5,000 fans a game at Highmark may work for a regionally exclusive eastern Ohio/western Pennsylvania league, but not a national one, even if it is only in half of the US.

[GDAWG]

44 minutes ago, McCall said:

5,000 fans a year does not make for a successful franchise/league. They need 15k-20k. 

 

I posted this in the XFL thread, but it shows the average attendances for the AAF (red) and XFL2020 (blue). Every team averaged way higher than 5,000 fans, including the league that folded for financial reasons during it's first season. 

TEAM	AVG ATT.	GAMES
St. Louis	28,541	2	XFL 23
San Antonio	27,721	4	XFL 23
Seattle	25,616	2	XFL 23
Orlando	19,648	3	XFL 23
San Diego	19,154	4
Houston	18,230	3	XFL 23
Dallas	17,163	3	XFL 23
DC	16,179	3	XFL 23
Tampa Bay	15,183	2
New York	14,875	2
Birmingham	14,307	4
Los Angeles	13,124	3
Memphis	12,944	4
Atlanta	10,895	4
Arizona	9,932	4
Salt Lake	9,067	4

 

5,000 fans a game at Highmark may work for a regionally exclusive eastern Ohio/western Pennsylvania league, but not a national one, even if it is only in half of the US.

 

In that case, the only other option is Acrisure Stadium, where the Steelers play.  

[McCall]

Just now, GDAWG said:

 

In that case, the only other option is Acrisure Stadium, where the Steelers play.  

That's probably the plan.

[GFB]

As someone with a fondness for weird local minor league teams, I have no interest in attending a single Panthers game. 

 

I call it the Jeff Fisher Effect. 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

21 minutes ago, GFB said:

As someone with a fondness for weird local minor league teams, I have no interest in attending a single Panthers game. 

 

I call it the Jeff Fisher Effect. 

 

 

[Indigo]

2 hours ago, McCall said:

5,000 fans a year does not make for a successful franchise/league. They need 15k-20k. 

 

I posted this in the XFL thread, but it shows the average attendances for the AAF (red) and XFL2020 (blue). Every team averaged way higher than 5,000 fans, including the league that folded for financial reasons during it's first season. 

TEAM	AVG ATT.	GAMES
St. Louis	28,541	2	XFL 23
San Antonio	27,721	4	XFL 23
Seattle	25,616	2	XFL 23
Orlando	19,648	3	XFL 23
San Diego	19,154	4
Houston	18,230	3	XFL 23
Dallas	17,163	3	XFL 23
DC	16,179	3	XFL 23
Tampa Bay	15,183	2
New York	14,875	2
Birmingham	14,307	4
Los Angeles	13,124	3
Memphis	12,944	4
Atlanta	10,895	4
Arizona	9,932	4
Salt Lake	9,067	4

 

5,000 fans a game at Highmark may work for a regionally exclusive eastern Ohio/western Pennsylvania league, but not a national one, even if it is only in half of the US.

Please remeber that the USFL is owned by Fox and was made to intitally be a TV-based league, so in-person attendance is not a make-or-break deal for them.

[McCall]

14 minutes ago, Indigo said:

Please remeber that the USFL is owned by Fox and was made to intitally be a TV-based league, so in-person attendance is not a make-or-break deal for them.

If attendance isn't important, then why did they not keep all of the games in Birmingham again?

 

They still need people to show up. They're not gonna survive solely on televising a league playing games in front of empty stadiums.

[gosioux76]

28 minutes ago, McCall said:

If attendance isn't important, then why did they not keep all of the games in Birmingham again?

 

They still need people to show up. They're not gonna survive solely on televising a league playing games in front of empty stadiums.

 

Nobody said "attendance isn't important." What was said is that the USFL, as initially structured, didn't need to rely on gate receipts to be successful, that it's value came from being a made-for-TV product that generates a larger audience for Fox than whatever other programming it might air during that time of year. 

 

That doesn't mean the league doesn't care about attendance. It just means, for its first year at least, it had a business model that wasn't destroyed by having empty stadiums because it wasn't relying on that revenue for survival. 

 

So why not keep the whole league in Birmingham? It seems pretty clear that the league eventually wants gate receipts to play a bigger role in its business over time. And if that ticket revenue isn't make or break for the league, then it gets the luxury of building that side of the business gradually. 

[Red Comet]

Why wouldn’t the USFL try another option if every other league who had 8 teams in their own cities/stadiums in the spring fell flat? After all, what is the true definition of insanity? They’re playing the long game. Establish yourself first and then get better deals down the line.

[McCall]

4 hours ago, gosioux76 said:

 

Nobody said "attendance isn't important." What was said is that the USFL, as initially structured, didn't need to rely on gate receipts to be successful, that it's value came from being a made-for-TV product that generates a larger audience for Fox than whatever other programming it might air during that time of year. 

 

That doesn't mean the league doesn't care about attendance. It just means, for its first year at least, it had a business model that wasn't destroyed by having empty stadiums because it wasn't relying on that revenue for survival. 

 

So why not keep the whole league in Birmingham? It seems pretty clear that the league eventually wants gate receipts to play a bigger role in its business over time. And if that ticket revenue isn't make or break for the league, then it gets the luxury of building that side of the business gradually. 

That was kinda my whole point. Indigo said attendance is not a "make or break" for them and I was pointing out how they can't survive on that alone, long term, which is why they're building towards having teams in their own markets, which, in turn, will need to average more than the previously suggested 5,000 that Highmark can hold.