This is the UFL! (XFL/USFL Merger)

[McCall]

One thing to note as it pertains to any potential hub city scenarios, Liberty Stadium in Memphis is due to begin renovations after the Memphis Tigers season ends this year and expected to be completed before the 2025 season. They'll still play there in 2024 during the renovations, but it could affect the ability of the Showboats or league to use it over the next couple of spring seasons. I wonder if there's a chance they're moved to another hub city or put on hold for a year or two, ala the Tampa Bay Bandits for 2023.

[CS85]

If they're going to do hub cities, which is league suicide, they need to drop all the cities from the team names.  Don't insult our intelligence.

[Cujo]

39 minutes ago, CS85 said:

If they're going to do hub cities, which is league suicide, they need to drop all the cities from the team names.  Don't insult our intelligence.

 

The rumor is 6 hubs, but I see them doing 2 or 3 to save more money. One of them will 100% be Canton. And still they won't dub a team "Canton" or "Ohio" -- which would logically bring in local attendance.

[McCall]

1 hour ago, Cujo said:

 

The rumor is 6 hubs, but I see them doing 2 or 3 to save more money. One of them will 100% be Canton. And still they won't dub a team "Canton" or "Ohio" -- which would logically bring in local attendance.

They had 4 this year, so I don't think they would add teams, yet reduce the number of hubs. That would make 4 teams playing per city if there's 12 teams.

[gosioux76]

1 hour ago, CS85 said:

If they're going to do hub cities, which is league suicide, they need to drop all the cities from the team names.  Don't insult our intelligence.

 

Like most of you, I also don't care for the hub model, but we're also purists when it comes to sports leagues. Justifiably, we're used to the convention of teams representing cities and playing in them, which is why the hub model is so frustrating.

 

But you have to ask yourself, in the case of these leagues, how do you measure success? If it's true, as Fox claims, that the USFL is profitable (especially compared with the XFL's massive losses) while working within a hub model, how exactly would that be "league suicide?"

 

It seems pretty clear that the USFL was, from the start, a made-for-TV league and that Fox's motivation was to have pro football content on the air during the NFL offseason. If they're profitable, that suggests Fox has succeeded in generating substantial ad revenue while keeping the costs low enough to generate a profit. 

 

As a fan, the hub model stinks. But as a business, it seems to be working fairly well for Fox. 

[Cujo]

4 minutes ago, gosioux76 said:

If it's true, as Fox claims, that the USFL is profitable

 

They wouldn't have merged to stay afloat if this were true.

[MJWalker45]

2 minutes ago, gosioux76 said:

As a fan, the hub model stinks. But as a business, it seems to be working fairly well for Fox. 

I feel that if it worked well for Fox they would have given actual numbers instead of saying , "It's a success, no we won't release the data to prove it". And if Redbird is still looking to keep a stake instead of getting completely out, then I don't think either side is worried about taking losses this year, though it could be enough for Dwayne and Dani to step away. 

[McCall]

4 minutes ago, gosioux76 said:

 

Like most of you, I also don't care for the hub model, but we're also purists when it comes to sports leagues. Justifiably, we're used to the convention of teams representing cities and playing in them, which is why the hub model is so frustrating.

 

But you have to ask yourself, in the case of these leagues, how do you measure success? If it's true, as Fox claims, that the USFL is profitable (especially compared with the XFL's massive losses) while working within a hub model, how exactly would that be "league suicide?"

 

It seems pretty clear that the USFL was, from the start, a made-for-TV league and that Fox's motivation was to have pro football content on the air during the NFL offseason. If they're profitable, that suggests Fox has succeeded in generating substantial ad revenue while keeping the costs low enough to generate a profit. 

 

As a fan, the hub model stinks. But as a business, it seems to be working fairly well for Fox. 

Viewership declined from 2022 to 2023. And they only averaged about 2k more viewers per game than the XFL in 2023. But the XFL drew more for their championship than the USFL did for theirs. If viewership is declining watching hub cities, how successful can it be for much longer? They may have lost less money this year than the XFL did (all they said was the took in $10M in revenue, I believe, but not what the expenses were), but they were not wildly successful financially.

[gosioux76]

51 minutes ago, Cujo said:

 

They wouldn't have merged to stay afloat if this were true.

 

But how do you know they're merging "to stay afloat?" I mentioned this earlier, but every indication has pointed to the fact that the XFL initiated these talks, not the USFL. There's a difference between agreeing to a merger out of desperation and merging because you see a growth opportunity. It's possible the USFL saw a little bit of both in this opportunity.

 

And @McCall, you're right. I don't think year two was as successful as year one, so I'm sure the model wasn't likely to be sustainable. I just don't think that we can call the hub model a failure if it, in any way, can be attributed to Fox's ability to avoid operating at a loss. 

[Skycast]

I'm not a fan of the hub model either and in an ideal situation it would just go away, but I'd much rather have hub spring football on my TV than no spring football.

[McCall]

4 minutes ago, gosioux76 said:

 

But how do you know they're merging "to stay afloat?" I mentioned this earlier, but every indication has pointed to the fact that the XFL initiated these talks, not the USFL. There's a difference between agreeing to a merger out of desperation out of desperation and merging because you see a growth opportunity. It's possible the USFL saw a little bit of both in this opportunity.

 

And @McCall, you're right. I don't think year two was as successful as year one, so I'm sure the model wasn't likely to be sustainable. I just don't think that we can call the hub model a failure if it, in any way, can be attributed to Fox's ability to avoid operating at a loss. 

There's also no evidence that the XFL initiated talks out of desperation to stay afloat. Seems both leagues were losing money and maybe Redbird Capital, being this is what they do, saw an opportunity for both leagues to join together and be successful. It's just this whole "XFL went to the USFL so they were going under and the USFL saved them therefore their model is better" narrative is nothing but that, an unsubstantiated narrative.

[gosioux76]

1 minute ago, McCall said:

There's also no evidence that the XFL initiated talks out of desperation to stay afloat. Seems both leagues were losing money and maybe Redbird Capital, being this is what they do, saw an opportunity for both leagues to join together and be successful. It's just this whole "XFL went to the USFL so they were going under and the USFL saved them therefore their model is better" narrative is nothing but that, an unsubstantiated narrative.

 

True. But we also don't know that "both leagues were losing money." In fact, we know relatively little about the motivations behind this merger outside of a lot of unverifiable reporting from alt-football blog sites. But when it comes to the USFL profit and XFL loss narratives, those have come from reputable publications like Sports Business Journal, Axios and Forbes. 

 

So if I'm going to speculate, which is all this really is, then I'll do so while leaning toward the more reputable sources of information. 

[Cujo]

30 minutes ago, gosioux76 said:

But we also don't know that "both leagues were losing money."

 

Even IF the USFL were in the black, why would they rescue the XFL who is on record as having lost $60M last year? Because the USFL wants to take over XFL's markets, though they play in hub cities? That still makes no sense. If the USFL was actually in the black and wanted to expand into playing at actual home stadiums, they would let the XFL fold then just build expansion teams into those cities. 

 

What I guess I'm saying is: The USFL and XFL were both hemorrhaging cash and sought each other as a life raft. Period.

[CS85]

You can't do football in front of no fans and expect engagement or success.  It doesn't work.

 

People don't want to go back to covid-era games.  Football can't be golf.

 

 

I know it's expensive as hell but local investment has an enormous long-term ROI compared to hoping for a couple years at best of TV ad buys before you founder the league and run away with what little money is left.

 

[Cujo]

12 minutes ago, CS85 said:

You can't do football in front of no fans and expect engagement or success.  It doesn't work.

 

The XFL was a better product, but failed because they wanted to play in front of fans.

 

The AAF was a better product, but failed because they wanted to play in front of fans.

 

The USFL (now NSFL) sees playing at home sites and in front of fans as a blueprint for failure. NSFL will embrace their hubs for another year or two until they completely drown because nobody is watching. The writing is on the wall.

[gosioux76]

19 hours ago, Cujo said:

The USFL (now NSFL) sees playing at home sites and in front of fans as a blueprint for failure. 

I presume you've taken this directly from their business plan? I'm guessing it's right there in the summary: "we don't want to play in front of people because it's a blueprint for failure." 

 

19 hours ago, Cujo said:

 

If the USFL was actually in the black and wanted to expand into playing at actual home stadiums, they would let the XFL fold then just build expansion teams into those cities. 

 

I'm not sure I follow the logic of letting existing XFL brands fold just so you can create new ones in those same cities to replace them. There's a lot more value in expanding into, say, St. Louis and D.C. by taking on the Battlehawks and Defenders than investing capital to create entirely new entities. 

 

You seem pretty hellbent on this "we were all destined for failure" narrative without having any direct knowledge of whether that's the truth. 

 

 

19 hours ago, CS85 said:

I know it's expensive as hell but local investment has an enormous long-term ROI compared to hoping for a couple years at best of TV ad buys before you founder the league and run away with what little money is left.

 

There's absolutely no doubt that it's a big investment, but that means you also need to have a capital source that's patient enough and willing to take a lot of losses in the short-term to realize that long-term ROI. 

 

The USFL strategy, which is a prudent one, wasn't built around eschewing the idea of playing in each team's given market, as has been suggested in this thread, but toward working gradually toward that objective. It was pretty clear: play entirely in hubs in year one, then add more cities in year two, and continue to extend yourself gradually. 

 

So rather than requiring patient investors, it was asking its fans to be patient so it could grow at a more reasonable pace necessary for sustained growth. 

 

Based on this thread, it seems like the fans aren't willing to have that patience. 

[ManillaToad]

I'm loving this idea that the only spring league to complete back-to-back seasons should copy the league that failed three times to make it past season one

 

4 hours ago, CS85 said:

If they're going to do hub cities, which is league suicide, they need to drop all the cities from the team names.  Don't insult our intelligence.

 

This one is my favorite

 

 

[McCall]

26 minutes ago, ManillaToad said:

I'm loving this idea that the only spring league to complete back-to-back seasons should copy the league that failed three times to make it past season one

 

 

This one is my favorite

 

 

Failed 3 times? 2020 was suspended due to covid. And there's been absolutely no indication, actually quite the opposite, that they wouldn't have played in 2024 without the merger. This is just more of the same false narrative created to make it seem like the USFL is the better idea financially, which is far from accurate. Both leagues had to have had long-term financial questions for them to merge, not one buy the other, but merge. Both were playing in 2024 regardless, but neither was guaranteed beyond that. One model may have incurred too much in losses too early, but the other model was declining from it's initial stability expectations.

[The_Admiral]

On 9/28/2023 at 2:54 PM, Cujo said:

"NSFL" makes it sounds like it's an entirely new spring league, ala UFL & AAF. Unidentifiable basically.

 

It makes it sound like 1guy1jar

[JH42XCC]

Why don't we call it the NAFL (North American Football League)?

 

BTW, I think the Pittsburgh Maulers should rebrand to the "Canton Maulers" or the "Ohio Maulers", since they play/would be playing all of their home games in Canton, OH anyway. Or even better, they could revive the old "Canton Bulldogs" name.

 

Also, I hope the newly merged league keeps the New Jersey Generals, who would be playing at either Rutgers' SHI Stadium or Red Bull Arena, since MetLife Stadium would be way too oversized for them.