Jump to content

Future of Professional Sports


DaytonBlue

Recommended Posts

I think that you are going to see leagues get smaller. They could get down to 28 or 25 or 24. The talent in the leagues will get watered down with all the teams and if the economy is not getting any better than more teams wont be able to make money. Like in the NBA 22 out of 30 teams are losing money. I also agree that the NFL sould take one season off, yes I love my football but the constant coverage is just fackin annoying.

The more pessimistic side of my personality agrees with this, as I really do wonder, even when the economy was going strong and the leagues were expanding, or even relocating to certain markets, didn't they plan for the worst-case scenario where the economy partially collapses or the talent pool being sucked dry. I mean, I hope people from smaller cities don't take offense to this, but professional sports has no business being in Memphis, Oklahoma City, Orlando, or Sacramento. Not to mention, some cities that aren't very healthy economically (Detroit), or have a large population (Denver) have the means to support all Big Four teams or extremely saturated sports markets. I mean, don't most people in sports, business, or just society realize that a good market can't be judged on the best or worst of times, and that most markets can only rarely support two to three teams, max? Yes, you have the megalopolises of Los Angeles, Chicago, and the Northeastern Corridor (specifically Boston, New York, and Philadelphia), but those are rare examples of markets that can handle four to possibly six teams at once.

Take Denver for example. When I moved from there a while back they had an economy that hasn't fully recovered from the initial downturn back in the early 2000's. After October of 2000 their unemployment rate has increased every year and their per-capita income for households has steady declined every year. Of course, you won't hear this from the Colorado Chamber of Commerce, since they go to the Enron School of Bookkeeping, but they had at one point the Nuggets (NBA), Rockies (MLB), Broncos (NFL), Avalanche (NHL), Rapids (MLS), Outlaws (MLL), Mammoth (NLL), as well as a multitude of colleges in and around the metro area and front range corridor. The fact is, that area is not rich enough nor has a diversified population base to support that many professional sports franchises or amateur athletic programs, and anytime you saturate the market with that many teams, there will be ones that fold. That kind of gluttony will lead to contraction, market correction, or whatever you wish to call it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the future of pro sports can be strong but they will have to face the inevitable shift away from a ticket based revenue model. The view from home experience with HD, RZC, and easy ways to follow along with fantasy stats makes staying home more viable every year.

Smaller arenas, not bigger ones ( ahem Jerry Jones) is the answer. And they have to find a way to offer folks something unique to make them drop all that money/time on parking and food and all the hassle of attending the games in person.

I also can't fathom the network TV revenue model carrying the NFL ( for ex) for another 20 years. Right now it's considered a fools errand to NOT buy in to NFL coverage if you're s major network and the billions pour in. But I've already given up on network coverage years ago. Time is too valuable to waste 6 hours watching commercials for Coors and pick up trucks. RZC offers roughly 10 tines the action for less than $10 a month.

Sooner or later eyeballs will stop consuming football that way and at that point CBS, ABC have to question their investment, as their advertisers undoubtedly will too.

I forsee eventually the NFL taking over it's own product distribution and charging a premium for it

The Official Cheese-Filled Snack of NASCAR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think any leagues will fold. We might lose a team or two, but more likely they will be relocations as opposed to teams folding.

I sincerely hope the NFL lockout cancels the season. That, IMO, would be great for every other pro sport. The mindset of Joe Sports Fan, and the sports media, is waaaaaaaay too NFL-centric. I'm tired of these douchebags like Mel Kiper Jr. on ESPN all the damn time talking about the NFL in freaking March. It's the most over-hyped thing on the face of the Earth and people just eat it right up. I don't get it. So little bang for your entertainment buck, only 8 home games a year and if you're team sucks all hope is pretty much lost by like week 6.

This would be especially helpful down here in South Florida. People are so crazy over the Dolphins yet they have not won a damn thing since 1973, haven't even been to the AFC Championship in 20 years. Every other team down here has either won a title or been to the championship since the Dolphins have, but the Fins get the majority of the coverage and $$$. We could use a lockout to get people to spend some time with the Panthers, Marlins and Strikers. For the price of even the cheapest Dolphins ticket I could see 4 Panthers hockey games, in the air conditioning and with free parking.

I'd love to see just some of the energy and time that gets focused on the NFL transferred to other sports, especially the NHL and MLS. Both great products that don't get anywhere near the amount of press they deserve nationally.

I don't know what you're talking about. I've never seen interest in the Dolphins at such a low point. They barely get any coverage save 560 am. Everything right now is Heat, Heat, Heat. I know long time season ticket holders who haven't renewed because things look so bleak on the field.

And no one is going to spend time with the Strikers. The soccer fans they want to draw come from countries that play world class soccer. They aren't going to pay money to see really low level minor league soccer (internationally speaking).

1997 | 2003

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see the NFL taking a year--or any games--off; while there have been recent bumps in labor talks, things are still optimistic. Both sides are talking with each other and are feeling the pressure to get a deal done, as the league is making money. I'm with the players on this one, as it seems to me that the owners can't seem to make enough money. If anyone folds or compromises, it's the owners.

The NBA's lockout has just begun, and I think games will be lost because there's a bigger gap between owners and players, but there's a lot of time to talk. The NFL lockout sounded as ugly, if not uglier, when it started off. Even if the league goes dark for a year, I feel that the league will come out better in the end, being more level in terms of revenue sharing or a hard cap. Believe it or not, I'm more with the owners here, as players have too much power--we saw what happened with LeBron with the Cavaliers and Melo with the Nuggets. In my opinion, the Jazz didn't want to see the same thing happen with Deron Williams, and that's why I think they traded him to the Nets this last season instead of holding on for one more.

In all, whatever happens, pro sports will survive and our lives as fans will continue on. Things will get better, as what's wrong with the "Big 4" leagues will be ironed out--one way or the other. But if things absolutely go to hell with pro sports in general, life will go on.

Pyc5qRH.gifRDXvxFE.gif

usu-scarf_8549002219_o.png.b2c64cedbb44307eaace2cf7f96dd6b1.png

AKA @LanRovr0 on Twitter

LED Sig Credits to packerfan21396

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't care why the NFL and Players are arguing about. I've heard 8 different stories, and NONE of them come from neutral sides or fans. Each side and each fan have had a bias about the lockout and who's "fault" it is. In reality it's both the players and the NFL's fault. Did they forget that the Fans put them in business and the fans can take them out of business?

As much as I like football, I'm not watching, buying or supporting the NFL for at least 4-5 games. I'm not sure if a good percentage of others did this how much it would really hurt the NFL or the Players, or if it will even show them how much fans are pissed - and regardless of Goodell's "we understand the fans" letter - Roger, NO YOU DON'T. You don't understand anything but $$ signs.

I get it - it's a business, but from what I've read it's EXTRA revenue. It's like two guys get paid $75. They divide it. $30 and $30 for the first $60. But they can't figure out who gets more of the remaining $15. You would think that the NFL and Players could play games on field while figuring this out. I know there's more on the table than just $$ but the money seems to be what's holding things up.

This is why the CFL should really see what they need to do to get some CFL teams and games into NFL markets. If nothing else this might make the NFL and players work faster.

The NBA I saw this coming in the last couple of years. It's worse than the NFL and Stern in his press conferences looked like a guys just feeding media with unconvincing rhetoric that not even he believes. I'm not too certain on what's going on, but from what I've gathered, the Owners want the players to pay the balance of losing teams or something like that.

Few years ago, with the roid scandal and such, who would of thought the MLB and NHL would be the only sports in full operation? MLB might want to start a fall ball option. :)

Anyway, it's a mess. Also, If you thinks the NCAA Football is not a "professional sport" you really need to research. Yes, the don't use "paid" players, but the NCAA and schools profit off these kids. That's like some kid being an actor and making millions and then his parents saying, you don't get any b/c we need it" - oh wait. Not to mention the NCAA while trying to facilitate order, just ends up making things worse most f the time.

I should stop, I could go on and on for a while about this.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't care why the NFL and Players are arguing about. I've heard 8 different stories, and NONE of them come from neutral sides or fans. Each side and each fan have had a bias about the lockout and who's "fault" it is. In reality it's both the players and the NFL's fault. Did they forget that the Fans put them in business and the fans can take them out of business?

As much as I like football, I'm not watching, buying or supporting the NFL for at least 4-5 games. I'm not sure if a good percentage of others did this how much it would really hurt the NFL or the Players, or if it will even show them how much fans are pissed - and regardless of Goodell's "we understand the fans" letter - Roger, NO YOU DON'T. You don't understand anything but $$ signs.

I get it - it's a business, but from what I've read it's EXTRA revenue. It's like two guys get paid $75. They divide it. $30 and $30 for the first $60. But they can't figure out who gets more of the remaining $15. You would think that the NFL and Players could play games on field while figuring this out. I know there's more on the table than just $$ but the money seems to be what's holding things up.

This is why the CFL should really see what they need to do to get some CFL teams and games into NFL markets. If nothing else this might make the NFL and players work faster.

The NBA I saw this coming in the last couple of years. It's worse than the NFL and Stern in his press conferences looked like a guys just feeding media with unconvincing rhetoric that not even he believes. I'm not too certain on what's going on, but from what I've gathered, the Owners want the players to pay the balance of losing teams or something like that.

Few years ago, with the roid scandal and such, who would of thought the MLB and NHL would be the only sports in full operation? MLB might want to start a fall ball option. :)

Anyway, it's a mess. Also, If you thinks the NCAA Football is not a "professional sport" you really need to research. Yes, the don't use "paid" players, but the NCAA and schools profit off these kids. That's like some kid being an actor and making millions and then his parents saying, you don't get any b/c we need it" - oh wait. Not to mention the NCAA while trying to facilitate order, just ends up making things worse most f the time.

I should add that yes, some students get free tuition due to scholarships, but talking sports stars that are on scholarship, I would estimate the school makes at least double in merchandise in what they would if they charged him to go to school. Say they give Gregor Franklin a free ride, valued at $70K. Franklin is a mega star on the Football team for his school. That school makes at least $140K in merchandise with his name on it.

I should stop, I could go on and on for a while about this.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Say they give Gregor Franklin a free ride, valued at $70K. Franklin is a mega star on the Football team for his school. That school makes at least $140K in merchandise with his name on it.

No they don't. The NCAA no longer allows schools to sell merchandise with the names of current players on it. Most school merchandise is completely generic, so it's not like they're profiting off the players' likenesses.

xLmjWVv.png

POTD: 2/4/12 3/4/12

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Say they give Gregor Franklin a free ride, valued at $70K. Franklin is a mega star on the Football team for his school. That school makes at least $140K in merchandise with his name on it.

No they don't. The NCAA no longer allows schools to sell merchandise with the names of current players on it. Most school merchandise is completely generic, so it's not like they're profiting off the players' likenesses.

They may not be profiting off their direct likeness, but they are profiting off their reputation.

spacer.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really. For the jerseys, there's no name on the back, just a number. Unless Bumblecrap Tech retires #11 (for example), another player will come along and wear #11 eventually. No one player would therefore theoretically have a claim to the profits on that jersey, because it could represent any #11 that has ever or will ever play for Bumblecrap Tech.

And as for the generic merchandise - I'm thinking most people would buy a plain shirt with the university's name on the front as a form of school or team pride, not because a specific quarterback from five years ago threw a lot of touchdown passes.

xLmjWVv.png

POTD: 2/4/12 3/4/12

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think college players should be paid, but they should be allowed to go out and seek endorsements if they can. I heard a much better argument for this on the radio one time, but the article below isn't bad either (yes, stuff from br is often garbage, but this is a pretty well-thought out article).college sports and endorsements

This is similar to the Olympic model, where athletes don't get paid but can get sponsorships.

"I did absolutely nothing and it was everything I thought it could be." -Peter Gibbons

RIP Demitra #38

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really. For the jerseys, there's no name on the back, just a number. Unless Bumblecrap Tech retires #11 (for example), another player will come along and wear #11 eventually. No one player would therefore theoretically have a claim to the profits on that jersey, because it could represent any #11 that has ever or will ever play for Bumblecrap Tech.

Except schools choose what numbers to put on the jerseys based specifically on who's the most marketable for the program. You'd have to be a complete idiot to not make the connection between a player and his jersey just because it didn't have a name on the back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is why the CFL should really see what they need to do to get some CFL teams and games into NFL markets. If nothing else this might make the NFL and players work faster.

It's real simple, google CFL-USA and see what you find out about that venture. That's not happening anytime soon. Plus, they're more interested in placing teams in Ottawa, and Halifax or Moncton, even Quebec City, before they would ever venture south of the border again.

Only football junkies, or the snowbirds care about the CFL in the USA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really. For the jerseys, there's no name on the back, just a number. Unless Bumblecrap Tech retires #11 (for example), another player will come along and wear #11 eventually. No one player would therefore theoretically have a claim to the profits on that jersey, because it could represent any #11 that has ever or will ever play for Bumblecrap Tech.

And as for the generic merchandise - I'm thinking most people would buy a plain shirt with the university's name on the front as a form of school or team pride, not because a specific quarterback from five years ago threw a lot of touchdown passes.

http://shop.gatorzone.com/COLLEGE_Florida_Gators_Jerseys_Mens

Then the Florida Gators store must not be licensing the jersey with Tebow's name on it. Yes, I know Tebow isn't in College anymore, but this jersey was on the site when he was.

I know in sports games like EASports NCAA Football they weren't allowed to ship the game with the names displayed, but the fact that NCAA thinks removing a players name from the jersey somehow eliminates the fact that fans are not buying the jersey not for the player but for the school is the biggest pile of :censored: I've ever heard.

Jerseys and generic merchandise are two different things. I have a plain blue t-shirt with the "Gators" script in orange on it and a blue cap with the Gator head logo on it. But if I'm buying a jersey, Most I think are going by a jersey for the player, not a generic jersey.

Even if the NCAA isn't profiting off jerseys, they are still profiting from the players in other instances and in turn prohibiting the player from receiving any of the funds.

I agree players shouldn't be "paid" but something needs to happen.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really. For the jerseys, there's no name on the back, just a number. Unless Bumblecrap Tech retires #11 (for example), another player will come along and wear #11 eventually. No one player would therefore theoretically have a claim to the profits on that jersey, because it could represent any #11 that has ever or will ever play for Bumblecrap Tech.

Except schools choose what numbers to put on the jerseys based specifically on who's the most marketable for the program. You'd have to be a complete idiot to not make the connection between a player and his jersey just because it didn't have a name on the back.

I completely agree with you, but the fact remains that the players don't have much of a case for making profits off those jerseys because the schools could come back with what I said.

xLmjWVv.png

POTD: 2/4/12 3/4/12

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is why the CFL should really see what they need to do to get some CFL teams and games into NFL markets. If nothing else this might make the NFL and players work faster.

The CFL already failed in the US, and I don't think they'll try again, but there's always the UFL.

07Giants.pngnyy.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.