The last thing the NFL in Los Angeles was ever about was the fans

[pstokely]

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2016/jan/13/the-last-thing-the-nfl-in-los-angeles-was-ever-about-was-the-fans

"No league in the US uses leverage quite like the NFL. They didn’t get to $10bn in revenue by being nice. They have played their broadcast rights brilliantly in recently decades, leading terrified networks to spend outlandish amounts of money out of the fear they might lose their tiny platter of games guaranteed to be ratings winners. But the league’s best trick has been getting cities and counties and states to spend taxpayers’ money on stadiums to be used for just eight regular-season games.

An LA without football has always been worth more to the league than a LA with a team. As the nation’s second-largest city sat without a team, every billionaire owner yearning for a new stadium equipped with executive lounges the price of small homes merely had to breathe the words “Los Angeles” to make local politicians crumble.

LA was the gift that kept on giving to the owners who saw their own franchises jump in value every time another member of the club got their own downtown trophy. Since the Rams and Raiders left LA following the 1994 season, 22 of the league’s 32 teams have built new stadiums or completely overhauled the ones they had. The public contribution to these projects was more than $4.7bn in free money for some of the richest people in the country.

No way does this happen without a vacant Los Angeles. The city was the ballast against desperate politicians who vowed there would be no public funds for local football teams, only to cave when the thought of moving vans at the team’s headquarters seemed all too real. The threat of a move to LA lured citizens of other cities to voting booths where they confessed that four months of football Sundays were more important than putting new roofs on schools. They all closed their eyes, held their noses and endorsed checks to some of the wealthiest men in the world to take their taxes and build sports playpens."

[Sherman A1]

1. Interesting

Thanks for posting. A very interesting point of view is presented in the article.

I am very, very pleased to see the Rams leave St. Louis and we here not build that pretty, but outlandishly expensive tax payer funded stadium on the River Front.

[justhanginon]

7. Fortunately, they "only" spent 16 million dollars on plans for the "new Stadium".

Architects, planners, consultants etc. all got in on this boondoggle. I wonder how much the movers and shakers of St. Louis individually made off of this scam for a team that had no intention of staying. We are still on the hook for the old stadium and I suppose the beautiful training facilities in Earth City as well.

[Mbrow]

2. The Padres conned the pols is San Diego

into building a new stadium, "won't cost the Tax Payers a penny" they said, what BS. as soon as the Padres no longer shared a stadium with the Chargers, the Chargers wanted a new stadium as well. I'm glad I moved before the bill came due. As far as I'm concerned if they want a new stadium they can pay for it. I believe the NFL is a Non profit? WTF?

[exboyfil]

3. Here is an article from a great website that talks about how

St. Louis ended up with a bad contract with the Rams. St. Louis still has a $100M debt to pay off on the current stadium. I think the taxpayers dodged a bullet by the Rams not accepting the $400M in public money.

It appears to me that the NFL now knows that their is no more money to be made with the threat of moving a team so that is why they are allowing the Rams to return home.

Take note many Democrats have been involved with these stadium proposals - oftentimes over the howling protests of their citizens. Dayton and Nixon come to mind of course.

http://www.fieldofschemes.com/2010/07/26/2726/tales-of-city-mismanagement-how-the-st-louis-rams-won-their-sweetheart-lease/

[hatrack]

4. The Rams can BLOW ME . . .

There was actually serious support for a statewide sales tax to pay for their new free playpen, including by our governor, ostensibly a Democrat.

Fuck. That. Noise.

[hatrack]

5. And as the article also notes . . .

But there have been plenty of opportunities to build palaces and NFL campuses in Los Angeles. At any time in the last two decades any number of viable stadium options lingered. They were all beautiful. Any of them could have been the league’s finest stadium. But LA had a purpose without football. LA made a lot of rich men a whole lot of money. LA helped pump the NFL’s revenues to moon, and soon it can shoot them into another galaxy.

Now Los Angeles has one last task as the sledgehammer against the rest of America. In offering one-year options to the San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders to join Kroenke in Inglewood, the league is threatening two last cities. The extortion is in the open. No need to hide it any more. San Diego has one last chance to give Chargers owner Dean Spanos $350m – or he’s gone. If he stays, Raiders owner Mark Davis gets to point the LA gun at Oakland.

[rurallib]

6. I am so against using public money to build or in any way finance private businesses

Stadiums are the most noticeable of publicly financed work places for private businesses, but cities and counties across the country are daily building facilities, renovating facilities or offering no tax deals and utility abatements.

If the people who own the team can't afford a place for them to do their job, maybe they are in the wrong business.
Add something on to the price of the tickets - NFL fans pay through the nose for tickets already.

[bemildred]

8. Many of us like LA much better without a football team.

Soccer fills the gap nicely, and baseball and basketball.

[pstokely]

9. it's not up the peasants in SoCal or STL if they get a team, it's up to the billionaire owners

you know, the "job creators" and their suites

[bemildred]

10. It is up to us whether they sell enough tickets.

We have better things to do in LA than drink beer in a parking lot.

[marmar]

12. They'll sell tickets. There will always be enough people willing to pay....

..... in a metro area of 12+ million people.

[bemildred]

13. They never sell enough tickets here, that's why they keep leaving and coming back.

It's like they just cannot believe it.

[pstokely]

14. they don't need anybody in the seats, just in the corporate suites

nt

[bemildred]

16. Right. nt

[marmar]

18. That's actually true in modern football. Corporate suites generate the bucks.

Added to the TV contract in the second largest media market, they'd hardly need 50 people in the stadium.

[bemildred]

19. You would think they would make them with fewer seats. nt

[pstokely]

24. they've been building new stadiums and arenas with less seats and more corporate suities

nt

[dsc]

31. the tv revenue is shared

so irrelevant to any one teams profit.

[marmar]

36. Even so, their share of the huge tv contract. ....

... is relevant to each team's bottom line.

[exboyfil]

11. Watch the Rams like a hawk

they are bragging about not needing public money for the stadium. Just wait. I am willing to bet the community is going to ultimately have to fork over $200-300M. It may get hidden, but it will be there.

[Xolodno]

20. You forgot Hockey...

...two teams in the area.

Plus, with two major college football teams, wasn't much "need" per se for an NFL team.

[bemildred]

21. Yeah, I always forget Hockey.

[PasadenaTrudy]

29. I agree

To me it means more traffic.

[Blue_Tires]

33. But soccer doesn't have anything like the Super Bowl

and that's what this whole charade was about-- Getting Los Angeles back into SB rotation...

[bemildred]

35. No, you can drink beer in a parking lot at soccer games too, I've seen it. nt

[pintobean]

15. Fans see better football without a local team.

Without a crappy team determining which games are broadcast in local markets, the best, and more, games get televised.

[tabasco]

17. I really liked Three Rivers stadium for football.

It was bad for baseball, and Pittsburgh needed a nice baseball park - and it got one - the so, so nice PNC Park. But IMO, Three Rivers was perfect for football, a big bowl full of screaming fans. But apparently, one major complaint by the owners was the paucity of luxury boxes, for fans who like to play with their iPhones and tinkle champagne glasses during the games. So Pittsburgh got Heinz Field, which for me, lacks all the great atmosphere of Three Rivers stadium. Not nearly as loud. I've lost a lot of interest in professional sports because of the big money game it has become. But I grew up with the Pirates and Steelers and always find myself glued to the tube whenever they're on.

[pstokely]

25. college sports has also become a big money game

how else did Rutgers get into the Big 10? the (potential) NYC area TVs sets despite NYC not caring about college sports

[tabasco]

27. True story.

I'm completely disillusioned with college ball, as well. At least with the pros, you know what you're getting. College football is a money maker for universities, but not the athletes. Somebody needs to come up with a better paradigm.

[Xolodno]

22. Kind of want to file this article under..."No shit sherlock"

Its been pretty much an open secret here in L.A. that the NFL was using the city as a loaded gun to the head of other cities.

....and it amazed me how they all caved in every single time to the NFL.

Both Oakland and San Diego said enough is enough. So, I guess the NFL realized the threat of "LA" has played its use.....and sent the Rams back.

In the end, the NFL needed one team back in LA more than LA needed the NFL.

[KamaAina]

23. "They have played their broadcast rights brilliantly in recently decades"

Indeed. Getting the NFC rights was what made Fox into a network.

[pstokely]

26. they would have become a network sooner if Art Rooney had assumed the Fox viewing position

[gratuitous]

28. Why are you all so down on a struggling non-profit like the NFL?

Kidding!

Yeah, now St. Louis gets to become the new Los Angeles as the vacant facility just waiting for some team to skedaddle to. But it's not limited to the NFL; the NBA is pretty good at pitting cities against one another for teams.

Cities need to wise up. When the Sonics departed Seattle, there was a lot of worry in Portland that Owner Paul Allen would want to move the Trail Blazers up I-5. Luckily (and not by any discernible design), Portland was too poor to build a new arena for the Blazers, so Billionaire Allen paid out his own money to build the Rose Garden. That sunk cost should be sufficient to keep the Blazers in town for another few years, at least. But as soon as the deal doesn't pencil out so well for him, I fully expect that Allen will be courting Seattle to build a new arena for his team.

Whether Seattle will resist Allen's blandishments in their hunger to replace the Sonics remains to be seen.

[pstokely]

37. London is the new LA for the NFL

maybe San Antonio or St. Louis

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

30. Professional sports is about entertainment and profit. Not a about sport.

[pintobean]

32. The NFL can ram it

This is what LA pushed off on St. Louis, then wanted back.

They're yours LA. Own it.

[Blue_Tires]

34. Guradian, stating the obvious as always...