In the last month or so, a few events portend the eventual return of the NFL to the Los Angeles area. To be sure, the most important of those events was the resolution of the lawsuit in Southern California that sought to block the building of a new stadium in the City of Industry and the passage of a bill through the California legislature clearing the way for stadium financing via a bond issue. The NFL has made it clear more times than Nancy Grace has been annoying that no team would move to LA without a new stadium. The city fathers of Los Angeles have concocted myriad offers to get a team back there but none of them involved a new stadium; the NFL has always politely told them to stick any and all of those plans where the sun never shines.
So, it looks as if there will be a new stadium in Industry, CA specifically to attract an NFL team. [I hesitate to call it a suburb of Los Angeles because there are not a lot of residents there but it is about 25-30 miles east of Los Angeles Airport.] Current plans/designs call for it to be built into a hilltop along with mixed development of office buildings and retail outlets. The stadium will seat 75,000 (11,000 premium seats) and will have 175 suites. The ambitious schedule says that the stadium can be completed in 2 years and that it could open for the 2011 season.
Interestingly, as plans for the new stadium in the LA area crystallized, another portentous event happened about 2000 miles northeast of Los Angeles. The Minnesota Vikings and a sports commission in Minnesota had been talking about a new stadium for the Vikings for at least the last 3 years and probably for the last 5 years. The Vikings broke off negotiations last month and said that they would not sign any extension of the lease to play their games in the Metrodome; that lease interestingly expires in 2011.
The sports commission has threatened to charge the Vikings $4M annually in lease fees if the team does not sign an extension. Frankly, that seems like chump change in the context of the monies involved in the negotiations to keep the team in town with a new stadium. I guess the sports commissioners felt they had to do something in response to the Vikings’ statement. Surely, lawsuits will follow these actions – - perhaps from both sides of the table; law firms in the Twin Cities area are already licking their chops.
There are interesting parallels here between the Vikings of 2009 and the Cleveland Browns of the mid-90s. The Vikings are playing in an old facility by NFL standards; the Metrodome opened in 1982; and most importantly, it is the only stadium used by an NFL team that has no club seating level. Seating capacity is 64,000 making it one of the smaller facilities used by NFL clubs. Recall that in the mid-90s, the Cleveland Browns were playing in an antiquated facility with meager premium amenities – - albeit Municipal Stadium had plenty of seats. Both the Vikings now and the Browns back then believe that their stadiums put them at a competitive disadvantage with regard to other NFL teams in terms of revenue streams.
In the Twin Cities area of Minnesota, there are two separate indoor sports arenas – - one for the NBA Timberwolves and another for the NHL Wild. There will be a new baseball stadium for the Twins opening next spring. The University of Minnesota opened their new stadium in Minneapolis in September 2009. Everyone else in the sporting sphere in that part of the world has a new crib but there does not seem to be the inclination to spend money on a new playpen for the Vikings.
That was the case in Cleveland too. The Indians got a new place to play; the Cavaliers got a new place to play; when it came the Browns’ turn, the city decided it did not have enough money to build them a stadium and also deal with the creation of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Therefore, the Browns left town. Clevelanders hate Art Modell for doing that although their anger is horribly misplaced. It was the city fathers who were to blame for the loss of the Browns and the proof of that is what happened as soon as the NFL said they would put a franchise back in Cleveland – - so long as there was a new stadium to play in. The city, county and state governments moved at warp speed to find the money to get that new stadium construction project rolling; it is amazing how easily they found a way to get it done with no team in town when it was impossible to do so as long as Art Modell’s Browns were thought to be chattel property.
The people in the Twin Cities area should look about 750 miles to the southeast to Cleveland for what could happen to their Vikings’ team. There are folks in LA building a stadium; those folks are spending money; and as the old adage goes:
Money talks and “bullspit” walks…
I believe that there is an opportunity here to make the new stadium in LA into something even bigger than the designers envision. I think that the NFL should consider putting two teams in LA and have them share that stadium. I say this because there are at least four other franchises in the league that should benefit financially from a move to LA. And, truth be told, the NFL exists only to provide bottom line benefits to the owners of its teams. All of the feelgood nonsense about the league caring about cities and “giving back” is an opiate for the masses. The NFL is about the bottom line – - just ask the folks in Cleveland.
So who would be candidates to move to LA? Obviously, the Vikings are on the list for the reasons cited above. In addition, think about these others:
The Jacksonville Jaguars’ attendance is a mess. Jacksonville Municipal Stadium can seat 80,000 for a Super Bowl or for the annual Georgia/Florida football game. The Jags have not filled that capacity in years and have tarps over enough seats to make a capacity crowd for a Jags game about 67,000. They do not fill that on a regular basis either. In fact, this year with the team seriously in playoff contention, the Jags’ games are blacked out locally because they cannot sell out the facility. Last week, they played to the smallest attendance in team history; only 42,079 were able to find the stadium to see the Jags beat the Texans. The Jaguars host the Dolphins this week and then host the undefeated Colts on Thursday 17 December. The Jags will be in a race for the wild card; the Colts could be undefeated then; that game should be a sellout and there should be scalpers outside the stadium doing business. If the fans do not care enough to go to that game, move the team.
The Buffalo Bills took one of their home games this year and put it in Toronto purely for monetary purposes. Attendance is fine in Buffalo but the revenue streams there are limited; like Jax, it is one of the NFL outposts. There is no way the team will move so long as Ralph Wilson is the owner; I think someone nailed one of his feet to the ground near city hall in Buffalo. However, Ralph Wilson celebrated his 91st birthday a couple of months ago; actuarially, the NFL should not include him as a viable presence were it to draw up a 10-year long-range plan. At some point, it will make good financial sense to move the Bills out of Buffalo and Los Angeles might be a reasonable destination.
The San Diego Chargers are in a “stare down” with the folks who run the city of San Diego that mirrors the one in Minnesota. It is almost as if the Vikings and the Chargers are characters in a science fiction story existing in parallel universes and destined for similar outcomes. One fundamental difference between the Chargers’ situation and the Vikings’ situation is the weather in the two cities. In December, the weather in San Diego still allows for activities on the beach and in the ocean – - in addition to skiing activities relatively close by. That gives the residents there options to do other things besides following the fortunes of a football team. The weather in Minnesota in December provides fewer alternate recreational options – - and it will take a whole lot of global warming before Minnesota in December resembles San Diego in December.
The Oakland Raiders hosted the Cincinnati Bengals the Sunday before Thanksgiving. Granted the Raiders’ team was already out of contention for the playoffs by then, but the Bengals were leading their division. A crowd of 34,112 showed up for that game. That is embarrassing for the NFL; seven different MLB teams averaged more than 34,112 in attendance last season over an 81-game home schedule. Clearly, there are still some bad feelings within the NFL regarding Al Davis and his lawsuits against the league; but just as with Ralph Wilson, there are actuarial trends in play here. In a league devoted to “parity”, having franchises that are “revenue disadvantaged” does not make much sense. The fly in the ointment here is that the Raiders extended their lease in Oakland recently. Perhaps another less than judicious decision by the Raiders’ managing general partner…?
I think there are five teams that would benefit from a move to Los Angeles. The league should be interested and so should the players. After all, the players’ aggregate salary cap depends on maximizing team revenues across the league. Teams that draw about 40,000 fans per game will generate smaller revenues than might flow in to a team in a new 75,000-seat facility in a huge metropolitan area like Los Angeles.
Were I “NFL Commissioner For A Day”, I would surely put two teams in the new stadium in LA long before I would consider putting a team – or a couple of teams – in European cities or in Mexico City.
But don’t get me wrong, I love sports…