An NFL Team in L.A. is a Great Idea . . . Not So Much . . . .
|
Posted by Derek Clendening Jul 26, 2009 |
Tune into The NFL Today, or The NFL on Fox and you’ll hear this argument at least a few times per season. Terry Bradshaw argues for a team in L.A. any time the work ‘move’ or ‘expansion team’ is used, or when Howie Long suggests they check in on kickoff for your regional game.
L.A. has been tried and L.A. has failed. Sports franchises locate in large markets first (for example, the new United Football League has started with large markets with an eye to expand), but size counts for less if they are not football cities. Small markets like Buffalo and Green Bat have supported their NFL franchises better than L.A. supported the Rams or the Raiders.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m not saying that a Toronto franchise is the answer. Ralph Wilson moved on the chance to see his Buffalo Bills play one regular season game a year in Toronto for five years because he could solidify the Southern Ontario market. Canadian fans account for more than 30% of his ticket sales in Orchard Park, so there is some method to his madness, and small market teams need to act on financial opportunities anyway.
What I am saying is that L.A. isn’t the answer. They tried to support two teams and they couldn’t do it. Then they tried to support just the Rams and they wound up moving anyway. Why? Because L.A. is a basketball city that supports two NBA franchises handsomely. New York can support the Jets and the Giants because it is a football first city.
If the NFL expands, or a team moves, I wouldn’t count on a franchise being awarded to L.A. Owners are in business to make money and no sensible businessperson will stake the big bucks where the NFL has seen a proven failure.