In the end, the AAF ended up lasting longer than XFL 2.0. Who saw that coming?! I know it's a little unfair since it's almost entirely a result of our buddy coronavirus, but was XFL 2.0 meeting the same fate as its predecessor a surprise to anybody? Did it happen sooner than we might've predicted? Maybe. But there was little doubt XFL 2.0 wouldn't last. It was really only a matter of time. And, unfortunately, that timeline was only exacerbated by the current state of the country.
The NFL-AFL merger was 50 years ago. Since then, there have been multiple attempts to launch a new football league, either as a direct competitor to the NFL or not. Every one of them has failed. Even the ones that could be considered "successful," the World Football League and USFL, only lasted a few years before shuttering. NFL Europe was funded by the NFL and had a good 15-year run. But even that league fell by the wayside.
Vince McMahon launched two different versions of the XFL 20 years apart. Neither one made it. Neither did the AAF, the FXFL, the UFL or any of the other attempted spring football leagues that have tried and failed. Yet people keep trying.
Every one of these entrepreneurs thinks that they'll be the one. They'll finally have the recipe that works. Their spring football league will be different than all the others. Theirs is the one that will last. Theirs is the one that will "prove" Americans have this appetite to keep football season going after the Super Bowl. They've all been wrong.
Money is the biggest issue that all these leagues face. Simply put, football is an expensive sport. It was a different time, but one of the reasons the AFL actually worked while all these others didn't is because the AFL owners (and they had eight separate owners, which is another important detail) actually had money and were willing to spend it. They knew there would probably be losses early on, but they had the funds and patience to withstand them. And ultimately, it paid off. (The USFL had a similar model and likely would've survived if they hadn't tried to move to the fall and go head-to-head against the NFL.)
Yet these new leagues all try to launch as a single entity, where the league owns every team. In a multi-entity league, a failing franchise can be sold or relocated or (worst case) contracted. In a single-entity league, that puts all of the onus on a single person. And if that person runs out of funds or patience, the league has no option other than shutting down.
So, frankly, it's no surprise that these leagues all suffered from a common problem--lack of money. The start-up cost alone is absurd! Equipment and insurance alone can run into the millions. And that's before even factoring in salaries. Then, throw in the fact that the broadcast and ticket revenue isn't going to be there for an unproven entity with no history, and you're going to lose money. It's a given. Rough estimate, I'd say it would take at least three years to even think about breaking even. And, as we've seen, people will lose interest by then.
It's also worth noting that the AFL had another thing going for it that none of these others did. When the AFL was launched, there were 12 teams in the NFL. There were plenty of pro football-ready markets that didn't have teams and wanted them and, more importantly, enough quality players to make the product legitimate. In a world with 32 NFL teams and nearly 2000 players on NFL rosters, there isn't.
As a result, they're trying to launch a completely new product that pales in comparison to the standard people have gotten used to. There are a handful of NFL-caliber players (it didn't take long for P.J. Walker to catch on with the Panthers), but certainly not enough. And the gimmicks/innovations can only get you so far. People might tune in to see this "new brand of football," but if the product isn't good, it won't keep their interest.
Likewise, the market is already saturated. In the bigger cities, XFL or AAF teams were never going to come anywhere close to their NFL rivals. But if you want only cities that don't already have a team, you're limiting yourself to mid-sized markets. I'd argue that's a better strategy since you're basing your success on TV ratings as much as attendance figures (and it doesn't really matter where the game's being played on TV), but I understand the desire to have larger cities involved for marketing purposes.
I've also said this over and over every time one of these leagues tries to launch: Why does everyone have this idea that Americans are so desperate for spring football? That's often cited as one of the reasons when these leagues are founded, yet it has never proven true. Sure, fans of BCS schools in college towns can't wait until the spring game, but that's a very specific audience. Everyone else pretty much forgets about football from the end of the Super Bowl until right before the Draft, then forgets about it again until training camps open in July.
If that "football appetite" actually existed, people would watch these leagues. But they don't. They may check it out, but they move on. Part of it is the quality of play. But I think the bigger reason is far more simple than that. Football just isn't a year-round sport, at least not in the way soccer and basketball are. You'd think that all of these would-be league-launchers would've gotten that picture by now!
Does this mean we've seen the last of pro football in the spring? Probably not. It might be a few years (especially now that we're heading into a recession), but you know somebody's gonna try again. Even with the AAF and XFL 2.0 both failing within a year of each other, someone will be convinced his formula will work and that he'll be providing America with something it "needs."
But if the last two years have taught us anything, it's that America doesn't "need" pro football after the Super Bowl. I'm not even sure how big of a "want" it is for many people. So, these entrepreneurs should do themselves a favor and not even bother. In the long run, they'll end up saving a lot of money as a result.
No comments:
Post a Comment