Competing with the NFL

May 30th 2007 7:31PM

is it crazy to try to compete with the NFL ?

I don't think so. Here is why:

1. There is obviously demand for top level professional football. That is exactly what the UFL hopes to be someday, an equal of the NFL, if not more.

2. The NFL wants and needs competition. They have grown so big and powerful that every move they make is scrutinized by local or federal officials. A competitor allows them to point to us and explain that their moves are for competitive reasons rather than the move of a monopoly.

3. They just extended their CBA. Their CBA structure is not designed for a competitive environment. Competition for top players, even if the UFL gets just a few, increases prices at the top end for all teams. Every star will get paid more, but still have to fit under the cap. That forces teams to use more low cost players, at the expense of signing the middle of the roster. That gives us access to quite a few very, very good NFL players. The downside is that it will significantly impact small market NFL teams and its unclear how the NFL would respond to that and what the impact would be on the UFL.

4. There are a lot of markets that are bigger than some current NFL markets that do not have teams that would love to have a pro football team.

5. There are a lot of smart people involved in the UFL

6. Its a great TV product.

These are just my personal reasons for having an interest in being involved with the UFL. They still have a ton of work to do before a game can be played. Like all good ideas with a great opportunity available to it, the hard part is in the execution.

Hopefully they can get it done.

Reader Comments

(Page 4)

61. Whether this works or not remains to be seen, but the reason it has a chance to work is really because of the way the NCAA is setup. The new league will have to take advantage of the weaknesses in BOTH of those "leagues."

There are a variety of journalists and academics who have taken the NCAA football industrial complex to task and exposed it for what it is...the athletic version of walmart style employee relations.

If you think this league will fail consider how many very talented (but not quite talented enough to make the NFL) players attend college exclusively to play football. They do not go to class, they play football in return for essentially room, board, and memories. When the bowl games are over, and their eligibility is up they head home to get a "real job" or kick around a semi pro league.

Now consider the offer of a well funded(!) league owned and run almost exclusively of owners who made their own fortune. They come to you whether in HS, after your freshman, sophomore, junior, or senior year and say "We will give you everything Notre Dame will give you except the charade that you are a 'student athlete' and we will pay you $250K a year." You are naive if you think VERY talented players will be very interested in that conversation. Not all of them. And most likely the new league will not have the same talent as the NFL, but you are foolish if you do not think there are weaknesses in the NFL armor.

Posted at 2:19AM on May 31st 2007 by Nic

62. Cube,
I disagree with all those other idiots who posted here. Great idea.
Consider the two most recent legit independent leagues that have tried to steal some of the NFL's thunder: the USFL and the XFL. Both were actually solid in theory, and could have succeeeded. What killed them was stupidity.
USFL: Died because Donald Trump was stupid. He tried (against the will of the other owners in the league) to move the league's schedule into the fall, to directly compete with the NFL, in an attempt to force an AFL-style merger. Instead, Trump killed the baby. They had the star power (in terms of players) to give the NFL a scare had they lasted, say, another four years and just kept plugging along.
XFL: Died because of Vince McMahon's stupid TV deal with NBC. Had the XFL negotiated a smaller-scope TV deal, with, say, a network like ESPN, FSN, Spike, or Versus (had it existed then), then the enormous investment that NBC put into the league would not have been necessary, and thus been the collateral that the network had to sacrifice after one measly season. The XFL could have lasted more than one year, had NBC not killed it.
The moral of the story: this can work, if you and the owners are smart about it. If you guys don't get greedy and try to cut the NFL's legs out from under it in the formative years, and if you are able to negotiate lucrative TV deals without mortgaging the financial future of the league, it has a chance. I know I'd watch.
PS - And while you're at it, how about a team in Orlando? If so, I'm your play-by-play man.

Posted at 2:21AM on May 31st 2007 by Jeff

63. i think the sticking point for a new league is the media coverage. there might be curiosity initially, but don't underestimate the NFL's ability to bully networks, cities, players, and media that want to participate in this new league. anyone willing to participate for you might be risking their football future should this not pan out.

Posted at 2:54AM on May 31st 2007 by robert

64. you have to fill a niche if you're not the nfl. the cfl's niche is canada and their league's history which is almost as long as the nfl. nfl europe's niche is teams 5,000 miles away from us and being funded by nfl owners who want a minor league for their players. arena football's niche is the gimmicky part and a concerted effort to be fan-friendly.

people will NOT watch this league if it's too similar to the nfl. the USFL proved that. they also will not watch this league if it's too different. the XFL proved that.

Posted at 2:54AM on May 31st 2007 by robert

65. This could work out well, if you do it right. You have to skip the growing pain years of the NFL years when the Uniforms looked plain and unsophisticated. With all the creative design talent, (not over the top stripes) they need very professional styled uniforms, high level (not low level showboats. Players with skilled but football/basketball athletic maneuvers and player showmanship. It could be great and plenty of women with cash have never been to an NFL game. The quality of the fan would be very high in some cities, esppecially if the talent was coached and managed at a "very higher standard" than the NFL. Think about talent that is overlooked for a bunch of reasons that are more personal and subjective. The NFL expects you to come in shape, but the guys just gain more weight instead of getting faster and stronger. It slows down the game. You don't need to be over 300 lbs to block, you need to be stronger, and everyone else needs to be more muscular, and faster, with more knowledge about the game. I have looked into technology to improve the athlete by orders of magnitude from the knowledge and decision making standpoint. I am interested.

Posted at 3:18AM on May 31st 2007 by Will Ray

66. Mark,
I think it's a great idea, but there's one problem...you're gonna play in the FALL? Few people remember, the USFL actually was pretty successful because it played in the SPRING. I think spring football is the way to go here. Instead of competing with the NFL, you'll be competing with the AFL and NFL Europe. If you go against the NFL, no offence, you'll be laughingstock. The reason the XFL failed was because NBC didn't want it, but attendance was really good, even in San Francisco! Good luck, and if you want someone to work for you, lemme know :)

Posted at 3:35AM on May 31st 2007 by David Livingston

67. Sounds great, though given your blog last july about basketball (http://www.blogmaverick.com/2006/07/15/making-money-in-basketball/ ) I'm a little surprised you want to take the NFL head-on, but you're right on #5, there are a lot of people involved in this who are a hell of a lot smarter about sports and business than I am.

Will the UFL put a higher priority on parity within the league (salary caps/league-financed salaries) or attracting eyeballs? If you want to put together the UFL equivalent of the New York Cosmos, can you do that? Or will you have a league full of owners who are willing to take big losses in the short term to cash in down the road?

Posted at 3:59AM on May 31st 2007 by James

68. I think this could be a very good idea. Here is another that might go along with it a little. I don't know how it would work, or if i could work, but make your team a true World Champion by getting the CFL and NFL Europe (might be harder to get then the CFL b/c its owned/operated by the NFL) to agree to a playoff with all three leagues. If you could get the top three teams from UFL and CFL and the top two teams from NFL Europe that would make it a great tournament. This might even be good for the other two leagues b/c people from other countries will see how their teams hold up against the American teams. Again this is just a wild thought.

Posted at 5:17AM on May 31st 2007 by Brandon

69. I like the idea of signing college players and having them enter into contracts requiring buyouts if the NFL wants them.

I also think the XFL had some decent ideas, particularly the removal of PATs. Instead having the ball on the 2 yard line for 1 point, and the 5 for 2 points and finally the 10 for 3 points.

For announcers, I'd like each team to vote one announcer by a fan vote. Now of course this would lead to a 'glorified cheerleader' (to borrow the phrase) but if you put each team's announcer in each game for a commentary, it'd create a great live broadcast intensity.

Oh, and if the UFL can be the only US sports team to actually have a rational outlook on sports betting, that'd be a nice change.

Posted at 5:59AM on May 31st 2007 by Adam

70. Good morning, I found this blog following a link from a newspaper article discussing the idea of a new Pro Football League in the United States.

If I may I'd like to bring to Mr Cuban's attention a few things to consider regards Football as a sport, it's international appeal and how taking on the NFL model isn't going to help the sport.

1. The NFL is a successful pro football league, the success of the league can easily be measured by the cost of purchasing a franchise in the league.

The NFL Model works well for the NFL. At most 4 days a week of competition (Thursday&Saturday game are rare of course) but normally played over 2 days.

There is not really more demand for Pro Football than there is supply. There might be demand for quality football for players who have since graduated college or have missed out on even getting into college. But Pro Football of the Megabucks market ala the NFL isn't suffering from demand higher than supply.

A low cost league paying fair wages (and one that delivers on after playing pensions to cater for later in life complications from playing football) may succeed. Offering those priced out of NFL and College tickets an alternative might succeed. But on a Friday evening it would clash with high school football which already has too much pressure on it to succeed.

Adding an additional NFL Model League or USFL Model etc - won't help the sport and I doubt it will make money.

2. Internationally the sport of Football is played in hundreds of towns and cities. From New Zealand to Mexico to Scotland. These leagues are at best semi-pro and in most cases are self funding with the players paying to play the game. These leagues are always in the Shadow of the NFL. Often football fans will choose to watch the NFL rather than support a local team.

However if investments were made in these leagues to help provide marketing power, advertising and cover the costs of training and playing (my team's budget in Scotland is close to $20,000 a year) then it would benefit the sport internationally and lead to more people playing and supporting the sport.

Assuming that 50 teams in the UK were given a grant of $20,000 each that $1m investment year on year would allow the clubs to expand rapidly and build the sport. I doubt very much that an investment like that is forth coming, but it would make an impact and help the sport.

If football is the key driver here to improve the sport by investing internationally would be a far better use of the money earmarked for another professional league in the USA.

3. While there may be demand in other areas in the USA with out a professional/NFL franchise the demand will disappear if results don't go well or ticket prices increase. Look at Jacksonville as an example.

I argue there are other ways to invest in the sport which would have better ramifications for the sport internationally than setting up a Pro league to try and take on the NFL. However the reason for a pro league is to make money and in that case it probably will make financial sense to keep within the core sport market of the USA.

Douglas Adamson
Edinburgh Wolves American Football Club, Scotland, United Kingdom

Posted at 6:43AM on May 31st 2007 by Douglas Adamson

71. IT'S A GOOD IDEA ,FROM PAST EXPERIENCE WITH FINANCIAL PROBLEMS WITH UPSTART FOOTBALL LEAGUES; I' D SUGGEST USING SEMI PRO PLAYERS (NAFL.ORG:UFLONLINE.COM]INSTEAD OF COLLEGE DRAFTED TALENT;THEY ARE CHEAPER, MORE DEVOTED ,EQUAL TALENT, MORE DEDICATED,WHAT IS THE LEAGUES NAME GONNA BE? IS THERE A WEBSITE?

Posted at 7:12AM on May 31st 2007 by DEVON MALIK SCOTT (IHNDUST3

72. Mark
I was a season ticket holder of the USFL's General's and I agree with you, there is a huge untapped market that is there. Its not just in secondary cities, last year I finally become a NY Giant season ticket, I put my name on the waiting list in 1979, I have heard the list is now longer.

Posted at 7:39AM on May 31st 2007 by phil

73. Mark, trade Jason Terry and Josh Howard for Kobe. That will be 2/5 of the All NBA team starting next season!

Posted at 7:39AM on May 31st 2007 by matt

74. I wish I could believe this was a money making proposition, but it seems more like an ego driven proposition (especially given Bill Hambrecht's previous involvement in the USFL). I think the demand for football in this country is very high, but that is adaquately fulfilled by High School football, College, and the NFL. Arena football has even succeeded in surviving, and now has a contract with ESPN primarily by trying to complement the NFL, not eclipse it. Your first major problem is finding a TV deal. The XFL was only created because NBC lost its NFL television contract. Now with CBS, FOX, NBC, and ABC/ESPN all having NFL games (plus the NFL with its own network), there is no network to show the games. The existing networks are not going to step on the NFL's toes for a chance at some startup league, and you'll just end up showing games on HDNet. I think from an investment growth standpoint, you would be best served by building up a lesser known professional sports league for a different sport such as the WNBA, MLS, or MLL (Major League Lacrosse). MLS would love to have an owner with deep pockets such as yourself, and it would benefit from the promotional experience you could provide (you already provide great coverage on HDNet). Major League Lacrosse could probably be bought completely as a league, and it has the potential for tremendous growth because Lacrosse is the only team sport in this country with Elite division 1 completion and no adequate professional sports league. Lacrosse is played in almost every high school in the nation and packs the Baltimore Ravens stadium every memorial day weekend for the final four. It is the final frontier of sports growth in this country, with enormous upside supported by tons of high school and college fans and players.

Mark, you're a great business man that has pulled off two legendary accomplishments (sale of Broadcast.com, resurrection of the Mavs). Don't tarnish your legacy by taking on the NFL, even if the initial cash outlay is not too heavy. Go for the higher upside, and seriously take a look at Major League Lacrosse.

Posted at 8:08AM on May 31st 2007 by Damian

75. Mark if you think that some negative publicity on the NFL might help this league succeed I have just the story. Hint: some trades in NFL are not what they appear to be.

Posted at 8:17AM on May 31st 2007 by inside guy

76. I think the idea has some substance. Depending on how it is structured will depend on its success. I dont believe competing head to head on Sundays will be the best strategy, but if you get dynamic players that people want to see and that make the game interesting (see the controversy storms of players like TO, Chad Johnson, etc.) it can be a package that I believe people will buy into, especially in areas that have large potential for a football franchise but for whatever reason, the NFL has not placed (or in some cases replaced) football in various cities (Los Angeles, San Antonio, Oklahoma City, etc.).

Furthermore, what is the timeline of the creation of this league, even though it is still in its infant stages, and will more information be made available soon? While there's interest would be a good time to start recruiting potential players from the 2007 draft (and cuts) instead of allowing these players to go play in the Canadian or Arena Football Leagues. Just a thought.

Posted at 8:54AM on May 31st 2007 by James

77. Trying to start another league to compete with the NFL has been tried a couple of times before without staying power. The idea to broadcast on Friday nights conflicts with local football ro dating or anything else. There more pro football than most people care to watch and cities with marginal markets. But it you want to blow your fortune down that hole, how about shipping a couple of million to me. I can put it to good use for my daughter's college education and such. You're a good NBA owner and have had success in that arena, but that doesn't mean you have the formula for success in other arenas. What should be done in professional sports is cleaning up the image and setting standards and roles to live by. There are a lot of good athletes who are good people, but the bad apples are hurting these folks so peer pressure need to come to bear down. Kids really need the good examples and they need to be out there in front showing the way.

Posted at 9:01AM on May 31st 2007 by Paul

78. I just don't think you can have more than one "top" league in any sport. Basketball has the NBA. Football the NFL. Hockey the NHL. I think most people view it as the natural order of sports. The best talent advances to the "next" level, and naturally there can only be one "ultimate level" for talent, and therefore that level should be the best league. Any other league that is started to compete with the current "top" league will be viewed by most as kind of a minor league where players that couldn't "cut it" in the NFL, NBA, NHL or whatever, go to play. Much like Arena Football. People will watch it to some extent, but I don't think they will ever be as devoted or crazy about it as the current top league.

Posted at 9:05AM on May 31st 2007 by Jay

79. Good arguement - wrong sport. How about something to compete with NASCAR? They have turned it into a IROC truck non-sport with the COT (Car Of Tomorrow or more correctly Crap Of Today). There is a huge market for racing by cars off the showroom floor (Or slightly modified for safety). I want to see that Monte Carlo go against that Fusion - for real. They have ghost rules and mostly go to boring look-alike tracks (their's).

Posted at 9:08AM on May 31st 2007 by Mike McClain

80. Spend your money on buying the Rangers. Surely you are pulling our leg with investing in this third rate joke.

If you're needing to funnel some cash into a lossing operation for a tax write-off, feel free to contact me.

Posted at 9:11AM on May 31st 2007 by bsmall

Previous 20 Comments | Next 20 Comments