The UFL Part IV: Who Are You Trying To Fool?
Wednesday, August 19, 2009 21:48
Editor’s note: This column concludes a four part series on the United Football League and it future role in American sports. Parts 1-3 can be found at deepintosports.com.
When it comes to professional ballplayer’s striking their workplace, I’ve never been on their side. (Especially baseball players. What a bunch of vagerinos, huh? They call themselves a union; yet when umpires, ballpark concession or maintenance workers strike for relative pennies, Major Leaguers–in all sports, really–will piss on a picket line to collect their $40,000.00 game checks.) Makes me sick.
This time it’s different. Many, if not most NFL players cripple themselves plying their trade on American gridirons. Some of the game’s legends are on skid row because playing the game has destroyed their ability to earn a decent living. If the league wants to cry “Poverty,” I’m down. But have the integrity to open your books to the men who make your franchises worth billions of dollars and prove you are not greedy old bastards.
Make no mistake; Roger Goodell did not become commissioner of the most lucrative sports league on the planet by being a dumb-ass. The league will never open its books.
As I suggested in earlier columns, I think the UFL is a product of the deviously brilliant NFL exec’s scheme to break the union and maintain a monopoly–or at least pit the union against itself. The brilliance of Roger’s scheme is how visionary it is and how all encompassing.
Here’s what I think the Goodell game plan is…
The NFL has to know sometime in the future an 18 year-old with an enterprising lawyer is going to sue the league for not providing an equal opportunity for exceptionally gifted football players who are honest enough to admit they have no interest in college, (and won’t that be refreshing?). NFL lawyers know they will lose that lawsuit.
Unlike the NBA players–Kobe and Lebron come to mind–whose younger bodies can grow into the league, 18 year-old football players would get destroyed. Their bones are not done developing and the NFL injury index would spike if teen-agers were allowed into the league right out of high school.
Once the NFL finger is forced from that dyke hole. You will see a veritable flood of young men riding the wave into professional football. When that happens, Roger and Co. are going to have to find a way to employ the young phenoms, at a fraction of the salaries NFL players now enjoy.
Enter the UFL.
The league will serve the same developmental role as MLB’s minor league system. It will also be the haven for criminal outcasts suspended from the NFL and not named Michael Vick. NFL final cut players will also see the UFL as an option and the new league will get a potentially bigger infusion of talent when Roger and his cronies lockout the NFLPA after talks break down next year.
If that occurs and 10-20 players sign contracts with the UFL, the NFLPA will be chop its own head off. The owners will have cart blanche to drastically alter the financial structure of the NFL once the lockout is over:
• Vastly less revenue sharing with the players once the lockout ends
• A semi-hard cap on rookie contract similar to that of the NBA
• Lucrative contracts reserved for veterans who have earned their chops on the field of play
• A long-term strategy to make incentive laden contracts the norm. In other words, to pay players–annually–for what they accomplish on the gridiron
The owners will feel emboldened to achieve the above advantages because the UFL will provide them the cover from any charge of “Monopoly!” even though that is exactly what the NFL is–and exactly what the creation of the UFL was meat to sustain.
Another ingredient in this conspiratorial stew I smell cooking, is the NCAA; which might see its overpopulated rosters of 70-80 players per squad shrink to 50-60 once the UFL has established itself. Which just might force college presidents to take the following drastic measures:
• Develop a curriculum specific to a sport, i.e. Football Studies
• Pay scholarship players a minimal salary–about the same as the UFL–and a free education
• Scrap the sham called the BCS, and guarantee college football players a tournament to determine a legitimate national champion
• All of the above will be in exchange for a written, binding commitment from all players to remain in school for four years.
If only a few of the above bulleted points become reality, the NFL’s control of American football will become virtually impossible to compromise–and it’s primary feeder system, the NCAA, will have a full 4-5 years to prepare future NFLers.
The NCAA’s control of the college game will be insured, and the UFL–as the American arm of pro football’s minor league–becomes a primary developmental hub for what will eventually become a worldwide endeavor.
Now, I know some of you are thinking, “Gairzo, have you been watching an Oliver Stone marathon?”
No, my dear Watsons, it’s really elementary. Consider the following:
Bill Hambrecht, one of the UFL founders, was recently turned down when he wanted the NFL to expand to L.A.. So, Hambrecht decides to put UFL franchises in San Francisco and New York—markets already saturated with two NFL teams—and none in L.A.; the second largest television market in America and currently not home to an NFL team. If that move makes any marketing sense, it’s beyond me.
Numerous senior execs hired by the UFL—Frank Vuono, Michael Huyghue, and Rick Mueller, among many others—have substantial experience at the highest levels of the NFL. Funny huh? The pay for the UFL players will be minimal and hard-capped. Certainly, the UFL can’t pay its execs more than the behemoth NFL. Right?
The timing of the UFL’s debut, and its long-term plan, just happens to coincide with a probable lockout by the owners following an “uncapped” season in 2010. But that’s not a problem for either football league; the uncapped year has several holes in it according to our friends at PFT.com:
The uncapped year had been sold for years as a boon for the players. In reality, it could be a bust. With no salary cap there also will be no salary floor, allowing cash-conscious teams to paste together a roster limited only by the minimum salaries applicable to the various levels of experience.
Also, players will need six years of service to become unrestricted free agents, and teams will be able to use one franchise tag and one transition tag or two transition tags to limit the options of unrestricted free agents.
Perhaps most importantly, the rules limit the ability of teams finishing in the final eight to sign players from other teams. This could limit movement via big-money deals, especially if a free-spending franchise like the Redskins or the Cowboys makes it to the divisional round of the playoffs.
Sorry folks, the confluence of a looming lock-out, a new professional football league, several NFL teams making too little money (relatively), rookie contracts out of whack with reality, and NFL presence in UFL management is too closely related to be seen as coincidence…
But, if you still doubt my reasoning, here is the kicker:
The NFL has just extended NBC’s Sunday night television package to 2013 as it did with its other broadcast partners in March of this year. The NFL’s exclusive contract with DirecTV also expires in 2013
So now all television contracts will come up at the same time, potentially setting up a high-stakes game of musical chairs when the Sunday afternoon packages, the Sunday night package, and the Monday night package are available to the highest bidder. [PFT at NBC.com]
Add to that, the DirecTV negotiations and is it really a stretch to conclude the NFL is positioning itself to transform the way professional football is run with regard to it players, its broadcasters, and its viewers?
Not when you add a network run by the NFL owners to the pot.
In 2014 we will see a National Football league we might not recognize. If your team sells out its game, you will still get to see it in your local market, (that will keep the government out of things). Networks will pay significantly more than what they shell out now for just three or four games a week. Cable outlets will be forced to add NFLN to their basic packages in return for license to sell Sunday ticket, (unless the DirecTV antes up five billion more per year to keep it exclusive). Look for the NFLN to have exclusive rights to at least four games a week.
The upshot is, each team should see a windfall of an additional $2-3 hundred million a year–minimum–from the network, satellite and cable contracts plus all the ad revenue from the 4 games a week they will exclusively show on their own network.
And look for Bill Hambrecht to pay three quarter of a million dollars for the new NFL Los Angeles franchise–along with three other new owners when the league expands in 2016.
Damn, Roger Goodell is smarter than I thought he’d be.
NEWS FLASH!!!
Well, it seems all four UFL names have been picked!
THE CALIFORNIA REDWOODS
THE LAS VEGAS LOCOMOTIVES (LOCOS)
FLORIDA TUSKERS
NEW YORK SENTINALS
Words are not adequate to explain how bored we are just reading these names.
If you want to see some really cool names, for the New York, Orlando, and Vegas franchises check out Parts 1-3 of this series at deepintosports.com
TEAM PROFILE
And now, our names for the Northern California entry of the UFL
THE SAN FRANCISO TREATS
LOGO: A burly cable car conductor holding a box of, (what else), Rice-A-Roni.
First Alternate Pick – THE CALIFORNIA SMOKERS
LOGO: That stoned looking hombre on those classic Panama Red T-Shirts.
My Personal Favorite – THE SAN FRAN CISCO KIDS
A brilliant way to cater to the Latino market.
LOGO: A sombreroed guy perched on a donkey catching a piñata in the shape of a football.
Head Coach – Dennis Green – Didn’t take the Vikings to the Super Bowl because Gary Anderson missed a chip shot field goal. Flamed out at the helm of the Cardinals. Really funny in those Coors light commercials—he seems so natural.
12 Responses to “The UFL Part IV: Who Are You Trying To Fool?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
What would be your first impression of an asian football player? | Football Angst says:
August 19th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
[...] UFL United Football League NFL Monopoly NCAA | Deep Into Sports [...]
Nate Barlow
says:
August 20th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
Of the chosen names, I like Tuskers a lot. That sounds like a football team. Locomotives also becomes cooler when shortened to Locos.
Hmmm… How about the San Francisco Rock? Logo of Alcatraz. Might even appeal to Raiders fans.
Ron
says:
August 21st, 2009 at 1:51 am
1. 18 year olds will never successfully sue the NFL. You can not sue an employer for requiring experience.
2. Los Angeles may not be a market for season one because the league could not find a willing ownership group and/or a reasonable stadium deal. Speaker Pelosi's husband owns the Northern California franchise (which will play at least one of its games outside of San Francisco), and the Pelosis are obviously based in Northern California. It was Pelosi's choice. Plus, Mark Cuban long ago expressed a strong interest in owning a Los Angeles franchise some time ago, but bowed out of season one. Maybe the UFL is keeping Los Angeles an open market hoping that Cuban will be involved in season two. Who knows?
3. "Numerous senior execs hired by the UFL—Frank Vuono, Michael Huyghue, and Rick Mueller, among many others—have substantial experience at the highest levels of the NFL." Conspiracy! Who in the hell would want to hire experienced NFL excecutives to run a professional football league? It just makes no sense! :
4. There is no money trail that links the UFL to the NFL. You are way off on this one.
High-Tech
says:
August 21st, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Nice Written
Gairzo
says:
August 21st, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Ron,
The NBA lost a lawsuit–was it Magic– and the court ruled that any employer cannot discriminate on the basis of age. I didn't say the lawsuit was a lock, but the 18 year-old will have precedent on his side.
You start any professional sports league and don't insist on a team in L.A., you simply are not making sense. L.A. should have been the first choice–with Cuban or not–for several reasons: no NFL team, the Avengers had a decent following, and there's only about 14 million people.
"Numerous senior execs hired by the UFL—Frank Vuono, Michael Huyghue, and Rick Mueller, among many others—have substantial experience at the highest levels of the NFL." Conspiracy! Who in the hell would want to hire experienced NFL excecutives to run a professional football league? It just makes no sense! :"
So the UFL pulls, what, 5-6 high level execs away from the NF?. My point was, the UFL has to be paying these guys more than the filthy rich NFL–can we agree on that? That many supposedly quality execs leaving ANY corporation would alarm the CEO–unless there is some self-interest being served. The above two points make perfect sense. You might not want to acknowledge that but it does make sense.
Compare the NFL's approach to the USFL XFL, WFL, even the AFL 45 years ago–arrogantly dismissing them (publicly), holding networks who showed rival leagues' games feet to the fire when it came time to bid the NFL rights. None of that is going on here.
Where in the piece do I allude to a "money trail that links the UFL to the NFL"
Ron
says:
August 22nd, 2009 at 12:37 am
"The NBA lost a lawsuit–was it Magic– and the court ruled that any employer cannot discriminate on the basis of age. I didn't say the lawsuit was a lock, but the 18 year-old will have precedent on his side."
-That judge was a moron. The league simply should have changed the wording of its policy to require experience.
"You start any professional sports league and don't insist on a team in L.A., you simply are not making sense. L.A. should have been the first choice–with Cuban or not–for several reasons: no NFL team, the Avengers had a decent following, and there's only about 14 million people."
-You make a good point. The Las Vegas franchise does have a home game in Los Angeles during the inaugural season. I think a number of factors prevented a Los Angeles franchise , and the league wasn't anticipating profit in any of the markets for season one anyhow.
"So the UFL pulls, what, 5-6 high level execs away from the NF?. My point was, the UFL has to be paying these guys more than the filthy rich NFL–can we agree on that? That many supposedly quality execs leaving ANY corporation would alarm the CEO–unless there is some self-interest being served. The above two points make perfect sense. You might not want to acknowledge that but it does make sense. "
-I do not know what the UFL execs are getting paid, but they may also have been drawn in by the opportunity of being a league exec versus a team exec. Maybe starting a league from scratch appeals to some of these guys. Just because the UFL ownership is intelligent enough to hire former NFL executives does not mean they are a puppet league. I mean that is really going out on a limb.
"Compare the NFL's approach to the USFL XFL, WFL, even the AFL 45 years ago–arrogantly dismissing them (publicly), holding networks who showed rival leagues' games feet to the fire when it came time to bid the NFL rights. None of that is going on here."
-That is not entirely true. The NFL (and some of the media) have taken at least some subtle jabs at the league. I follow UFL google alerts, so I have seen both the good and the bad. The UFL draws in less criticism than many of the other leagues because of who is involved. The other leagues didn't have the level of credibility in ownership and executives. That clearly makes a difference.
"Where in the piece do I allude to a "money trail that links the UFL to the NFL"
-Nowhere. It was a relevant counterpoint to your suggestion that NFL owners would somehow gain something from the UFL signing NFL players during a lockout, when in fact those NFL owners would lose millions while UFL owners benefited.
Gairzo
says:
August 22nd, 2009 at 5:59 am
The judge was a moron? If corporations were allowed to discriminate because of age, they could do so because of color, or gender, or sexual preference. That was a sound legal decision. Your confuse an employer requiring experience with an individual of legal age having the right to earn a living based on his talent. Different wording won't make blatant discrimination acceptable.
On the execs: You have to wonder if they've left their jobs for less pay. I'm kinda thinking successful people go onto a different track for more dinero–among many other reasons you mention. Hey, I could be dead wrong on every point, BUT, it is not going out on a limb when you examine the history of the NFL and how they dealt with those who've tried to cross it.
The media "taking subtle jabs" at the UFL is a far cry from the anti **FL campaigns the NFL has waged in the media with upstart leagues. Also, the exec and ownership don't make one bit of difference to the public or the media. The UFL has run a clinic on how to lower expectations. Anything they do will be a success–that's to their credit.
Assume the owners lock the NFLPA out:
UFL salaries are capped at 12-20 million per team only a handful of players will be making a million/per season. What high-profile NFLer is going to risk his NFL contract for that paltry amount? Last cuts, practice squadders maybe, but that's it. AND , say I'm wrong and a slew of current NFLers do indeed jump to the UFL. Then the NFL says, "Great, you signed a contract subject to a salary cap, when you want to make real money, come back to the NFL where your team cap is 80 million instead of 15 mil."
If you're right and the UFL does sign a lot of high profile NFL players, the new league immediately risks the overspending and bidding wars that doomed the USFL and XFL.
The only conclusion will be the NFL making more money and nobody giving a damn about a team called the Tuskers, playing on Wednesday nights–on VERSUS.
The lockout will be settled before it begins.
Either way, the NFL comes out richer and the UFL will wonder why it didn't put a friggin' team in Los Angeles.
We'll see how it plays out, and maybe I'm way off, but my gut says Goodell has his hands up th UFL's ass and the new league was created for a reason.
Ron
says:
August 22nd, 2009 at 9:58 pm
1. Please. When Kobe Bryant was drafted, he ended up on the bench for years before he could really play. There is no way 18 year olds can compete with NFL level players in their mid 20's. Should we also not discriminate based on strength, speed, size, etc.? Where does your slippery slope of discrimination end?
The NFL requires so many years out of High School, and to me that says they are requiring experience.
2. I never suggested the UFL would necessarily sign NFL "stars" during the lockout. I only acknowledged that the UFL would have a broader talent pool available, which would make difference.
Gairzo
says:
August 23rd, 2009 at 3:52 am
Good points.
Unfortunately, the law doesn't care about good points. If an 18 year-old phenom were to sue as I outlined, he would have a good case. Whether or not you want to acknowledge existing law is upto you.
Also, Lebron was a force from day 1. However, you're right, that may be the deciding factor–safety, physiology–if the NFL were sued in such a scenario. The point is the case would be a valid action and could go either way. Why do you argue that obvious point?
Again, either way, IF the lockout lasts a day or a month, no decent NFL player would enjoy a financial windfall by signing a UFL contract. Right now, any pro football player who has even a longshot at making a NFL squad will not sign with–at best–a minor league team.
The worst case scenario for the NFL will be a rise in third string, last cut, undrafted player defections. The money NFL owners will have to part with to keep those players will be more than made up for with a new CBA that has a cap of 55 % of gross revenue not generated by the NFL. Note that qualification. The owners will not include all of the money from NFLN in any new CBA given their initial investment in that network. That will be a major sticking point in negotiations with the union
Bottom line, if you think the NFL is going to be financially outflanked by a cadre of their own former execs, well, I hope you enjoy the Kool-Aid.
Ron
says:
August 24th, 2009 at 2:57 am
I am not sure what case you were referring to in your original post, and how the wording of the NBA's policy may differ from the NFL, but I just discussed the issue with an attorney I know fairly well. He said Maurice Clarett already challenged the NFL on this issue, which was litigated all the way to the Supreme Court. The original ruling was in Clarett's favor, but it was later overturned by a Federal Appeals court, which ruled in the NFL's favor. According to Wikipedia the federal judge who presided over the case was Sonia Sotomayor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Clarrett
So, it may actually be the NFL that has case law in its favor. I am not familiar with the NBA case you made reference to, or how it might have differed from Clarett's case.
Ron
says:
August 24th, 2009 at 3:00 am
No, I don't believe the NFL will be "outflanked," but I do not believe the UFL was at all designed to serve the NFL.
UFL COO Frank Vuono had a live chat this evening, which you might find interesting…
http://www.ufl-football.com/blog/2009/08/22/ufl_c...
Gairzo
says:
August 26th, 2009 at 3:04 am
Clarett's case woul;d probably hold sway. I completely forgot about it. I do recall the Supreme court didn't take the case. I don't know f that means there's still a shot.
The 18 year- old conjecture was a minor point to illustrate that the day is coming when the NFL will have tohave some kind of "minor league" for those that don't fit into the NCAA pipeline.
It has to play out. We'll see.