Irrelevant. The National Football League should be really national in scope. Like football is in almost every other country.
You don’t think this happens already? Maybe not with In-n-out, but numerous companies whore themselves out to many cities, for subsidies, tax holidays, cancellable loans, etc. to move their operations there. Happens everyday across America. Corporate welfare at its best.
… it is national in scope…
Just because it doesn’t have oodles and oodles of lower leagues is irrelevant. That’s how sports leagues evolved in this country and what the legal protections are for - to allow for the American version, which is interestingly far more socialist than football in other countries.
Sports are different beasts, because you NEED other franchises in order to survive. I mean, Portland, Oregon could create a professional football franchise, but without other teams to play against it, it won’t actually work. How does one adequately force other franchises to cooperate with a team and engage in similar anti-trust protections as businesses that would never be allowed to cooperate with other businesses in their field under those anti-trust laws?
Taxpayer funding of stadia is okay. A stadium is an amenity like a park or boating lake or swimming pool. That’s not really what we’re talking about. We’re talking - essentially - about NFL stadia, which are almost invariably built with public funds but in which all the revenues go to the team. Raymond James Stadium is a fine (or awful) example (and I say that as a Buccaneers fan, though one who lives far enough away that I was unaffected by the Community Investment Tax). Those agreements are never voted on by the public. They’re a gift to the wealthy, the underlying motivation for which is publicity and ego stroking for the local mayor or commissioners. What public official wouldn’t want to be associated with “bringing the NFL to our town”?
I agree. This is one reason why you won’t actually see a team move to LA: it’s too valuable a club for team owners to beat their local markets over the head with.
I agree with this, too. You can’t tell me we don’t have enough players to fill out the rosters of 50 or even 100 professional teams.
Of course you do, but the quality will suffer immensely as people who were on practice squads currently may find themselves starting.
Is the quality of play in the World Cup noticeably different from that of the English Premier League?
So should musical acts be required to perform in any city that has an arena and invites them to come? No.
Um… yes? Of course it depends on who you are talking about regarding the EPL. Man City vs. Arsenal or Newcastle vs. Aston Villa? The top 3-4 are kind of international all star teams while everyone else is more than a few steps behind World Cup squads.
You are missing the point. World Cup squads are clearly (at least for the top countries) better than most club teams. But nobody ever complains that there isn’t enough talent for the EPL, Serie A, La Liga, and so on, or compares domestic league play unfavorably with World Cup play.
If NFL teams are forced to use players who might have been practice-squadders before, nobody will be complaining that the game is less entertaining than it used to be.
You realize you are comparing multiple countries with one? I mean baseball fans have been known to complain about dilution of talent when even 2 expansion teams are added in one year (especially pertaining to bullpen arms) - though that’s somewhat mitigated due to the game opening up to international players.
In addition, the soccer national leagues came first and the World Cup afterwards, so different expectations.
If only someone could think up a solution to the “dilution of talent” dilemma.
The exclusionary practices of the NFL are a vice, not a virtue.
No, it’s mostly a virtue. There is a ton of things allowed to sports leagues that normal businesses absolutely couldn’t do under anti-trust regulations, including cooperating among each other, revenue sharing, the draft, etc. Having the ability to control how many franchises they have is part and parcel with all the rest.
Multiple countries with a lower total population than the US, yes.
Maybe I’m ignorant here, but are minor leagues a baseball-only phenomenon? Minor league baseball teams seem to be everywhere. I see nothing wrong with minor league teams all over the country, while the majors only play in the most lucrative markets. I guess college sports kind of fill this role for basketball and football.
I know. I’m from New York.
Multiple countries with essentially one major league compared to one country with basically three major leagues (I don’t count hockey as competing with talent with football).
There is football basically everywhere in the United States; the level immediately under the NFL is college football, which has hundreds of franchises located almost anywhere you’ll find people.
Why the National Football League in particular should have a team in every city is, frankly, something that can’t be rationally defended. No European top flight league has a team in every town. That’s what the lower levels are for. If people in Columbus want to see football, they can go to see Ohio State games, and in fact they do, 100,000 at a time.
I’m just happy that the Super Bowl parties are going to be in San Francisco, so I’ll be able to drive down Tasman during Super Bowl week without dodging too many drunks.
I only wish that I was allowed to get an air mattress and rent out my office on AirBnB. I could make a fortune.
San Diego is about to lose the Chargers due to the spoiled brats throwing a tantrum for a new stadium. I responded by wishing a shitty season on them, and so far, they are 2 and 7. Far better to let them go than pay for a new stadium when the roads in SD are full of potholes etc.
And the Raiders have said they’d consider moving to San Diego if the Chargers and/or Rams beat them to LA.