At the corporate level, the NFL is a nonprofit 501(c)(6) association.
Well, duh. But the teams are insanely profitable. Which means that the league is very well run.
I know, I was just messing around. Goodell makes $45 million a year, pretty damn good for not generating a profit.
This is my thought as well. Steadily increasing reluctance on the part of parents to let their kids play football. Pressure on Youth/High School leagues may reduce the number of teams, or reduce the schedule, or even make flag football the kid’s version. I’ve heard talk that kids under 14 should not play tackle at all.
Eventually you notice a large number of guys on the field who would not have been offered a position 10 years ago. Quality of play suffers, suddenly people stop being interested, and you slide down the scale, fast.
Maybe they can prevent this, but it will take serious thought towards changing the game. They did it 100 years ago.
Profitability and good leadership are not one and the same. FIFA is another profitable enterprise that is very poorly run. However, FIFA, like the NFL (and the NCAA), has a profitable product, and is bolstered by the good stewardship of the affiliated enterprises they partner with (eg. the teams).
I don’t think it will get to the point of “a large number of guys on the field who would not have been offered a position 10 years ago” before it gets to the point where franchises start disbanding.
I don’t see the south - especially Texas - giving up on high school or college soccer any time soon. You don’t need a sport to be nationwide at youth level in order to make it nationwide at pro level; there are three NHL teams in California despite the fact that the only NCAA ice hockey teams west of Colorado are in Alaska. (“But that’s because it’s not cold enough anywhere else!” - tell Nevada-Reno that.)
I don’t think injuries are as much a “danger” to football programs as finances are. A school having a football team can be expensive - plus, ever since Title IX, you have to match the spending with spending on girls’ / women’s sports, which means fewer boys’ / men’s teams. I wouldn’t be surprised if, 20-30 years from now, high school football is primarily a club sport that rents its home field from a nearby high school - and the schools themselves would replace football with either soccer or rugby, at least after somebody changes the rugby rules to allow for more substitutions the way the high school soccer rules do, which lets more kids into each game.
And it’s also a threat to the perceived quality of the game. While the NFL will continue to recruit athletes, if there’s enough backlash then it might get to the point where football athletes aren’t viewed with the same prestige as they are now. Football might become more of a “second choice” sport, and I think that perception could seriously errode things.
This must be why college football, whose best teams would lose to the worst NFL team most of the time, can’t draw crowds or get lucrative TV contracts.
I don’t see Texas starting to care about high school or college soccer any time soon.
Apples-ish to oranges-ish. College sports and professional sports draw crowds in different ways. You don’t go to a college game expecting to see top-level play, but you do go to pro sports to see top-level play. If the top-level play starts sliding down, I think it’s fair to believe the overall popularity of pro football will slide down as well.
And if that happens, it will impact the college game. Even though they’re separate entities, it seems like the relative popularity of college sports is pretty closely related to the popularity of the pro game.
Now, I personally don’t think this will be a fast decline, and I think the NFL will address injuries in a more serious and public way before their cart gets entirely overturned, but I can see the league losing major prestige over time if visible changes don’t happen.
The game’s quality won’t suffer until after the game is already hurting because people aren’t watching it like they used to.
Think of it this way: suppose (say 15 years from now) participation in high school football in the U.S. is down 20% from current levels. That 20% drop isn’t going to come entirely from the most affluent 20% of the families in the U.S., but mostly it will. And what fraction of NFL players grew up in the top quintile of the population? probably a pretty small one. But if football viewership among the parents of that 20% - most of the most affluent 20% of the population - drops off drastically, the NFL’s TV income will take a major hit, player salaries will drop significantly, the NFL as a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow won’t look so golden anymore, and that will result in a drop in player quality.
football wont die. The economy would collapse if it did
Assuming this post isn’t schtick, football is peanuts in the grand scheme of the economy.
you really don’t know what you are talking about. Football alone both funds and is funded by media for billions. Football goes under and everything involved with it collapses .Large numbers of media,media employees etc.
tv sales and nfl merch are huge industries. It would start a downward spiral in many directions
http://thefixisin.net/reporting.html
football isn’t remotely peanuts. Its the opiate of the masses lead by 32 lawyer billionaires who are basically the equivalent of royalty in America
In reality, the truth is somewhere in between “entire economy would collapse without it” and “peanuts.” Closer to the peanuts side of course, when you compare a US GDP of $17 Trillion or so to the maybe $17 Billion the NFL and college football contribute. But even though only 1/10th of 1%, $17 billion nothing to sneeze at.
Peanuts, by the way, accounted for $1.18 billion in supermarket sales.
It’s not like football (a) is going to drop off the face of the earth in a day, nor (b) that it will be replaced by everybody just twiddling their thumbs on weekend afternoons in the fall.
As people stop watching football, they will find other things to fill their leisure time with, and many of those things would present commercial opportunities as well. The economy really won’t notice the difference, any more than it suffered during the 1990s as all those secretarial and clerk/typist jobs went away.
And Peanuts made Charles Schultz $1 billion and his heirs between $30 - $35 million a year.
Overall, the trend in entertainment has been for a splintering of the market and I don’t see any reason why football would be any different. It will not be replaced by any one sport, but by lots of sports as people are able to find something that interests them.±
I can’t wait for Real Housewives of Green Bay.
Despite his dismissal of my opinion, I actually kinda agree with him about football’s hold on the population. And in most labor disputes, the fans almost always side with management. There are even people out there who will brag about how profitable NFL teams are. Whereas I think almost everything that is wrong with the NFL can be traced back to the 31 owners.
Wonder what got davethehammer banned? Or is it a breach of board etiquette to speculate?