Blogger Roundtable: NFL in London?

Will the NFL Have a London-based franchise by the end of the decade (2020)?  We gave our thoughts, so now it's your turn.  Answer our poll at the top of the blog and then leave a comment at the bottom of this post explaining why. 

In last week's edition of Blogger Roundtable, our newest Sports Business Society bloggers argued over who was the best commissioner in sports.  Two of the panelists chose Roger Goodell, citing among other factors, the National Football League's success in international markets (particularly London). 

Then on the September 17, SBS Skyped with alumnus Hussain Naqi, SVP of  Fan Engagement for the Jacksonville Jaguars.  Naqi has been charged with marketing and branding the team in the UK.  Naqi was able to provide a great deal of incite into the potential NFL market, although he dismissed the possibility of his Jaguars making a permanent move across the Atlantic.


And now the possibility of a London-based franchise has received more media attention than ever before.  ESPN has launched a series of articles on the issue, including Greg Garber's "More Than Just A Nice Place To Visit".  Here's what Garber had to say:

The good news for the skeptics? Players, coaches and staff of the four teams get to jump on a plane afterward and return home. But what if they didn't? What if there were a franchise in London? What financial, logistical and competitive challenges would have to be overcome?  

It's time to start asking these questions, folks, because it's going to happen. Yes, with some serious thrust from commissioner Roger Goodell and a league with a powerful hunger to increase its revenue streams, it's quite likely there soon will be an NFL team in London.

In a separate piece on ESPN, Kristi Dosh examines a variety of legal concerns that arise from a full-time London team.  Tax laws, working visas, as well as competition and free movement labor laws could get in the way of the desires of the NFL's business and marketing brass.

But could legal or other logistical challenges (such as travel) really get in the way of the most powerful sports league in the history of the world?  Or will Roger Goodell and the NFL break down any barriers that stand in the way of their expansionary goals?  That was the question we asked our bloggers and E-Board members this time around:

Will the NFL have a London-based franchise by the end of the decade (2020)?

Adam Malz (Featured Blogger)- Yes

 Yes, I believe that the by the end of the decade an NFL franchise will call London home. This is going to happen eventually, regardless of whether fans or players think it is right. Owners and the League are pushing for it because of the fact that it opens up a brand new and tremendously large area of revenue, as the domestic market is peaking. There are still a lot of obstacles and kinks that will need to be worked out, which is why I’m thinking towards the end of the decade. But I think it is certainly in our near future.

Gabe Cassillo (SBS VP of Magazine)- NO

While the NFL has the ambition and no doubt the resources to make a move to the UK happen (eventually) I think it highly unlikely such a move would take place by the end of this decade. Fans often cite fairly trivial "issues" that would impact such a move. Travel, time differences, culture, lack of fan base, etc. In reality, the time frame seems too aggressive. For a league experiencing continual growth, I question whether the 32 owners would be in favor of taking the risk by adding a team based in London. If I was a betting man, yes, I agree that one day the NFL will have teams overseas. Do I think that day will be by 2020? Not at all.

John Zakour (Featured Blogger)- Yes

In both articles, Garber and Dosh discuss a litany of problems that an NFL team in London would face. Tax codes, food, jet lag, logistical issues, would all have to be ironed out. But they're just minor issues. If Goodell wills a NFL team in London, it will be so. Roger Goodell won't let these triflings stop him from realizing his dream of a truly international, intercontinental NFL. It wouldn't surprise me if we have a foreign Super Bowl in the near future, which would precede a London team. Goodell wants this, against all reason, and he will find a way to make it happen.

Jon Levitan (Featured Blogger)- Yes

The NFL will eventually put a team in London. The league almost always gets what it wants, and clearly wants to have a team.  With two games being played there this year, the only question is when a team will eventually be placed across the pond. I would say that a team will be there by 2020, and I would also guess that that team will be the Jaguars. The market of Jacksonville just isn’t big enough to support a franchise that isn’t firmly entrenched there. That much is already clear, by the fact that the Jags will play a game in London for the next four years, which will be far more lucrative for them than their normal home games. By the end of those four years, the team may very well have a solid following overseas, and hopefully a better product to put on display. Although the league may want to place an expansion team London, as Garber’s article showed, I think the Jaguars will lobby heavily to be relocated.

Jesse Sherman (SBS Director of  Operations) - NO

Word on the street is that an NFL team in London is imminent. We've seen some successful trips to Wembley in the past few years. But that being said, I don't see a London-based franchise emerging before 2020. The current NFL CBA runs through 2020 and some labor laws between the US and London differ significantly enough to raise doubt in my mind. I don't think it will happen.. yet.

Matthew Hakimian (Featured Blogger)- Yes

One of Roger Goodell's main priorities since he came into power as the commissioner in 2006 has been to innovate the National Football League in all facets of the game, both on and off the field. We all know that he is one of the main proponents of an NFL team permanently relocating to London and it's looking more plausible each year. The most likely team to move to the UK would have to be the Jacksonville Jaguars as the team is scheduled to be featured in a game overseas through the 2016 season.  With one of the league's lowest fan bases, and faced with yearly difficulties with local television blackouts, it makes way too much sense to move the struggling Jags to London.

Will the NFL Have a London-based franchise by the end of the decade (2020)?  We gave our thoughts, so now it's your turn.  Answer our poll at the top of the blog and then leave a comment at the bottom of this post explaining why. 

A Small Step for a Big Change : A New NFL Schedule

Will this NFL draft soon become a staple of May sweeps?

The NFL, NFL players, and NFL fans hate the pre-season. It’s a month of football where the league stars barely play, stadiums are completely empty, and season ticket holders have to pay full price to see the games. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell has long been a proponent of expanding the NFL regular season from 16 to 18 games and cutting the pre-season from four to two games. Despite the fact that NFL players are seemingly never going to agree to the extra two games, the NFL may be starting to answer some of the questions of how a new 18-game season would work.

Adam Schefter, of ESPN, tweeted that the NFL is discussing changes to the NFL off-season schedule. The change would move the NFL combine from late February to early March, the start of the league calendar year and free agency from early March to early April, the NFL draft from mid-April to early May, and having all 32 teams start training camp on the same day in late July or early August.

The NFL has obviously denied the connection between the proposed schedule change and the proposed 18-game schedule, but it is hard to not think they are related. If the NFL decides to not move week 1 of the NFL schedule, it would have to move the Super Bowl from the first weekend in February to President’s Day weekend in February and would have leave just a week between the Super Bowl and NFL combine. The NFL is subtly moving the league calendar to answer how an expanded regular season would work without ever mentioning the 18-game schedule.

As Schefter mentioned, the league is doing this for “business” reasons. The proposed shift not only attempts to keep the NFL relevant in 11 of the 12 months of the year with big events, but also attempts to increase the NFL’s television revenues. With the proposed change, the NFL would have the playoffs in January, Super Bowl in February, combine in March, free agency in April, draft in May, training camp in July, pre-season in August, and then the season from September to December. Outside of the month of June the NFL would continue to remain relevant with a big event each month. The NFL draft in May would place the draft in the middle of the May television sweeps, which the league hopes, would increase the advertisement money as well as TV ratings of the draft.

While the NFL’s proposed move seems harmless, it does not factor in where its new proposed schedule would fall into the general sports calendar. Right now, the NFL’s off-season schedule capitalizes on the dead period of other sports seasons. The NFL combine moves from a dead period in February to a dead period in March which is fine, but NFL free agency moves from a dead period in March to early April and will have to compete with MLB Opening Day. The NFL Draft currently competes with the early rounds of the NHL playoffs, the end of the NBA regular season, but the proposed change would move the draft in direct competition with later rounds of the NHL playoffs and the NBA playoffs, as well.

Is the NFL hoping that everyone will continue to care about their draft or free agency over other major sports events? I guess so. The NFL has reached a popularity level where every decision it makes is right. The players may block this new schedule and eventually an 18 game schedule, too.

But if this does pass, it will only increase the popularity of America’s number one sport.  

Event Recap: NFLPA Executive Committee member Jim McFarland

Jim McFarland speaks to the Cornell ILR Sports Management Club

On Monday, April 8th, the ILRSMC hosted NFLPA Executive Committee member Jim McFarland. McFarland played college football at Nebraska University and enjoyed a six-year career in the NFL. He graduated from Cornell Law School in 1980 and has been practicing as an attorney ever since. In 2007, he was named to the NFLPA former players Board of Directors, and in 2010, he was made a former player representative on the NFL Executive Committee. He spoke with the club about the process of drafting a new CBA and the current troubles they are experiencing. A summary of the event can be found after the jump.

On the NFL’s massive popularity

McFarland began by explaining how the NFL’s popularity has helped increase revenues for all teams. This expanding revenue, however, has been difficult for owners and players to split up. In January, Forbes outlined the immense profitability of the NFL, Revenues and profits have risen dramatically over the years and they continue to rise. Football is even recession proof! 19 of the 32 NFL teams are currently worth at least one billion dollars. By comparison, only one other professional sports team - the New York Yankees - are worth one billion dollars.

On why the owners can afford a lockout

A decision tree was shown which detailed factors that are affecting the owners’ decision to pursue a lockout. The main issue for both the owners and their respective teams is maintaining a cash flow during the lockout. Due to contractual obligations, TV networks still need to pay the price of broadcasting games even if no games are played. Essentially, teams will still bring in some revenue during a lockout. However, the economic pitfalls of having no football in 2011 will be felt around America. Each NFL city could potentially lose 150 million dollars of revenue without a season.

On the structure of the NFLPA Executive Committee

The NFLPA Executive Committee has 12 members, including 10 active NFL players and 2 former players (including McFarland). As a former players representative, McFarland’s role on the committee is to advocate for retired players' benefits and for improvements in pensions.

On the 17-day mediation process in February

McFarland was present for 15 of the 17 days of mediation. He claimed, at first, that the talks looked promising, but eventually broke down. The talks started with issues that both sides agreed on, such as improving drug policies and limiting offseason training activities to protect against injuries. However, the major issue that split the parties was revenue sharing. The owners want the players to take a major decrease in their share, while the players feel they should not be given a smaller share as long as revenue is increasing. The players asked to see the financial documents from the owners that would show exactly why the players should accept less of the shared revenue. The owners refused, claiming the players already had enough evidence.

On the union decertification and subsequent class action lawsuit

The CBA was set to expire on March 3rd, but both parties voluntarily extended it to March 11th. Yet, after little progress, at 5PM EST on March 11th (before the CBA expired at midnight) the NFLPA announced its decertification as a union to become a trade association. Then, Tom Brady, along with 8 other active player plaintiffs and one college rookie (Von Miller of Texas A&M, now of the Denver Broncos) filed a class action lawsuit against the NFL for violation of antitrust laws. Due to its decertification, the NFLPA did not file the Brady et al. v. NFL lawsuit as a union. Instead, it served and continues to serve as an advisory trade association to the class of players. The NFL is insulated from the antitrust laws by an existing CBA negotiated by an existing Union.

On how the owners are affecting this process

McFarland emphasized that one of the major difficulties has been the diversity amongst owners. He claims that Commissioner Goodell has the troubling task of trying to represent 32 rich owners, all with different views. Even worse, they all have different schedules; during the 17-day mediation, the owners only met face-to-face with the NFLPA for about three hours. Every day, the owners had 4 PM conference calls, which resulted in them only being able to reach tentative agreements with the players during the daytime, prolonging the process.

Goodell doesn’t have the control or ability to make group decisions for these owners. Many of them come from different backgrounds and have vastly different views. McFarland claimed that there are three different types of owners in the NFL today. There are fully invested owners, like Jerry Jones of the Cowboys and Bob Kraft of the Patriots, who risk takers. They run their team like a business by investing in them and marketing to increase revenues. There are family owners, such as Clark Hunt of the Chiefs and Mike Brown of the Bengals, who inherited teams from their fathers. As owners of smaller market teams that are family business, these owners are less willing to invest in their teams and take financial risks. Finally, there are owners who treat their team as just another business venture and are still involved in other businesses. All of these different owners have different opinions about the logistics of the new CBA, making collective agreement a real challenge.

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell

On key dates in the near future

NFL camps open around the middle of July, so McFarland claims that all parties hope the CBA is signed by this time. If not, there will be major consequences regarding advertising and revenues.

Key statistics stated by McFarland…

-The average NFL career is 3.4 years.

-The average NFL salary is about one million dollars.

-Over 80% of all NFL players are either bankrupt or divorced after 2 years of retiring.

-84% of players end their careers with injuries.

All of these stats support the idea that the new CBA must focus, in part, on players' lives after their careers are over.

On a rookie wage scale

The NFL wants a definite wage scale, meaning a player drafted in a specific draft spot would get a specific amount of money every time. The players favor a “pool” system. This entails a team being allotted a certain amount of money to give to all of their draft picks and the team must spread it out among its selections.

On whether or not NFL players are following the negotiations

McFarland claims that “110% of NFL players are following the negotiations.” Every team has a player representative, and these player representatives are directly involved with the NFLPA Executive Committee. Individual players have been told to contact their player representative to be briefed on the current situation. McFarland spoke about how he used to routinely contact Dan Dierdof, his player representative, during his playing years.

Thank you to Jim McFarland for taking the time to speak to our club.

The ILRSMC Blog will be covering the NFL Lockout throughout the summer.

Solution for the NFL-NFLPA: Change the Rules of the Game

Yesterday was the day the NFL and NFLPA had been hoping to avoid for two years. With no new collective bargaining agreement, the league has locked out the players, and so the players union has decertified itself in order to file an antitrust lawsuit against the league. The two sides may still reach agreement, but the move from the bargaining table to the courthouse is an unambiguously bad sign for football fans. The issues at stake -- division of revenue, rookie pay, health and safety, and the length of the regular season, among others -- have and will continue to be discussed. However, a solution that brings long-term success and stability to the NFL must change the very rules of the game under which both sides bargain. Consider applying planes, trains, and labor relations -- the Railway Labor Act (RLA) -- to pro sports.

Why does the NFL legal bargaining framework need to be changed? And what exactly is their legal bargaining framework in the first place? As a private business, the NFL (and all pro sports leagues) fall under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the law's enforcing body, the National Labor Relations Board. Very briefly, under the NLRA, labor and management are allowed to use economic weapons, such as strikes and lockouts, to resolve contract disputes as long as they don't commit any unfair labor practices in the way. These tactics should be familiar to sports fans: baseball has had eight work stoppages from 1972 to 1995, and the NBA and NHL have locked out players in 1998-9 and 2004-5.

The NFL and NFLPA have been through this before, and just like 1987, the ability to sue the league for antitrust damages emboldened the union to withstand a lockout, to the detriment of negotiations and a new collective agreement. FMCS Director George Cohen is as talented a mediator as one can find, but over sixteen days even he couldn't overcome the legal / lockout alternatives both parties had. His official (under)statement yesterday said it all: "No useful purpose would be served by requesting the parties to continue the mediation process at this time." Clearly, the mediation process and this private system doesn't incentivize the parties towards agreement.

Before explaining the RLA, a brief introduction to the public-sector labor law is helpful for context. As we're seeing now in Wisconsin, Ohio, and Indiana, policies vary by state, but the basic principles remain the same. Policeman, fireman, teachers, and others who do have the right to bargain and can't reach agreement are not allowed to strike, because the work they do is so essential to the public interest. Binding arbitration is instead generally the last step of the dispute resolution process.


The RLA was passed in 1926, the same year as Northwestern Airlines (above) was founded, but the Act has clearly lasted longer. In many ways, the RLA merges the interests of private- and public-sector labor law framework. Since deregulation, the airline and railway companies are privately owned. However, the transportation industry is strongly in the public interest, as a work stoppage would direct affect the rest of the country's economy. I see a clear parallel to the sports industry. Like transportation, sports leagues are privately run with private owners, yet again in the public interest. An NFL lockout doesn't just directly affect players, but thousands of stadium employees and hundreds of thousands of workers in secondary business (one study estimated a lockout would cost $160 million per city), not to mention indirect effects on morale of millions of football fans. This public interest may not be enough to establish a government regulatory body, but is sufficiently central to the future of the sport to warrant a private version of the RLA.

The RLA -- and a potential application to the sports industry -- is effectively a hybrid of the NLRA and public-sector labor law. A couple highlights from the Act:

• Contracts don't "expire", they simply have a date after which they can become amendable
• Strikes / lockouts cannot be used for disputes classified as "minor"
• They can only be used for "major" disputes after mandatory mediation, non-binding arbitration, and a cooling-off period.

The Act's enforcing body, the National Mediation Board, has strong discretionary power to control the process based on the interests of the parties and the affected public. While some may complain this process is cumbersome, I believe it highlights the best characteristics of private- and public-sector labor relations. Like the private-sector, both parties reach the agreement themselves, without a neutral third party arbitrator essentially telling the company how to run their business. And like the public-sector, work stoppages are exceedingly rare, since their jobs are directly in the public interest.

What would the RLA and its strategic private / public advantages look like if applied to sports? Imagine these NFL-NFLPA negotiations in a world where their contract never expired (the 2011 season would be played under their previous contract if they couldn't reach a new agreement) and we would see a lockout and courthouse battles only after a dispute resolution process many times more exhaustive than George Cohen and the FMCS can subject them to.

Will this ever happen? Congress is unlikely to intervene as they did in the transportation industry in 1926, and even if they did, sports leagues and unions would likely resist government intervention. Any legal change must come from within the sport itself, if both sides look beyond their short-term economic gains to truly re-structure their process in the interests of the most relevant parties not at the table -- fans and communities. There is no better time to explore this option than now.

Note: this post was adapted from part of my Evolution of Sport address at the 2011 MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference last weekend. Watch video here.

Poll of the Week: NFL Games in 2011-12

Robert Kraft

Poll of the Week is a weekly (duh) feature appearing every Monday. Please vote on the right sidebar and back up your opinion in the comments. Feel free to email poll suggestions to ilrsmcblog@gmail.com.

According to a recent AP poll, it doesn't appear that many NFL fans across America favor an expanded NFL regular season.

An Associated Press-Knowledge Networks poll released Thursday shows only lukewarm backing at best for a switch from 16 to 18 regular-season games, one of the NFL's key -- and easiest-to-understand -- proposals in its labor negotiations with the players' union.

Of everyone surveyed, 27 percent strongly favor or somewhat favor adding two regular-season games and dropping two preseason games. When the group is narrowed to those identifying themselves as NFL fans, support for the change rises to a total of 45 percent -- yet only 18 percent who strongly favor it.

Check out the rest of the details on ESPN.

ESPN provides the player's perspective - Hines Ward is quoted in the article as stating that "no player wants to play 18 games" - but Sporting News provides management's perspective.

Patriots owner Robert Kraft told NFL.com that an expanded season would aid the league in a down economy. "I really think going to an 18-game season is critical to us getting a labor deal. There's not a lot of ways in this economic environment we can generate incremental revenues. That's the best way."

So how many regular season games will the NFL play next year?

Will the players - who note fatigue and injury concerns as part of their resistance against an expanded regular season - win out against the owners, who, as Kraft states, need the additional revenue?

Further, what would you, a fan of the game, prefer?

Voting is open until Monday the 28th.

Thanks to Gabe Gershenfeld for this week's question

VIDEO: Gary Bettman, Rob Manfred, and ILR in Pro Sports

What are some similarities and differences in collective bargaining between professional sports and traditional industry? Find out what NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman (ILR '74) and MLB EVP HR and Labor Relations Rob Manfred (ILR '80) say on the subject -- and what this has to do with the NFL-NFLPA negotiations -- in the video following the jump.


A year ago, I was honored to participate in the Human Resource Practices and Industrial Relations in Professional Sports ILR School Workplace Colloquium Series at the Cornell Club in New York City. Both Mr. Bettman and Mr. Manfred have spoken to our club separately in the past, but seeing them interact together and compare experiences added great insight to the relevant issues. Fortunately, video of these excellent remarks from Mr. Bettman and Mr. Manfred are posted online:





Questions discussed include:

• Do players unions more play the role of trade associations or vigilant protectors of worker's (player's) rights?
  
• How do labor and management bargain when the most relevant party -- the fans -- are not at the table?
• How was the 2004-5 NHL lockout different from the 1994-5 MLB strike? Should government intervene in a private dispute?
• Will MLB ever see a minimum payroll or international draft?
• Are professional sports leagues a single entity or competing teams? How does this distinction fit into antitrust law?

Keep in mind, of course, that Bettman and Manfred offer management perspectives. How might Donald Fehr, current NHLPA Executive Director and former MLBPA Executive Director, respond to their comments? Where would he agree or disagree?

These issues are extremely relevant for the NFL-NFLPA negotiations, as the NFLPA has threatened to sue the NFL under antitrust law and the NFL reacted by filing an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for failure to bargain in good faith. Both parties recently agreed to Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) mediation. FMCS Director (and Cornell undergrad and law alum) George Cohen has issued an introductory statement. Their collective bargaining agreement expires in less than two weeks. What, if anything, can the NFL and NFLPA learn from labor relations in hockey and baseball?

If non-ILRies have any questions on the terms used here, I'm happy to do my best to explain.