The Chargers' decision to leave San Diego where they have "little competition, a half-century of goodwill, and hundreds of thousands of fans is a reflection of how teams assess their value in the modern NFL," according to Futterman & Karp of the WALL STREET JOURNAL. Loyal fans are simply "far less valuable than state-of-the-art stadiums surrounded by real estate opportunities, nine-figure naming rights and sponsorship deals, and television exposure" (WALL STREET JOURNAL, 1/13). In L.A., Michael Hiltzik writes the "truth is that winning in the NFL only matters in one category -- revenue." The relocation of NFL teams is "never about finding a winning strategy on the field," and "it’s unrelated to support in the stands or providing the average fan with a better stadium-going experience." But "all this moving around is just proof that the NFL doesn’t really care about any particular hometown." Everyone is "vulnerable, once their state-of-the-art stadiums yield to the ravages of time and fashion and the teams start whining for more money, more luxury boxes, a better deal, and then go looking around for better deals." The NFL will "eventually get tired of Inglewood too" (L.A. TIMES, 1/13).
LET'S TALK FINANCIALS: In N.Y., Ken Belson notes NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell several years ago made an "audacious pledge to the owners" of the NFL's 32 teams: The league "would hit" $25B in revenue by '27. Relocation moves will "ultimately help the league meet its financial target, even at the expense of medium-size cities like San Diego and St. Louis, and possibly Oakland, left without the prestige of football teams." Moving an NFL team "often reaps a financial reward" (N.Y. TIMES, 1/13). In DC, Mark Maske notes league owners will "divide an estimated" $1.1B in relocation fees "paid by the Rams and Chargers." The franchise values of the two teams should "increase dramatically simply by being based" in L.A.. And that increase "may be realized regardless of the presence of a thriving, die-hard fanbase" (WASHINGTON POST, 1/13).
STARTS AT THE TOP: ESPN’s Jim Trotter said the Chargers' situation is a "reflection of leadership ... not necessarily of [Chargers Chair] Dean Spanos but of Roger Goodell." Trotter: "Commissioners get paid the kind of money that he's paid to deal with the tough issues, so why couldn't he be at the forefront to come into California and try and get this situation worked out with San Diego?” ESPN’s Bob Ley: “Unless they didn’t want to” (“OTL,” ESPN, 1/12). On Long Island, Bob Glauber notes Goodell "deserves his share of the blame for not facilitating a deal to keep the Chargers in San Diego," and the league "probably will see a lukewarm -- at best -- reception for a second" L.A. team (NEWSDAY, 1/13). In N.Y., Bart Hubbuch writes, "While the hapless Spanos is the villain of this story ... blame the unrelenting greed and complete moral emptiness of the NFL" in the Goodell era. Goodell, "fueling this endless parade of greed, made that clear with a statement Thursday that implied NFL owners funding stadiums largely out of their own pocket isn’t 'a viable solution'" (N.Y. POST, 1/13).
PLENTY OF BLAME: ESPN.com's Seth Wickersham wrote there will be "plenty of blame to go around." Goodell will be the "face of it, but internally, owners and executives will wonder" if NFL Exec VP/Business Ventures Eric Grubman, the point man on stadiums, did an "effective enough job of negotiating with San Diego officials." But Wickersham also asks, "What if the NFL simply matters less?" The Chargers' relocation is "going to lead to an uncertain landscape for professional football, which concerns more owners than they'll ever admit publicly" (ESPN.com, 1/12). The NATIONAL POST’s Scott Stinson writes the Chargers’ decision is a "breathtakingly arrogant" move “not just for Spanos but the owners who have already given him their blessing to relocate." The Rams experiment “should have been an obvious signal that the league took” L.A. “for granted.” The NFL “thought it could just show up in a city where NFL fans had largely stopped caring about the team and people would flock back because the NFL is a can’t-miss behemoth.” Stinson: “Instead, it proved that it can miss” (NATIONAL POST, 1/13).
HOW DID WE GET HERE? ESPN.com's Darren Rovell noted it "doesn't really matter if there are many people sitting in the seats when the Rams and Chargers play in the fall" of '19, as the fans who "show up regularly at NFL games are just not as important as they used to be." In L.A., the "most important local revenue will be suites and club seats sold to companies and rich individuals who buy just to be there should it one day become the place to be, whether people attend or not." NFL communities have been "compromised by the national success of the sport with the TV money as the driver." The blue-collar fan "literally isn't worth what he or she once was," which is "exactly why picking up and leaving is easier than ever before" (ESPN.com, 1/12). The HUFFINGTON POST's Travis Waldron wrote for owners, NFL teams are "first and foremost a financial asset," as their value is "measured less by wins and losses and irreplaceable moments than by the bottom line." Waldron: "The only thing that does matter is increasing the franchise’s value for whenever it comes time to sell. And so now we have the Los Angeles Rams and Los Angeles Chargers" (HUFFINGTONPOST.com, 1/12). In S.F., Bruce Jenkins writes, "Rams to St. Louis, Browns to Baltimore, Colts to Indianapolis -- this is how the NFL operates, choosing greed over perspective and treating fans like a big pile of garbage" (S.F. CHRONICLE, 1/13).
