Big Gun Posted October 12, 2018 Posted October 12, 2018 22 minutes ago, Perry Turtle said: That's assuming that the NFL is more than a niche sport in the UK market or that there is a 1:1 ratio between ad rates in a counties like the US and Mexico. An NFL team in London would directly compete with the EPL every Sunday for ratings. The EPL would destroy the NFL, relagating the NFL to the ratings equivalent of Sunday afternoon bowling on ESPN. Jacksonville, for all the flack it takes, is one of the larger US markets. The US networks and advertisers would not be happy losing it, especially now that the team is a playoff contender. US networks would lose ratings, which set the rates for advertising. This would negatively impact league revenues, off-setting the gain from foreign market revenues. The EPL has been growing its following in the US over the last few years. It's probably done a better job of penetrating the US market than the NFL has done penetrating the UK market. However, even with that success, I don't see a team like Everton deciding to play half their games in Yankee stadium (where it would be lucky to pull MSL-like ratings). The league's domestic revenues far outpace any potential US revenues. This is about a rich guy who wants to do all his business in London. Any business or competitive reason given for a move like this requires a massive leap of faith. The reality is that the team won't be competitive because it won't be able to attract talent, and it will cause the league to take a massive hit in revenues. It is, since when? Never heard this before.
row_33 Posted October 12, 2018 Posted October 12, 2018 2 hours ago, PeterDude said: Yeah, pretty naive take... With a trillion a year in gambling on the NfL, I don’t wanna think who cares the most about it... 1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said: The naive take is that Goodell has any say or influence as to where the owners of the NFL want and choose to make their money. The naive is that the game isn’t run by criminal elements
KD in CA Posted October 12, 2018 Posted October 12, 2018 (edited) 33 minutes ago, Perry Turtle said: That's assuming that the NFL is more than a niche sport in the UK market or that there is a 1:1 ratio between ad rates in a counties like the US and Mexico. An NFL team in London would directly compete with the EPL every Sunday for ratings. The EPL would destroy the NFL, relagating the NFL to the ratings equivalent of Sunday afternoon bowling on ESPN. Jacksonville, for all the flack it takes, is one of the larger US markets. The US networks and advertisers would not be happy losing it, especially now that the team is a playoff contender. US networks would lose ratings, which set the rates for advertising. This would negatively impact league revenues, off-setting the gain from foreign market revenues. The EPL has been growing its following in the US over the last few years. It's probably done a better job of penetrating the US market than the NFL has done penetrating the UK market. However, even with that success, I don't see a team like Everton deciding to play half their games in Yankee stadium (where it would be lucky to pull MSL-like ratings). The league's domestic revenues far outpace any potential US revenues. This is about a rich guy who wants to do all his business in London. Any business or competitive reason given for a move like this requires a massive leap of faith. The reality is that the team won't be competitive because it won't be able to attract talent, and it will cause the league to take a massive hit in revenues. Compared to the London advertising market?? Edit: Jacksonville is #47 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_television_stations_in_North_America_by_media_market Games in London allow the NFL to add another game slot. So now you can have 10am, 1pm, 4pm and 8pm games on the east coast. Do you seriously think the NFL would make this decision on a whim and hasn't spent millions analyzing the data? Edited October 12, 2018 by KD in CA
Zerovoltz Posted October 12, 2018 Posted October 12, 2018 35 minutes ago, Perry Turtle said: That's assuming that the NFL is more than a niche sport in the UK market or that there is a 1:1 ratio between ad rates in a counties like the US and Mexico. An NFL team in London would directly compete with the EPL every Sunday for ratings. The EPL would destroy the NFL, relagating the NFL to the ratings equivalent of Sunday afternoon bowling on ESPN. Jacksonville, for all the flack it takes, is one of the larger US markets. The US networks and advertisers would not be happy losing it, especially now that the team is a playoff contender. US networks would lose ratings, which set the rates for advertising. This would negatively impact league revenues, off-setting the gain from foreign market revenues. The EPL has been growing its following in the US over the last few years. It's probably done a better job of penetrating the US market than the NFL has done penetrating the UK market. However, even with that success, I don't see a team like Everton deciding to play half their games in Yankee stadium (where it would be lucky to pull MSL-like ratings). The league's domestic revenues far outpace any potential US revenues. This is about a rich guy who wants to do all his business in London. Any business or competitive reason given for a move like this requires a massive leap of faith. The reality is that the team won't be competitive because it won't be able to attract talent, and it will cause the league to take a massive hit in revenues. You’ve completely missed the point of going to London. Has ZERO to do with the market in Jaxonville. The nfl isn’t going to care if that market has 15% less people watch an NFL game on Sunday. Drops of water in an ocean. The London Market means millions in potential tv rights. You put a team in Toronto, they likely become the national team of rooting interest to that whole country and thus, millions more TV revenue. Same with Mexico City. (By the way, the per capita income, standard of living etc in Mexico City is higher than the rest of the country and nearly on par with your average US city). Having a team in JAX or not, doesn’t matter in all this. The owners stand to make a TON of money on TV contracts by expanding to international markets. They don’t even need to expand. Jax moves to London, Buffalo or The Chargers move to Toronto. Same number of teams, whose owners get to split up a much much larger TV contract pie. 1
The Frankish Reich Posted October 12, 2018 Posted October 12, 2018 On 10/11/2018 at 8:46 AM, May Day 10 said: Athletes pay taxes wherever their games are played. They need to file in numerous states. I wonder how complicated that is when crossing over internationally. IMO they should poop or get off the pot with this. The "the bike will be both of ours, we'll just keep it at my house" thing is silly and a way to stunt the growth of the fanbase on both ends. 4 games and 4 games is an awful idea True. But I'm not sure if the same rules apply in the UK. But the larger point is this: people consistently overestimate foreign income tax rates vs. U.S. rates! This is probably a carryover from when there really was such a chasm - the Beatles' Taxman ("one for me, 19 for you") was true at the time when the UK had a top 95% marginal rate. But that was a long time ago. Now, for example: - U.S. top tax bracket = 37% (AFTER the Trump tax bill). But then add state taxes, which could be as high as 13.3% (California) = 50.3% - UK top tax bracket = 45%, and there are no state/local income taxes.
RochesterRob Posted October 12, 2018 Posted October 12, 2018 I see Mexico City as problematic in terms of a NFL franchise. A NFL team would be fertile ground for criminal activity with kidnapping/ ransoming clearly at the top of the list. Any player regardless of background would not want to take his family there. Yeah, his neighbors most likely will be fine but he can't control what is going on much outside the better parts of Mexico City. One bad headline will create a lot of problems for the NFL. 1
KD in CA Posted October 12, 2018 Posted October 12, 2018 7 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: True. But I'm not sure if the same rules apply in the UK. But the larger point is this: people consistently overestimate foreign income tax rates vs. U.S. rates! This is probably a carryover from when there really was such a chasm - the Beatles' Taxman ("one for me, 19 for you") was true at the time when the UK had a top 95% marginal rate. But that was a long time ago. Now, for example: - U.S. top tax bracket = 37% (AFTER the Trump tax bill). But then add state taxes, which could be as high as 13.3% (California) = 50.3% - UK top tax bracket = 45%, and there are no state/local income taxes. Yup, difference is not as stark as people imagine (although I think the NHS tax is in addition to the 45% in the UK). There was a list a couple years ago about total effective tax rates for NFL players. Phillip Rivers topped the list at about 50%. Too bad he's not paying his "fair share".
Mr. WEO Posted October 12, 2018 Posted October 12, 2018 35 minutes ago, row_33 said: With a trillion a year in gambling on the NfL, I don’t wanna think who cares the most about it... The naive is that the game isn’t run by criminal elements Are you Q? 1
row_33 Posted October 12, 2018 Posted October 12, 2018 1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said: Are you Q? i don't even know what that means....
Beast Posted October 12, 2018 Posted October 12, 2018 5 hours ago, pop gun said: Never happen, they wouldn't be able to attract UFAs to leave their families. Toronto is one thing London would be totally different as far as living in a different country. If a UFA had, say 4 offers from Buffalo (snow/cold), London(rain/fog), Tampa(heat), and Dallas(heat). I'm thinking London is 4th on that list by a lot unless they offer twice the $$$ as the rest. If you really believe rich athletes, with families, wouldn’t want to live in the UK for a bit you don’t have a clue. Here’s a hint, many American’s live abroad, and prefer to do so, all the while seeing different parts of the world and keeping their status as a US citizen. 1
Big Gun Posted October 12, 2018 Posted October 12, 2018 17 minutes ago, Binghamton Beast said: If you really believe rich athletes, with families, wouldn’t want to live in the UK for a bit you don’t have a clue. Here’s a hint, many American’s live abroad, and prefer to do so, all the while seeing different parts of the world and keeping their status as a US citizen. Yeah, because rich athletes would be so into paying much higher taxes than here in the USA. Hmmmm.... London or Tampa, where there is no state income tax. Who's clueless!
ghostwriter Posted October 12, 2018 Posted October 12, 2018 4 hours ago, SoCal Deek said: What tension? They send us a million poor people each year and we say “sure, no problem...tell your friends!” If the NFL expands, from my perspective it would make sense to expand to countries near you ie Mexico and Canada. Geographically it just makes too much sense, travelwise it would make more sense. People blast Mexico, but there are actually some really nice areas. Crystal blue waters, beaches, beautiful women, extremely cheap cost of living. Even a UDFA making 500k a year would live like a king there. I think it could work.
Beast Posted October 12, 2018 Posted October 12, 2018 1 hour ago, pop gun said: Yeah, because rich athletes would be so into paying much higher taxes than here in the USA. Hmmmm.... London or Tampa, where there is no state income tax. Who's clueless! You. 1
mead107 Posted October 12, 2018 Posted October 12, 2018 I want Fergy to file a lawsuit against them if they play all home games in England. Kick them out of the NFL
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted October 12, 2018 Posted October 12, 2018 4 hours ago, row_33 said: i don't even know what that means.... Q is a spy gadget maker in Bond movies I believe
SoCal Deek Posted October 12, 2018 Posted October 12, 2018 3 hours ago, NewDayBills said: People blast Mexico, but there are actually some really nice areas. Crystal blue waters, beaches, beautiful women, extremely cheap cost of living. Even a UDFA making 500k a year would live like a king there. I think it could work. Sure...just don’t leave the resort strip...I’m pretty sure you’ll be fine! Cough.
KD in CA Posted October 12, 2018 Posted October 12, 2018 3 hours ago, pop gun said: Yeah, because rich athletes would be so into paying much higher taxes than here in the USA. Hmmmm.... London or Tampa, where there is no state income tax. Who's clueless! Hmmm.....yet somehow tens of thousands of Americans choose to live in Europe and pay those taxes.
Mr. WEO Posted October 13, 2018 Posted October 13, 2018 36 minutes ago, KD in CA said: Hmmm.....yet somehow tens of thousands of Americans choose to live in Europe and pay those taxes. The more money you make, the more you really hate to pay taxes. NFL players will never be among those Americans you are referencing.
TigerJ Posted October 13, 2018 Posted October 13, 2018 It's all about money. I suspect the product on the field will be compromised. I think players will be more unsettled if they have two homes. To put it another way, a team that has two home fields really has none. I don't know that Kahn cares as long as his revenue goes up.
Recommended Posts