The odd thing was if you watched the Superbowl the culture of the event had obviously changed. You rarely saw cheerleaders, unless in the background of a play. None of the commercials offered up exploitation of women at least nothing on the scale of GoDaddy and Paris Hilton had in the past.
Budweiser's main hook throughout was that they did not use high fructose corn syrup in their ingredients! That's a long way from the bro-y bikini image beer companies have made the Superbowl to be about for so long.
So when I read that this was a celebration of the culture of Football, what is that now? Is it this more progressive, more healthy sport EXCEPT when it comes to brain trauma?
I think eSports, particularly DOTA2's TI is far, far more relevant to young men than Football at this point and has true global appeal. Football and the Superbowl seem like so many boomer institutions where this old guard is doing everything to slow down the bleeding for as long as possible.
I cannot disagree more. NFL is the biggest sports league in the entire world by revenue by far, even though it's only played within the United States! More and more people are playing video games, but eSports is still a very niche market. You certainly don't see people talking about a DOTA championship match as much as people talking about the Superbowl game on social media. eSports still has a long way to go in terms of general acceptance and social influence.
edit: changed "sports" to "sports league" after seeing some feedback
The global sports are probably soccer, and basketball, in that order. And even those are only because they are the cheapest to play. Just need a ball and a goal. I think this appeal is reflected in global revenue, and certainly in participation, outside of US. I'm pretty sure it's soccer by far.
you're overstating the appeal of American Football
NFL in-person attendance is spiraling downward. Don't look at published attendance figures based on "tickets issued"; look at video of actual butts in the stands.
This article says otherwise, but who knows, maybe it's wrong.
Another way of thinking about why that is is that the NFL is effectively a monopoly. They are the only game in town for a sport which is only popular in one country (the USA). Soccer is, globally, a much more popular sport than American Football, but it's not controlled by a single league (FIFA is a governing body (a terribly corrupt one, but that's a separate conversation), not a league).
If you look at it per-capita, the NFL also seems a bit less impressive, and their revenue might be more a result of the fact that the USA is both rich and fairly large than any strong indicator of global popularity. Taking population estimates from Wikipedia, the NFL made roughly $39.76/person in the USA, and the Premier League made roughly $80.30/person in the UK. (And that methodology is arguably a bit generous to the the NFL, since the Premier League is technically only in England, but I'm including the rest of the UK since they also do watch a lot of Soccer AFAIK.)
To me the enormous revenues of the NFL is a stronger indicator of why monopolies are harmful than of any special virtues of the NFL or American Football.
-- Al Capone
I think your point is totally fair though in that my description of NFL as a monopoly isn't as comprehensive as I expected. From what I can find, CFL revenues are about $213M , and US college football is $3.4 billion. CFL is pretty close to being a rounding error compared to the NFL, but college football is a definitely a significant presence. I think I'd say a market where one entrant commands almost 80% of the revenue is pretty close to being a functional monopoly, but not entirely, so I should have accounted for that.
Check out this list:
NFL doesn't come anywhere near the amount of viewers for soccer or even cricket OR badminton.
BILLIONS of people watch the World Cup and Olympics, the super bowl attracts about 115M. The soccer world cup had 3.5 BILLION.
Do you really think more people spend money on the NFL than the total world spend on soccer?
BILLIONS of people watch the World Cup and Olympics, the super bowl attracts about 115M
I think this is just saying which league has the most revenue. I'd find it very difficult to believe that the number of people who played American Football professionally and recreationally was anywhere even close to the number of people who played soccer on this planet last year. I'd be pretty confident betting that the number of people who play basketball on this planet dwarfs the number of people who play American Football. (And the number of people with an interest in soccer or basketball on this planet definitely dwarfs the number of people interested in American Football.)
Maybe American Football can make a lot of money because it is in a rich market? Not really sure. But you can't really argue soccer and basketball as the global sports. It's not even close.
Soccer is a much larger sport by revenue globally. It’s simply split into different nations + an international competition. The US is a single market so if you split things by country it tends to win.
PS: The World Cup is based on the best national teams vs using each individual team. Much like the US men’s basketball team at the Olympics vs NBA.
"Activate (www.activate.com) projects that in the United States eSports will have more viewers than every professional sports league but the NFL by 2021" and will need to more than double viewership to topple the NFL.
And if you consider "traditional sports" holistically like they are treating "eSports" it is more fair to consider NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, MLS viewership together, of which have large non-overlapping segments, then the gap becomes more of a chasm.
Riot released viewership total for the Worlds finals a couple months ago, and viewership in NA was significantly down than the previous year. In fact in almost every eSport viewership figure, if you discount Chinese and Korean viewership, the rest is almost insignificant -- an MLB playoff game attracts more viewers. I will say we are in the twilight years of the NFL, but what is more likely is that another physical sport topples the NFL throne rather than an eSport.
Products that are associated with a certain age group by dint of biology (eg, bifocals) will constantly see an influx of new customers, so you just have to project population distributions.
I don't think people 'find football' when they get older. It was a thing when they were a kid, maybe they have watched the whole time, or maybe in a fit of nostalgia they're back. If the latter is a phenomenon, then high school and college football are your gateway to keeping the numbers up (and haven't they, or at least colleges, imposed tougher concussion guidelines?), otherwise the fanbase may be shrinking even though the graph says things are looking up.
You have a very high standard for having intelligent conversations, then. Sometimes the data you ask is not easily obtainable, behind paywalls, or just not presented uniformly. How about some good old fashioned "good faith"? Let's assume that both parties in this argument are indifferent to being right, but trying to sort out to find the truth of the matter, and they aren't pulling numbers out of their ass, how does that sound?
> I don't think people 'find football' when they get older.
I admit this is probably not the best metric, but a frequent viewer of /r/nfl and the various team based subreddits at least hints that the opposite is true: many people are finding football later in life.
Another thing left out of this conversation all together is the NFL's focus on expanding internationally -- particularly the UK and Mexico. Viewership in London especially continues to rise Y.O.Y, and the NFL has been floating the serious idea of a London based team for a few years now, and I fully expect that to happen within the next couple of years.
1 viewer who gets the channel anyway and has social pressure to watch, or 1 viewer who goes out of his way to pay to watch something on his own?
I think there is far more nuance to trendiness than the story told by a Nielson Rating System calculated decades ago.
And at least EPL is watched all across the Europe, from Spain to Russia. For multinational advertisers, football is a boon, esports is not in a same league (pun intended).
I don't have data on this, but it feels to me that young people, particularly boys, are more interested in playing minecraft or fortnite and watching streamer videos of either game than high school, college or professional football.
And it makes sense because it doesn't matter how big you are or whether you can hang in a locker room or what you look like or what gender you are--what matters is you can play a game well or with style.
There are also more opportunities around eSports for young people in that they bundle in cosplay, artwork and even creating training videos and blogs are wide open opportunities to participate at little to no cost and regardless of physical capability.
Revenue is not a forward indicator of relevance. If anything it shows what _was previously_ important because this year's bowl game was a 10-year low in ratings. Meanwhile, Twitch has more viewership than CNN or MSNBC. 
Source on this? I can't imagine this being true compared to soccer.
NFL had €11,394 million (over eleven billion Euro) in revenue in 2017 whereas the Premier League had €5,340 million (over five billion Euro) in revenue for 2016–17.
MLB and the NBA also beat out the Premier League in revenue.
EDIT: OK, OK, I thought the GP was talking about sports LEAGUES not NFL vs sports as a whole. I read "sports league."
Now, you may call something very similar the same sport, but a 100m vs 400m sprints are really different races even with just one slightly different number.
NFL and NCAA Football are different events, but the same sport. 100m and 400m races are different events, same sport.
People discuss the “NBA’s” 24 shot clock vs the NCAA’s more leisurely 35 seconds which among other things has a dramatic difference in how the two different games are played. Which was my original point, when the only people using a set of rules are in one org the names become interchangeable.
If you never compete it’s not clear how seemingly subtle rule changes have dramic impact. This changes not only game strategy but also things like how far people travel over the course of the game. 400m at a full sprint takes real endurance where 100m is mostly about acceleration.
Top athletes may have many skills that crossover to different sports, but these are very different games.
Football is football if you touch one foot inbounds or two.
You're clearly trolling, please leave me alone.
Is flag football still football becase it’s got a similar name?
Greco-Roman wrestling and freestyle wrestling are separated at the olimpics. Even though they share the “wrestling” tile and just have different rules.
Clearly, people have different full names for the different types of football becase they are different sports. Which need somewhat different training and different reflexes.
I left Reddit to avoid this kind of drivel, go back there if you want to continue to perpetrate it.
The difference between HN and Reddit is not just being polite, it’s about productive arguments backed up by evidence rather than simply relying on believing something to be true.
No one, and I mean literally no one, thinks of NCAA football and the NFL as two separate sports; they're both football, with different rules, a fact you already know but are refusing to acknowledge because you're trolling.
Your insistence on some kind of "evidence" for what the word "sport" means is just you trying to get me to do work that you yourself could do, because that's what trolls do -- they waste the time of others for their own amusement.
“an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment.” The first thing google returns. Which does not support your argument. Saying some arbitrary dictionary is enough is not evendence when they don’t actually say what you want.
I could go off and find quotes relating to the NCAA vs professional sports saying thing a like ~”Rules define the game, different rules different games.” But doing so is a waste of time when they don’t counter an argument.
As you need to be specific before I can counter or there is no way to move forward. Specific examples like the overtime rules are never going to counter your vague and baseless assertions so it’s pointless for me to keep responding to someone either trolling or just rather confused.
If you look at the wikipedia page for "Sport", you see all kinds of instances of the word "sport" being used in a way completely incompatible with your view. Please go away now.
This article's 5 years old, but still relevant: https://mic.com/articles/91009/soccer-s-global-dominance-of-...
The problem, I believe, is that to have a concussion free football game is to not have football. You can redesign the helmets, you can try and catch em early, but unless the dynamics of the game change from two amazingly explosive 350 lbs men running into each other, concussion won't go away.
The substantial difference is the lack of padding in those sports. They are still physical. There is still tackling. But human beings behave differently when they don't think they and the target of their tackle are wearing a suit of armor.
Take the armor away and you'll just have people dying instead of getting concussions. Knees to the head arent uncommon and are certainly not intentional by the kneeer or kneed.
There's something analogous in Australian football (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shepherding_(Australian_rules_...). It's not supposed to involve head contact, but concussions and whiplash injuries do happen.
I don't think it's as bad, but the AFL does have a concussion problem. (A quick search didn't turn up any numbers, but here's a relevant article: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/mar/20/link-between-c... .)
Players don't go in head-first quite as much as they seem to in American football, but every player has to leave their head vulnerable in certain situations (bending down to pick up a contested ball; going back with the flight of the ball) and some are crazy-brave or even lead with the head deliberately to draw a free kick.
Rugby is probably a better game to use as a comparison, because it is much more similar to American football, with teams lining up and facing each other front-on. Apparently concussion is the most common injury in English rugby: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concussions_in_rugby_union
Yes, concussions are still a huge problem.
The argument is similar in MMA vs boxing - yes, you are still getting punched in the face and there is no way around that. But with thin gloves and wider variety of ways to get knocked down or out, you are less likely to receive permanent brain damage.
That's a relevant question, but the post that sparked this exchange talked about the impossibility of 'concussion free football', and said that 'concussion won't go away'. To the extent that rugby or Australian rules are useful comparisons here, they definitely cause enough concussions to support that point (and not just in a pedantic, >0 way -- it's a big problem in both sports).
Retsibsi makes a lot of excellent points, but also the only way we can find that out is if we have American Football players play the game unprotected and find out.
That comparison of MMA to boxing doesn't work either, as it's not a matter of protection that affects the injury rate, it's the fact that you can't grapple in boxing. Boxing forces the game to be about hitting each-other in the head until time out or knock out, MMA doesn't have that same restriction. And that plays into my "to have a concussion free football game is to not have football." point.
I feel like head trauma has become disproportionately more of long-term physical damage from the sport, but I can’t back that up.
Ok, so this 350 lbs man has been hit in the head without protection and he's out. When does he come back? Is that it, career over? Cause I can guarantee you he now has a concussion.
350 lb athletes are a product of the current rules. Penalize concussion-causing blows and I bet you’ll see players shrink to a healthier size.
So what changes first? What happens in the meantime until the players become a "healthier size"?
And why would the players change? Those 350 lbs athletes who move like sprinters would be extra lethal without protection. It's already been shown that the league wants performance before any regard for player safety, why would they back off on the big guys?
And what if you legitimately tackle a guy from behind and he hits the ground so hard his sensor goes off? You've still got a concussed player, but now you have to play the rules game.
I don't see players willingly getting concussions just to get other players out.
> And what if you legitimately tackle a guy from behind and he hits the ground so hard his sensor goes off? You've still got a concussed player, but now you have to play the rules game.
It would be up to the refs to call if it was intentional. The sensor is only there to help the ref make the call.
The current state of the NFL is proof that if you give someone enough money (and/or don't educate them enough), they'll risk serious brain injury to keep that money coming.
> Budweiser's main hook throughout was that they did not
> use high fructose corn syrup in their ingredients!
None of the named competitor beers use high-fructose corn syrup. They use regular corn syrup. Meanwhile, Budweiser does use high-fructose corn syrup in some of its products (but not Bud Lite specifically).
While the ads did not mention high-fructose corn syrup (they would not be stupid enough to make an actually false claim), I'm sure that implied association was intentional.
Come on?! I don't know about US, but good old football (not an american kind) is like 100x times more imporant in Europe than any eSport.
Yesterday Manchester City - Chelsea game ended up 6:0, and #MCICHE tag was trending on twitter worldwide (and it is only England Premier League, not even Soccer World Cup!)
Please wake me up once some eSport event will be a worldwide trending topic on twitter.
Paris Saint-Germain is a co-owner of the 2nd place champion DOTA 2 team in 2018
PSG is the 11th most valuable football club in the world and worth 825m euros. They bought in April of this past yaer and obviously see Dota 2 as worth investing in now.
It's funny how hacker news is obsessed with finding the next big thing but when something comes along that might challenge traditional sports industry there is so much objection. This is not specific to this comment but replies I'm seeing throughout.
I find this especially odd in light of the fact that a Twitch founder was a venture parter at ycombinator.
Ice hockey is surprisingly lucrative.
Sport "SUM of Revenue (€ mil)"
Association football (soccer) 32,412
American football 11,394
Ice hockey 5,495
Auto racing 2,491
Australian rules football 754
Rugby union football 710.8
Twenty20 cricket 480
Rugby league football 414
Canadian football 200
Grand Total 71,979
To be fair, it is also much muuuuuch cheaper to go and watch a Live match of League/Overwatch/Dota. I went to TI8 and the tickets were $190 for the final 3 days; I even got a cosmetic that I was able to sell for $400 on the steam marketplace. Even comparing a Major LAN event to a Single match of any sport can be a magnitude of difference in terms of price.
Also like you mentioned, the global appeal is crazy strong. I saw so many people from China, South East Asia, South America, Europe and the Middle East at these LANs regardless of venue.
However I do think OWL represent the future which is overly stuffy, no fun allowed, corporate events that are just trying to appeal to advertisers and investors; which is kinda lame. Dota and fighting games still have grassroots feel despite having massive tournaments with hundreds of thousands of viewers.
Now as for ads themselves, they've gone from selling products to social engineering and selling an agenda. Is this a result of monopolization of industries where megacorporations no longer are worried about competition? Is it just a result of media getting more and more extreme ideologically? Maybe both?
And it's not just ads. It's the entire media space. TV shows, movies, etc are more about ideology and agenda than art or even attracting an audience. Even award shows, best selling book lists, prizes, etc are more about agenda than anything else. Maybe it's always been that way to some degree, but lately, it's become so extreme that the average person can see it now.
>more about agenda than anything else...it's become so extreme that the average person can see it now
I believe it's that companies will always do what they assess is required to sell more stuff. In this age of hyper-awareness, uber-politicization, and social-activism, it's likely the companies now believe that's what people want--for them to be engaged.
And, it's a somewhat rational conclusion. On the other end, you see boycotts, etc. when companies go against the beliefs of certain customer groups, or even when companies sponsor people who do. It's this idea that people want companies to do "good", or at least the customers' version of good. So, they are likely just tapping into that. It's where many people seem to be these days, so that's where companies are trying to meet them.
Advertising isn't a job that's just "done" and people walk away satisfied. McDonalds isn't going to stop putting new things on their menu either. Capitalism doesn't really seem to work otherwise... If you produced the optimal product, you have to come back next year and produce an (almost-by-definition) less optimal product and sell it better than you did before.
Most companies do things because people are being paid at that company to do things. The assumption that they do things because they work better or are better should not be so easily believed or sold. I produce content for my employer because they pay me to produce content, not because I think I can produce content which is better than all other content. Just because people are running really hard doesn't mean they aren't going in circles.
Ironically, fantasy football is the biggest eSport by far.
This statement is completely out of touch with mainstream reality.
You're living in a bubble. Pretty much no one wants to watch people play video games.
Actual physical competition will always be more interesting to the general public than nerds sitting in chairs pressing buttons to move pictures around on a screen.
However, I think the way you described esports suggests you may have personal bias against competitive gaming. I watched both the Super Bowl and 2018 True Sight. Perhaps, it is you, sir, who are living in the bubble.
The fact is that people are watching nerds move pictures around on a screen at rates rivaling major cable networks: https://www.investors.com/news/technology/click/esports-chan...
45,000 people attended the 2015 League of Legends final in the same stadium used for the 2002 World Cup. 27 Million people watched it online.
This thing is real.
There were actually male cheerleaders in the Super Bowl this year.
If you ask a US Civil War re-enactor about the proportion of black people in the hobby, you will probably get a bad reaction.
If you ask a chess afficionado about...ok, I don't know what will set them off.
Some criticisms are off limits in every field.
Ask them if they think women only Chess tournaments are a good idea.
That'll generally do it.
Source: Chess player.
the difference in ranking requirements for male grandmasters and female grandmasters
>Says Costas: "Look, the NFL isn't just the most important sports property, it's the single-most important property in all of American television. And it isn't even close."
So its good see Bob Costas take off. Far better to get out than sell out. The NFL other damage to people and communities is all the tax money that goes into funding their stadiums, the juicy tax and concession deals beyond financing, and even have the tax payers pay for security at the recent Superbowl in Atlanta.
Don't just vilify the owners, the player's union and the players themselves, aren't here for anything but glory and money, lots of money. They have been riding high on the back of the tax payers for far too long; they are not the only sport that does this.
>The settlement would cover more than 20,000 NFL retirees for the next 65 years. The league estimates that 6,000 former players, or nearly three in 10, could develop Alzheimer's disease or moderate dementia. Fewer than 200 of those retirees opted out of the settlement, while 99 percent approved.
Between the awful viewing experience with annoying commercials, cliche talking heads, concussion cover ups, highly questionable refs, rampant cheating, the kneeing debacle, etc. I'm surprised more folks my age haven't bailed on the NFL.
EDIT: Yeesh! I didn't know how much of an issue PEDs are in the NFL.
Even before Lance, the UCI/WADA implemented among the toughest, if not the toughest, doping control schemes in sports.
The Bio Passport, automatic urine tests of winners and podium placers for each race. Random in-event controls, random out-of-competition tests, etc. Riders are required to report their whereabouts so that they can be randomly tested over a dozen times per year, wherever they may be. Multi-year suspensions for anyone testing positive and losing the appeal, to start. 4 year ban, I believe, on 2nd positive.
Compare that the NFL's pathetic drug policy, where players aren't even tested for recreational drugs during the season. And only a few-game suspension for getting caught.
As a more extreme example, there was HGH shipped to Peyton Manning's house, and the league seemed to sweep it under the rug (he claimed it was for his wife). This was around the time he had just won the Super Bowl and retired.
https://yourteamcheats.com is a decent collection.
It's essentially like watching a physical version of chess.
In light of the whole concussion thing, it's somewhat interesting that there are two new football leagues launching in the US soon. The AAF (aaf.com) recently launched this past weekend and is positioning itself as sort of a minor league to the NFL. There's also the XFL, which is a relaunch of sorts (it existed briefly in the early 2000s), and seems to be setting itself up to be a faster version of the NFL. Both of these new leagues do have rule changes that are there to speed up the game, and marginally improve player safety.
Eventually, I would suspect that NFL teams will be able to send some of their practice team players, and players they want to get another look at before cutting, to the AAF for more development.
The AAF seems to have had a moderately successful weekend launch. At least to the extent that there were no catastrophic failures.
A lot of the players who like playing football seem to really like playing football (i.e. they had opportunities to go pro (getting paid actual money) or semi-pro (college in the US) in other sports, and still chose football over them), so I don't think it'll go away entirely unless middle and high schools stop offering the game completely.
If the NFL cared about its future, it would immediately get rid of helmets à la rugby. People will not hit with their head if they don't have a hard plastic case around it.
Football helmets evolved precisely because players were facing gruesome head injury risk without them. I can't fathom how removing helmets from NFL play would be a smart move.
Even if they’re much safer overall because it’s just a split eyebrow.
Locally, a couple of high schools dropped varsity football because they couldn't get enough recruits for brain injury.
Kids these days seem to be more about making stuff in games and meeting people all over the world in eSports than knocking heads together. And their parents seem to be okay with it.
>President Donald Trump said football was a dangerous sport and that he would have a hard time letting his son Barron play given the risk of head injuries. 
However, it sounds like the evidence is unclear at this point regarding CTE and rugby https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5926651/
We stomach real harm to other people all the time. I don't think the NFL is going anywhere and if they do the concussion issue will be a minor factor.
I now have significant reservations about allowing my child to partake in the great American tradition of professional cell tower maintenance.
Way more people use cell phones than watch the NFL and more people die or suffer life altering injury supporting that industry than they do playing football in the NFL.
Meanwhile, safer and more affluent communities will put their children in sports that have a higher bar of wealth to join. Sports such as golf or tennis require a golf club membership, expensive clubs or equipment, and expensive maintenance for playing and earning lessons.
All the gear makes is more expensive than many sports.
One thing that gets lost in all of the discussion of the NFL are the vast majority of former players who were amateur (although it is debatable if NCAA players are amateurs), who are likely to experience a similar result as NFL players, but without the enormous cash-generating machine or potential future settlement money.
 - http://freakonomics.com/podcast/brain-damage/
 - http://freakonomics.com/podcast/domonique-foxworth/
One of those that they funded was Malcolm Gladwell himself: https://shameproject.com/profile/malcolm-gladwell-2/
> Not that it was hard to find: you can easily fire up a search engine and figure out that Elway talked to the 49ers about trading for Kaepernick, before the quarterback was released, back in April of 2016. [...]
> In other words, this is also not great for Elway [...] because it creates a pretty clear juxtaposition: the Broncos were interested in Kap before he began to protest and not so much after he began to protest.
Before last season he met with the Seahawks about the backup position and apparently wanted anywhere from $3-5 million to be the backup. There are very few teams that would waste that salary cap space for a backup QB, when that can pay for another player or two who can actually contribute to the games. The Seahawks declined signing him, and got a backup that only cost them $700k for the season.
It's hard to win a collusion case when you have job offers but you just don't like what they are paying.
Despite the fact that most of the teams will still be owned by the same individuals, and definitely the same families....
IF I was a conspiracy guy I would almost think that all the flag waiving and controversial decisions are designed to distract us from the fact that the NFL is the world's sketchiest non-profit. Not only does it not pay taxes as an entity despite its CEO's $31 million dollar salary, but the teams receive billions in tax payer funds to build the new stadiums they require.
And they must have these new stadiums to stay competitive with the other NFL franchises... who just got new stadiums. It's a crazy arms race to keep your NFL team, and no one is talking about that fact that we could also level the playing field by having all the states agree NOT to build stadiums with tax payer dollars, instead of letting the NFL play different tax bases off each other to extract the maximum dollars from us.
The NFL isn't the only sports league who once rocked the not-for-profit status, NHL is currently a nonprofit and MLB was formally one.
I can think of much. much sketchier non-profits.
The public is starting to lose interest in subsiding for-profit teams, thankfully.
Building stadiums with public money and then charging the public to enter is really crappy, but in the end it does in fact benefit the location in some cases.
And you can see the pushback already starting. San Diego and Oakland wouldn't build new stadiums, so those teams moved. One went to LA, where they are building a new stadium with Olympics money which will be used by the Chargers, and Las Vegas was happy to bring in all the extra people to gamble. So in both cases those stadiums will probably be net positives for their cities.
The vote to approve the stadium will rank as one of the top 5 most corrupt things to ever happen in our city... which was formerly ran by the mob.
And think about this... the capacity of the stadium is 65,000. If all 8 games are SELLOUTS, and every single attendee looses $100 to the casinos after every single game, that's 52 million dollars. So it would take about 20 years to pay for the Billion dollar stadium.
Obviously thats disastrously simplified, but if you think we can pay for this stadium with just a small tax on the increased revenue.... that's way way off.
Now the new traffic on the other hand...
Obviously those people will spend a lot of money, but even if they ALL fly here Airport visitation stats won't go up 1%.
If we wanted to bring more visitors to Las Vegas pretty much any other way to spend a Billion dollars would have been more productive. The politicians never even tried to make that argument, at least to a sophisticated audience.
It's all about legacy, and home town spirit. Apparently a lot of people can't really be proud of a city that doesn't have an NFL team to root for.
Bottom line is we spent more to get an NFL team than any other city, and we are getting less out it than most cities, because we already have to many things to compete for a tourist's dollar and we didn't need a "star attraction" to revitalize an aging downtown or some of the other rationalizations other cities have used.
So it would take about 20 years to pay for the Billion dollar stadium.
This is a really low bar for redistributing money from taxpayers to wealthy owners. It also ignores opportunity costs.
As far as Olympic revenue, I wonder how the stadium's income from a day of the Olympics will compare to a Rams game or a Taylor Swift concert? Supposedly LA isn't giving the stadium any money for capital improvements, just whatever they get for renting it out and a few million for a temporary archery building. Maybe the stadium gets a cut of the $2,000 opening ceremonies tickets, but I imagine that'll be less than they make from the 2022 super bowl. I know a lot can change before 2028, but I'm cautiously optimistic that LA won't screw anything up too bad.
*which IMO are pretty tame— Inglewood pays for police overtime, shuttles to train stations, utilities improvements, etc but only for the first 5 years that the city makes $25+ million from the stadium
While I don't disagree with the rest of your post, I'd like to point out that the NFL is no longer a non-profit:
I'd never shy away from ragging on the NFL for being a shady organization, but:
a) The NFL gave up its tax-exempt status in 2015 (and even then, it was only the head office [~$10M in new taxes paid], not the teams, that was tax exempt).
b) What does the CEO's salary have to do with it? The salary itself is taxable as income. Non-profit employees don't get to dodge the IRS. (Of course, I expect Goodell to do his best to avoid paying income tax as many wealthy people do.)
So it operates like every single partnership out there, tax-wise.
Ehh, broaden your perspective.
At its absolute worst, the NFL can't begin to touch the corruption of FIFA at its absolute best.
I wouldn't be so sure about that.
Remember Craig Hodges? Michael Jordan's teammate, who won two championships and lead the NBA in 3-point shooting for three years? Probably not. He was the Colin Kaepernick of the 1990's, and virtually doesn't exist now.
Never underestimate the ability of money and power to shape the history books. Likewise never overestimate people's attention spans.
That being said, he statistically was a really mediocre QB. You can be as outspoken as you want if you are good, but if you're mediocre and you bring distractions (and while important, it was a distraction), you're not going to get hired in lots of industries.
IIRC, Kaep got a tryout by the Ravens and his girlfriend called the owner a plantation owner. That kind of stuff isn't going to fly, you can't just burn bridges. But teams like the Hawks (who seem progressive enough) declined having him as a backup, so maybe he wasn't good enough.
You can look it up yourself. His last two years in the league Kaep had a QBR of 43 and 49. Bortles, who nobody feels is great, had a QBR of 59 and 44 his last two years, in comparison. He's a backup level QB in a league with lots of backup level QBs.
It really helps your cause when you are great, and you gotta be realistic about consequences (and narratives) when you aren't because people will find every reason to tear down even those that are great.
Nike's selling shoes off that. That's not commercially exploitative?
He never got any try out's. That's the whole basis of his grievance. The Bronco's offered to trade for him before he was cut, but he'd take a $4million paycut so he declined. After he was cut there were no try outs or offers.
I say this as a 49ers season ticket holder who saw every game and training camp he played.
Every NFL bad actor with talent gets lots of second chances. He simply lacked the necessary mindset.
Regardless of whether you like the guy, Chart Party had an excellent special on Colin, and feels quite differently:
Check out the PFF grades in the graphic for the last 2 years of his career: way, way down : https://media.profootballfocus.com/2017/05/Kaep.jpg. Way below average. NFL careers tend to decline after age 25. Kap was looking at 30. He was past his prime and riding the bench. He was not banned from the NFL, he lost a step. It happens.
BTW, your link has the narrator questioning why Goff and Cam Newton have jobs but Kap doesn't. What the what? Seriously. wth?
And you forgot to add the poignant response that Colin had to those dumb socks.
It seems to really strike some people for some reason.
In other words, Costas doesn't like football and used his air time during football games to talk about how he doesn't like football. Why would anyone keep him on the air? I don't think we need to brew some crazy conspiracy theory to explain this.
NFL can deny science all they want, they are in the business of smashing heads together for entertainment. I think that should probably be their position -- this sport is dangerous and it might ruin you, sign this release form -- because football is going nowhere in America.
This is one thing where he should be allowed to talk.
But it means all of NBC is compromised by the NFL. Their reporting is compromised by money. They cannot be trusted to truthfully and fully report on the real implications of American football and its danger to health.
Its shame to see honor and professionalism dying in news to in favor of greed, but with money bound to sports it was bound to happen there sooner than later. Costas just had enough history and was from a better era, to delay the impact of greed over integrity.
Second, in order to weigh risks, you need to not have billion dollar companies spending millions of dollars to hide the effects of concussions.
Third, do we let people take any risk they want? If a company wants to pay someone for a job that has a 95% fatality rate, do we let them do it? What if it was 100% fatality rate, but the person knows this and agrees to it? Can you pay someone to kill themselves?
If we agree that a company shouldn't be allowed to pay someone to kill themselves, the rest is just deciding what level or risk we are comfortable with letting people trade for money. Football might be on the 'too risky to allow people to trade for money' side of the equation, once we know the actual risks.
I just don't buy this. Forget whether they hid results of studies. Forget if the studies ever even existed. No one honestly thinks you can make a career out of lining up across from this  and still live a consequence free life.
I've no doubt some of them have the training and understanding to examine the data (math majors in college - must be some, I'm sure), run the statistics and pick out noise from signal, which I expect wouldn't be an easy thing given the long stretches of time and the many confounding factors involved, but I expect few of those capable of it even try, so the majority are left with the same vox-pops and media segments everyone else has on the subject.
Couple that with the macho attitudes and self-image in the sport, and that the entertainment needs to keep working for the sport to keep making money (nothing entertaining about permanent head trauma), and that the people having to judge these risks are young males being offered life-changing opportunities and sums of money, and it seems that the default position here should be that we consider football players incapable of weighing the risks (much as we should, by default, consider people bad at judging risks).
Why would we think they are somehow especially capable of judging the risks?
Should the default position also be that we don't deem adults to be capable of weighing the risks when choosing what food to eat?
(Some personal context for me: I lost 100 lbs over 2017-2018. So I have some experience both unwittingly falling in the trap and successfully getting out of it, the latter part seems pretty rare from what I can tell.)
Losing 100 lbs caused me to think about this, and the answers are very depressing.
Even for any given meal or ingredient, there has been a change. Look at videos of 70s and 80s America, the average person is way more fit. Or, to take a random example, I re-read the novel "Cannery Row" a few years ago. Now, it's fiction, though based on some real people. It takes place in the first half of the 20th century, and one character is said to drive regularly from Monterey to Los Angeles, a sedentary activity, stopping several times for burgers. Not once does it say he was overweight, nor do I think the real person he was based on was. Could it be that a 1940s burger was better for you than a burger today?
People generally rate their diet and exercise as significantly better than it really is, leading them to significantly underestimate the risks to themselves.
We can still criticize the league for downplaying/covering up the risks of brain damage. After all, to make a proper cost/benefit analysis you'd need to know all the (known) costs.
I know about horrendous foreign policy actions of the United States Government. I disapprove of coverups done by the government and I actively benefit from said government. I haven't fled the country. Is that hypocrisy?
KNOWING about the problematic issues and choosing to ignore them is much different than not knowing at all.
I'd argue that many Americans view watching football to itself be a patriotic act.
NBC removing Costas for speaking out about the injuries is significant because increased awareness of concussive and spinal column injuries would have no negative impact on the entertainment value of the sport. Nobody wants to see athletes who have worked their entire lives to get to the NFL suffer career ending injuries.
So why suppress Costas? His effort to spread awareness was viewed as undermining the foundation of the game. The idea that the athletes are extremely tough, etc. Worrying about injuries makes the game less manly, and it is the association with manly duty and physical strength that makes the tie-in with military and patriotism so powerful.
It's really absurd how Football announcers have these gruff, hyper-masculine voices and how the entire sport coalesces nearly every negative aspect of masculinity and bro culture (2).
In reality, the NFL has blocked overhead cameras from the telecast (3) because they would reveal significant coaching and execution mistakes that would make the sport seem far less professional.
We're not a bunch of redneck 'Murica types. At least, not any more so than US fans of baseball or basketball.
> It's really absurd how Football announcers have these gruff, hyper-masculine voices and how the entire sport coalesces nearly every negative aspect of masculinity and bro culture (2).
I need to know which announcers you're talking about. All the ones I'm thinking of are not that at all.
I bet you enjoy watching people pass a soccer ball for 90 minutes to a 0-0 tie
> For anyone who has ever wondered why American Football is so popular in the US in spite of being fairly boring to watch (and in spite of being fairly unpopular nearly everywhere else in the world).
People watch the NFL because they find it entertaining. It's not boring to the fans and viewers. NFL football is a carefully constructed entertainment product that goes to great lengths to remain competitive and engaging to audiences. There are no teams outside the United States so it's not surprising there is little viewership outside the US.
> the NFL receives significant funding every year from the US Government and is part of the PR strategy to promote military enlistment as a patriotic act (1).
The money "provided by the US government" is specifically provided by the US military for recruitment purposes, it is not a significant part of the NFL's revenue (that comes from advertisements). It is also not the only place the US Military spends money for recruitment. They also sponsor a drag racing team, created a video game, host air shows and public events on bases and have two air show teams that tour the country.
> NBC removing Costas for speaking out about the injuries is significant because increased awareness of concussive and spinal column injuries would have no negative impact on the entertainment value of the sport.
That's wrong. By raising awareness of the injury risk viewers now know the big impressive hits they like to see have real potential consequences. This makes them less entertaining to watch. This reduces appeal for advertisers and directly threatens the NFL's core business. I am not defending what the NFL and NBC are doing here but it's really not complicated to follow the motives (money).
> So why suppress Costas? His effort to spread awareness was viewed as undermining the foundation of the game. The idea that the athletes are extremely tough, etc. Worrying about injuries makes the game less manly, and it is the association with manly duty and physical strength that makes the tie-in with military and patriotism so powerful.
The NFL is only tangentially associated with the military and even then only before games and even then only starting around 2009. The selling point of the NFL is not that it is "manly", the selling point is potential (suspense) for and eventual realization of lot of action and excitement.
Amazon has a female announcing team for their Thursday night coverage. Many of the announcers were previously NFL players, it is not surprising they would have male voices. I don't see any connection to bro culture whatsoever other than "bros" like to watch football, just like a lot of other people.
> In reality, the NFL has blocked overhead cameras from the telecast (3) because they would reveal significant coaching and execution mistakes that would make the sport seem far less professional.
The NFL is selling an entertainment product. This is editing.
How do you reconcile that with the NFL not wanting Costas to spread awareness of serious injuries?
> By raising awareness of the injury risk viewers now know the big impressive hits they like to see have real potential consequences. This makes them less entertaining to watch. This reduces appeal for advertisers and directly threatens the NFL's core business.
I'd argue that many soccer "fans" view watching their nation in the FIFA World Cup to itself be a patriotic act, despite the rampant corruption which soccer loving nations refused to prosecute until after the United States took action.
Before any arrests were made, British Prime Minister David Cameron actually criticized the BBC for investigating FIFA's corruption because it might interfere with England's bid to host the World Cup . The Oxford man in charge of the World Cup bid called the BBC "unpatriotic" for trying to reveal the rampant corruption that is endemic to soccer.
So why suppress the BBC? Their effort to spread awareness was viewed as undermining the foundation of the game. The idea that the sport is egalitarian and based on merit, etc. Worrying about finances makes the game less appealing to poorer Commonwealth nations, and it is the association with rags-to-riches stories (like Pelé's) that makes the tie-in with wealth and imperialism so powerful.
It's really absurd how some soccer announcers scream "GOOOOAAAALLLLLLLL" as if the length of their shouts is proportional to their manhood and how the entire sport coalesces around "hooligan" culture and promotes values like sexual harassment and destruction of property. Soccer's rampant homophobia and sexism probably stems from soccer hooligan culture's "ritualized male violence".
Even though Britain has passed multiple laws to limit hooligan culture (Football Spectators Act of 1989, Football Offenses Act of 1991, Football Disorder Act of 2000, etc.), MPs are currently considering a new law to ban specific homophobic chants now that they've become loud enough to be audible on television broadcasts, making the sport seem far less professional.
: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMynJt3pUvM or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUUOLFAbJ6A, which features soccer fans harassing women at a lingerie store in Copenhagen
>For anyone who has ever wondered why American Football is so popular in the US in spite of being fairly boring to watch... I'd argue that many Americans view watching football to itself be a patriotic act.
I love football and don't find it boring at all. The GP is writing off millions of people as irrational, overly patriotic morons. The comparison to the rest of the world is silly as well because a lot of us find soccer to be about the most boring thing ever behind NASCAR and golf, but obviously many disagree with me.
>> It's really absurd how Football announcers have these gruff, hyper-masculine voices and how the entire sport coalesces nearly every negative aspect of masculinity and bro culture (2).
Yeesh, spare me. Yeah, it's insane how most announcers have "gruff, hyper-masculine voices" considering the majority of them were players themselves. Players in a sport which attracts the most athletic and physically gifted men in the country. How could it be? It's almost as if high levels of testosterone are correlated with higher levels of strength, athletic ability, and a deeper voice.
>For anyone who has ever wondered why American Football is so popular in the US in spite of being fairly boring to watch (and in spite of being fairly unpopular nearly everywhere else in the world), the NFL receives significant funding every year from the US Government and is part of the PR strategy to promote military enlistment as a patriotic act (1).
>I'd argue that many Americans view watching football to itself be a patriotic act.
And now we have
>It's that without the government sponsorship, the sport and viewership would be significantly smaller, probably about as popular as rugby.
Where did you get this idea? The military stuff is very recent and does not in any way constitute a large portion of the NFL's revenue. You're just making things up to fit your own notions of how the world works.
People didn't start watching football when they heard that a few jets would be flying over before kickoff.
(And, for the record, I hate all that jingoistic crap. The sport would be much better without it)