As NFL evolves, two constants remain critical: players, fans
Amy Trask, a former CEO of the Oakland Raiders, is an analyst for CBS Sports and the CBS Sports Network. Her book, “You Negotiate Like a Girl: Reflections On a Career in the National Football League,” was published in September by Triumph Books. She will write a weekly column for the Chronicle during the playoffs.
Al Davis said to me countless times over the almost 30 years I worked for the Raiders: “The players are the game.”
He was right. Without players,
there is no game.
I would then add, “And without fans, there is no league.”
Over the course of my career, the NFL saw tremendous growth: teams were added, magnificent stadiums were erected, the NFL Network was founded, international markets were targeted, beginning with the since-abandoned American Bowl (preseason games) and the defunct World League of American Football (subsequently renamed NFL Europe), and now with regular-season international games in cities such as London, Mexico City and Tokyo.
During those years, the league also began its strategic evolution into a year-around business.
The business of football thrives because of the tremendous passion and support of fans.
The bond fans have with their teams is something to behold.
Fans attend games, purchase merchandise, watch broadcasts and consume content via emerging technologies. Fans follow and support their teams differently, and league business decisions
often necessitate deciding which manner of support should be considered a priority. If television viewership is a priority, should game content be available on other platforms, including social media? If international growth is a priority, should international games be at a time appropriate in the location in which they are staged or at a time optimal for television viewership in this country? If fantasy football is a priority, should the league continue to make available “red zone” channels even if by so doing it adversely impacts full-game broadcast viewership? If attracting fans to stadiums is a priority, should the league address pricing issues?
Franchise relocation is a prime example of a decision that requires the league to assess and balance its priorities. Does the league care more about maintaining teams in their current markets or about new stadiums?
In just the past year or so, one team (the Rams) relocated, another (the Chargers) announced that it will relocate prior to the start of next season and another (the Raiders) confirmed its desire and intent to relocate by filing paperwork with the league Thursday to move to Las Vegas.
I was with the Raiders when Davis moved the team back to Oakland from Los Angeles, and I thus experienced firsthand the impact a team relocation has on a community and its fans in that community. To state the obvious, and as Houstonians well know in light of the Oilers’ move to Tennessee in 1996, local fans pay a tremendous emotional toll when a team relocates.
NFL owners rule
I’m frequently asked to explain league rules and policies governing team relocation. Quite simply, league rules and policies are whatever 32 owners wish them to be on any given day. I’m also frequently asked about the possibility of an antitrust challenge to such rules and polices or the application thereof. A number of years ago, the league put in place a rule that greatly hampers the ability of a team to challenge the league.
The league considers many factors when it analyzes and deliberates about a proposed relocation. The impact of such a relocation on fans in the team’s current community is only one.
If the league believes it is a priority to keep teams in their current markets, there is a potential solution I have advanced for years, dating to my time with the Raiders. This solution is what I called a “petite stadium.” I recognize that juxtaposition of the word “petite” with the word “stadium” is an incongruity and I labeled it as such with a smile. But whether we refer to it as petite — or mini or bite-size or simply smaller — this offers a nextgeneration alternative to the enormous edifices that are the norm throughout the NFL.
I envision a petite stadium seating between 35,000 and 45,000 — it would be technologically bodacious with internet and cellular connectivity and capability far greater that which can exist in a stadium that seats 70,000 to 80,000 people — seats would be far more comfortable than traditional stadium seating and would swivel so fans could turn to face the action no matter where on the field it is taking place. There would be tablets in every armrest so fans could pull up replays as desired and order food and merchandise for delivery to their seats. There would be opportunities for “behind the scenes” access that are not feasible with double the number of people in the stadium and not available to those choosing to watch a game from home.
Innovative design
Every time I propose a petite stadium, fans immediately articulate a concern that reduced capacity will lead to increased prices. The “little guy” would be priced out, they respond. That need not be the case. The third deck of a stadium is costly to build (given the amount of materials needed) and difficult to monetize.
By eliminating the third deck, the cost to construct a stadium is substantially reduced.
Accordingly, proportionally less revenue is needed to cover costs. Although the league will continue to make business decisions that give certain fan interests greater priority than others, it will always be the case that without fans there is no league, just as without players there is no game.