[kayfabe]

The Stadium Crisis on the NFL's Horizon
From: http://www.boltsfromtheblue.com/2015/12 ... ls-horizon
By Jeffrey Siniard @JeffSiniard on Dec 9, 2015, 10:00a

San Diego and Oakland losing teams because of stadium issues is no surprise. St. Louis, on the other hand, hasn't even had their facility for 20 years. What does this mean for the NFL moving forward?

The NFL is going to have a lot of problems moving forward. The issue regarding concussions and CTE is probably the highest profile, long-term problem the NFL currently faces.

However, I want to talk about the NFL's return to Los Angeles, and what it portends for the long-term future of every NFL market outside of New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago. John Gennaro and I discussed this issue at length in this edition of the Mighty 1090 Squadcast.

http://www.mighty1090.com/episode/stadi ... have-nots/

The Incredible Escalating Costs of NFL Stadiums

Here's a list of all current (built or under construction) NFL stadiums, current tenants, (2015 inflation-adjusted) cost, and year built, and has the facility been significantly updated (i.e. major structural modifications).





Author's Note: All numbers are approximate, and do not include maintenance costs or rent credits. This is intended to provide a general idea of stadium costs.

As you can see, Oakland and San Diego represent the oldest stadiums in the NFL which have not undergone significant (i.e. virtually brand new) renovations. In fact only 7 stadiums exist in the NFL which were constructed prior to the completion of (then) Joe Robbie Stadium by the Miami Dolphins in 1987. For what it's worth, Joe Robbie was the first privately financed stadium in the NFL.

Beyond that, we can also see the shelf life for an NFL stadium is approximately 20-30 years. This is based on the following current or upcoming stadium situations for teams which have either begun the process of getting new stadiums, or are performing major renovations on their existing stadiums.

Kansas City and the Chiefs completed a $375 million renovation of Arrowhead Stadium in 2010, after 38 years.
The Dolphins are working on a $350 million renovation of Sun Life Stadium, after attempts to get traction for a new stadium in South Florida went nowhere. This is less than 30 years after Sun Life Stadium (formerly Joe Robbie Stadium) was built in 1987.
The Vikings will be opening a new stadium costing $1.078 billion in 2016, 34 years after the Metrodome was first opened in 1982.
The Falcons will be opening a new stadium at a $1.4 billion cost in 2017, a mere 25 years after the Georgia Dome opened for business in 1992.
We all know about the Rams potentially moving to Los Angeles, despite St. Louis' attempts to finance a new stadium along the Mississippi River, less than 20 years after the Edward Jones Dome was completed.
There have been reports that the Redskins would like to play in a new stadium in Washington. D.C. FedEx Field, located in nearby Landover, MD, was opened in 1997.

Here's where things get interesting for other cities / regions which host NFL franchises. 15 stadiums will enter the 20 year range within the next 10 years, and have not received significant modifications. Of those, 8 of them will reach 25 years of service by that time. Those cities include:

20 years by 2020: St. Louis, Charlotte, Washington, D.C., Baltimore, Tampa, Nashville, Cleveland, Cincinnati.
20 years by 2025: Denver, Pittsburgh, Houston, New England, Seattle, Detroit, Philadelphia.

What's the Fight over Los Angeles All About?

Put simply, this is the Old Guard (OGs) against the New Guard (NGs). In this particular case, it's Chargers owner Dean Spanos and Raiders owner Mark Davis versus Rams owner Stan Kroenke. However, I think they are proxies in what may become a larger fight for who controls the future of the NFL.

On one side, you have football teams which have been owned by the same family for more than 1 generation.

On the other side, you have the list of owners who bought into the NFL within the last 30 years, and are successful outside of football.



Generally speaking (with some notable exceptions - namely Carolina Panthers Owner Jerry Richardson), list one matches up pretty well with the owners believed to back Dean Spanos. List two matches up well with those suspected of backing Stan Kroenke.

As we have heard many times during this LA stadium saga, one of the priorities of NFL Ownership is to ensure Dean Spanos "is taken care of." This means Spanos is going to come out of this situation with either a landing spot in Los Angeles, or in a financial position to get what he wants if he comes back to San Diego.

However, there's one other important factor which I think is highly relevant in the OGs support of Spanos, and that factor is, of course, money.

This group of owners is generally less wealthy than those on the New Guard side of ownership, and therefore are very sensitive to taking care of their fellow OGs because as time goes by, their numbers, money, and power, will diminish.

Furthermore, many of them will likely be in need of significant league support when the time comes for them to lobby for new stadiums in another 10-15 years. Most of these owners required significant public subsides to get their stadiums 10-15 years ago, and while they have been enriched, that value comes from the value of the team, not their outside business interests.

If they needed subsides at a time when stadiums cost an average of $452 million in 2015 dollars, then what will they need when the cost reaches upwards of $2 billion in the next 10 years?

What Does This Mean for the NFL Going Forward?

Let's suppose the Chargers and Rams are the teams selected to relocate to Los Angeles, vacating San Diego and St. Louis. The NFL would be trading the #2 media market for the #21 market (St. Louis) and #28 market (San Diego).

This would leave the Orlando - Daytona Beach - Melbourne area of Central Florida as the highest television market not occupied by an NFL franchise (#19 overall). However, putting an NFL team here wouldn't be practical, as this market is surrounded by Tampa (#12), Miami (#14), and Jacksonville (#47).

Central California (Sacramento, Stockton, Modesto) ranks ahead of St. Louis, while Portland (#25) and Raleigh-Durham (#26) rank ahead of San Diego.

This is the NFL's Stadium Crisis: Los Angeles is the last low-hanging stadium fruit left for the NFL in the United States. Once Los Angeles is taken, where does the NFL go next?

None of the remaining top-30 markets are more appealing from a market size or corporate standpoint than any other.
San Diego becomes the largest metropolitan area available (#17), not including northern Mexico.
St. Louis has a stronger corporate base, but a slower rate of growth.
In North America, the 2 locations which could conceivably support an NFL franchise as well as find stadium funding would most likely be Toronto, Canada and Mexico City, Mexico.
This is where London becomes very appealing.

So, let's add this all up.

Stadium costs are skyrocketing.
About half of all NFL stadiums are likely to need replacement or significant modifications within the next 10-20 years.
About half of the current NFL owners cannot afford to build their own stadiums because they inherited their franchise and didn't build wealth independently.
After Los Angeles, there are only 2 open markets left in North America which absolutely could afford (or help afford) to build stadiums at the current size, amenities, and cost required.

While some of these owners will settle for renovations to their existing structures, several others will do what they've done previously, and demand taxpayer subsides which are not available, both in terms of open markets or in terms of the amount of public money needed to make a deal work.

So, what happens when seven or eight owners get into a competition for Toronto, Mexico City or London? While a few will succeed, what happens to the losers? You think the drama over Los Angeles this year was bad? Just you wait as the large markets dwindle and the number of competitive and desperate owners increase.

This is the hidden reason the OGs are fully in support of Dean Spanos. Their fear is that the NFL decides to sacrifice the elders by forcing the OGs outside "megamarkets" (h/t to Carmen Policy) to sell majority control of their franchises to multibillionaires who can fully or mostly finance their own stadiums for the good of the NFL. Before you think that owners of professional sports teams can't be forced to sell, just remember three names: Frank McCourt, Jeff Moorad, and Donald Sterling.

It seems obvious, especially with a dwindling American upper-middle and middle class, the answer will be a reduction of stadium size while maintaining premium features or elimination of premium features in stadiums outside of large corporate markets. In this regard, Raiders' Owner Mark Davis may have more vision than any of his contemporary owners, in asking for a smaller stadium with fewer amenities (for the current bargain price of $900 million).

Now, let's couple this with the concussion issue. As with the stadium issue, you're just seeing the beginning of this wave. The real damage to the NFL won't come for 15-20 years, when you start seeing the reduced numbers of young athletes playing football in high school and college because their parents (i.e. people whose kids are currently 6 years or younger) didn't allow them to play.

I suspect that the stadium crisis and concussion crisis will hit at about the same time. As a result, you might see a major realignment and/or contraction with multiple teams clustered in the largest markets, where stadiums can be privately financed and shared, and the athletes aren't spread too thin. For example, you could see 4 teams in Los Angeles and New York, 2 each in the Bay Area and Chicago, and single teams scattered around the NFL in regional markets with large populations and corporate bases (such as Dallas, Minneapolis, Toronto, and Atlanta).

Or... maybe the NFL collapses under the weight of its own greed.

Final Thoughts

I could be all wrong about this. The NFL might just be a perpetual economic engine, impervious to the twin dangers of player safety and escalating stadium costs.

Going forward, due to the astronomically increasing costs of building stadiums, and the NFL's desire to replace them every 20-30 years, the NFL will find itself in a situation where half of its owners and the majority of its US markets simply will not be able to afford the league' stadium demands.

Once this scarcity hits, the NFL will be faced with the dreaded tag of sustainability, which may include contraction, realignment to major markets, and forced ownership changes. All of this assumes the NFL can also survive the coming challenge of CTE, and what it means for talent coming to the league 20 years from now.

If I'm right, what we're seeing in the race for Los Angeles is the absolute high-water mark of the NFL, economically speaking. We may also be getting a preview of market/relocation battles to come.

The question is not when the dam breaks. The question is what breaks it, and how low will the water go?

[dieterbrock]

Thank you for posting. Great article.
I just don't see how Kroenke self sufficient mega move is somehow setting a bad precedent.

Whatever happened to America revering the phrase "if you build it, they will come"

[OldSchool]

Thank you for posting. Great article.
I just don't see how Kroenke self sufficient mega move is somehow setting a bad precedent.

Whatever happened to America revering the phrase "if you build it, they will come"

The more vocal people against public funding of stadiums, will use it as a "see he can do it you all should." Even though there are only 5 or 6 owners with the means and know how to do a stadium project solo. Hell look at Carson, two owners, neither considered wealthy among their peers and financing the whole nine yards and yet almost a year later they don't have plans for the stadium. Now this could be that Carson as we all think is just a ruse to get funding in their home markets. But it also shows that building your own stadium and being responsible for everything from the ground(or below in Inglewood's case) up is your job. The average owner needs some kind of leverage to help get public funding. And unless it's a city that the current stadium also has like 4 or 5 tenants or regular events generating revenue it's hard these days to get public funds. Especially in most of the states that houses those older stadiums.

[bubbaramfan]

20 years without a signifigant upgrade, making them last on the list. Oakland had a major upgrade in 96, SD in 97. No reference to stadium leases, which St. Louis renedeged on, giving Kroenke the ability to go year to year and/or move the team.

[Hacksaw]

Illuminating article but the premise doesn't add up to me. Are these OG guys afraid they are going to be confused with NG guys when their time to renovate is up or something?

I don't get it. There is only one LA and only a small handful of guys wealthy enough to be considered a threat?
The premise that the multi-billionaires will force out the old guard doesn't change whether it's the Charaiders or the Rams in LA. OK it would make 2 OG'ers more wealthy, but how does that change what happens 'down the road'? ESK becoming more wealthy doesn't change their futures either. He's 1 vote. The cost of living and inflation affects them more.

Now if we are talking about ESK setting the bar to high that's another thing. Of course the Charaiders have touted their stadium as one of the greatest in the world,,, so?

[OldSchool]

Illuminating article but the premise doesn't add up to me. Are these OG guys afraid they are going to be confused with NG guys when their time to renovate is up or something?

I don't get it. There is only one LA and only a small handful of guys wealthy enough to be considered a threat?
The premise that the multi-billionaires will force out the old guard doesn't change whether it's the Charaiders or the Rams in LA. OK it would make 2 OG'ers more wealthy, but how does that change what happens 'down the road'? ESK becoming more wealthy doesn't change their futures either. He's 1 vote. The cost of living and inflation affects them more.

Now if we are talking about ESK setting the bar to high that's another thing. Of course the Charaiders have touted their stadium as one of the greatest in the world,,, so?

The old guard are the people that inherited their teams and their money. They generally aren't good business men and generally won't be able to pull off a stadium plan like Kroenke or Jerry did. The old guard are the ones that want tons of public funding. Kroenke and his plan is a threat to their silver spoon way of life.

The "new money" guys look at Kroenke as a trail blazer and when they are ready for their stadiums are more likely to seek his help. Throw in that the new money guys aren't as likely to need Goldman Sachs they're really rocking the boat.

[Hacksaw]

Illuminating article but the premise doesn't add up to me. Are these OG guys afraid they are going to be confused with NG guys when their time to renovate is up or something?

I don't get it. There is only one LA and only a small handful of guys wealthy enough to be considered a threat?
The premise that the multi-billionaires will force out the old guard doesn't change whether it's the Charaiders or the Rams in LA. OK it would make 2 OG'ers more wealthy, but how does that change what happens 'down the road'? ESK becoming more wealthy doesn't change their futures either. He's 1 vote. The cost of living and inflation affects them more.

Now if we are talking about ESK setting the bar to high that's another thing. Of course the Charaiders have touted their stadium as one of the greatest in the world,,, so?

The old guard are the people that inherited their teams and their money. They generally aren't good business men and generally won't be able to pull off a stadium plan like Kroenke or Jerry did. The old guard are the ones that want tons of public funding. Kroenke and his plan is a threat to their silver spoon way of life.

The "new money" guys look at Kroenke as a trail blazer and when they are ready for their stadiums are more likely to seek his help. Throw in that the new money guys aren't as likely to need Goldman Sachs they're really rocking the boat.

That is understandable. One thing that is noticeable, the divide (if that list is accurate) is pretty much down the middle. The trend is shifting. I would have to think that the NG owners are going to be reluctant to come off their position and help Spanos. where the OG might be able to be reasoned with. Heck, the article does say that many more teams are up for renovations within 10 years.
If the NFL OG vote due to fear, what kind of message does that send and how effective would the alternative (carson) be to help them finance in the future? Just because ESK privately funds his deal doesn't mean GS wouldn't have plenty of business in the future.
The LA bar should be set high. This place is different like NY.

[SoCalRam78]

The premise of the article I don't agree with. First off, the league makes money hand over fist and all these guys do very well and they're all pretty equal in terms of revenue from the sport. Whether the team is part of a portfolio or main source of personal income is irrelevant. It's not like the NG owners crush the OG owners in term of take home from the NFL. Remember the TV money, this biggest slice of pie, is divided evenly.

LA is a unique situation because it's open but also the number 2 media market in the NFL. This isn't Nashville or Charlotte. This needs to be done right and the project needs to be grandiose because the stadium should be a crown jewel for the league..

[Hacksaw]

Whether the team is part of a portfolio or main source of personal income is irrelevant.

As it should be. That is why I call BS too.

[bubbaramfan]

Old Guard or New, would either expect one of their own, or they themselves sign a 35 year lease with an entity that has proven to not uphold a signed commitment? not once but twice? What kind of precedence would that set for other cities? Federal arbitrators rules in Kroenkes favor, they were to upgrade the ED for 700mi. and they ingnored that. OK to offer a team incentives, then renege when it comes due? Or make up something in St. Louis' favor, other NFL cities would think they won't have to honor their leases with their NFL team.