T.O Comes To T.O.: The NFL Visits Toronto...

[jn_12]

I live near the Dome and saw quite a few Jets fans and heard a few New York accents in Jets jerseys when I was on the streetcar. I don't know how many fans from Buffalo would have made the trip up though. My Dad is a Bills season ticket holder and he didn't come up.

 

[MisterF]

Although I'm totally in favour of having an NFL team in Toronto, this isn't the way to go about it.
NFL, and NBA and MLB players for that matter, seem to have some sort of problem playing in Canada. That makes it more difficult to attract talent to the Jays and Raptors, and in the end the team either ends up lagging behind for years (Jays) in both the standings and the actual stands themselves or the fans have to pay a huge premium (NFL) for the team to survive and actually be able to pay some big name players to come up here. It's really quite sad in my opinion, it's borderline racism. I understand the idea of wanting to play in your home country (most Italian players play soccer in Italy, most English players play soccer in England etc.) but when you're on the road for at least half the season and you're playing for a team in a city that is nowhere near the part of the country you're from (Ie: a player from Georgia playing for Seattle) I have to ask, does it really make a difference?
It's almost looked at as an act of charity when a big name NBA or MLB player plays in Canada. The Raptors are constantly struggling to keep their talent here, and when we do have good players on our teams it's almost a countdown to the day they're going to leave.

Maybe this is a clue about the disfunctional pro sports system we have in Canada. We have to be the the only country in the world that piggybacks off another country's sports leagues and then complain when we don't get respect. Why does Toronto keep following the NFL around when we have a perfectly good football league of our own? You don't find Glasgow knocking on the English Premier League's door, and if Auckland got into the AFL you can bet that Aussie players would rather not play for a foreign team. Even in hockey, which is supposedly our sport, we have a pathetic 6 teams. It seems kind of sad to me that when it comes to sports, we don't consider ourselves good enough until we've got into another country's league.

Also, in regards to NFL culture, Toronto and the Rogers Centre really don't fit in. Unlike the majority of NFL stadiums the Rogers Centre is in the downtown core. The vast majority of NFL stadiums are nowhere the centre of their respective cities, and in most cases not even in the city itself. Dallas Cowboys, New York Giants, New York Jets, Buffalo Bills and the list goes on. What do all these teams have in common? None of them play in the city for which they are named.
So it's not so much a culture thing, it's a location thing. And most NFL stadiums happen to be located in an area that is conducive to what we see as "NFL culture" translation: drinking and BBQing in massive parking lots outside the stadium before the game. Well we don't have massive parking lots outside our stadium and I'm actually quite proud of that. And the ones we do have near the Rogers stadium will inevitably become something in the near future. This is part of the reason it will always be difficult for the NFL to work here.

Yeah it's amusing to hear people complain about the lack of tailgating around a downtown stadium that's surrounded by sports bars. Drinking in a bar instead of a parking lot - crazy isn't it?

 

[jn_12]

Actually the Old Firm clubs (Celtic and Rangers) would love to play in the EPL and have been trying for years. Here's the most recent example from November:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/eng_prem/8353937.stm

Not only that, but look at how important the Champions League is to the big clubs in Europe. They don't want to play in their domestic league but they have to. If it were up to them there would be a continent wide league where they can make boat loads of cash without having to share with all of the minnows. Do you think Man U can charge more for tickets and make more from sponsorships and merchandise if they have to play Burnley or Inter Milan? Teams view domestic competition as a bit annoying really. Nothing more than a formality that allows them to play in the Champions League the next season.

Money is the key factor. The reason we only have 6 Canadian teams in the NHL is because we don't have enough places that can financially support it. Fan support is there, unquestionably, but it's not enough. Corporate support is huge and places like Quebec City and Winnipeg just don't have (and didn't have, when the Nordiques and Jets were there) enough of it. The salary cap certainly helps and that's why you're seeing the NHL start to change its tune about teams up here, but we're actually pretty lucky that Edmonton, Calgary and Ottawa are still around after what they went through in the years leading up to the lockout.

Finally, it's much better for us if North American pro sports isn't segregated. As much as the CFL is great, it succeeds mostly because of its rules and the fact that there is an immense quantity of football players looking to play after they finish university. So whatever scraps the NFL doesn't want come here and really the quality doesn't suffer because there are only 8 teams. Money also isn't an issue at this point because guys in the CFL are just happy that they can continue playing. There's no competing with the NFL for players. A Canadian pro hockey league wouldn't be able to compete with an American counterpart. Essentially you'd end up with the Leafs, Canadiens and Canucks being able to afford good players and the rest of the Canadian teams would effectively be feeder clubs for those three (they'd keep players until they couldn't afford them any longer much like what happens in soccer). Then you'd have those three teams wishing they could play the American teams so they could make more money. Sounds like the Rangers/Celtic problem doesn't it?

And actually, North American pro sports work really well. Debts are incredibly low compared to soccer clubs in Europe and franchise stability is fantastic. A few teams in every league struggle but that's going to happen when you have 30 markets with fluctuating economies and teams. So I'm not buying this hyper-patriotic argument. Sorry.

 

[MisterF]

Hyper-patriotic? lol...it takes more than little slogans to discredit an argument.

Actually the Old Firm clubs (Celtic and Rangers) would love to play in the EPL and have been trying for years. Here's the most recent example from November:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/eng_prem/8353937.stm

Not only that, but look at how important the Champions League is to the big clubs in Europe. They don't want to play in their domestic league but they have to. If it were up to them there would be a continent wide league where they can make boat loads of cash without having to share with all of the minnows. Do you think Man U can charge more for tickets and make more from sponsorships and merchandise if they have to play Burnley or Inter Milan? Teams view domestic competition as a bit annoying really. Nothing more than a formality that allows them to play in the Champions League the next season.

I didn't know that about the Old Firm clubs, but I guess it's not a huge surprise considering how much bigger England is. What impresses me about Scotland is that with a population less than the GTA, it still manages to have a professional league bigger than anything in Canada. If Celtic and Rangers started playing in the Premier League, would that really be good for soccer in Scotland? Do the Toronto Raptors do anything for basketball development in Edmonton or Montreal? Would English players want to play for Scottish teams? (although Scotland isn't really foreign to England the way that Canada is to the US)

I could see a European super-league working for the same reason the EU works - there's no single dominant power. That's also why the Raptors and Blue Jays can have trouble attracting talent while the Leafs don't - the first two are American-dominated while the latter isn't.

Money is the key factor. The reason we only have 6 Canadian teams in the NHL is because we don't have enough places that can financially support it. Fan support is there, unquestionably, but it's not enough. Corporate support is huge and places like Quebec City and Winnipeg just don't have (and didn't have, when the Nordiques and Jets were there) enough of it. The salary cap certainly helps and that's why you're seeing the NHL start to change its tune about teams up here, but we're actually pretty lucky that Edmonton, Calgary and Ottawa are still around after what they went through in the years leading up to the lockout.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. The Canadian NHL teams are more valuable on average than the American ones - all the Canadian teams are in the top half of the league in both revenue and overall value except Edmonton. When it comes to operating profit their performance is even better. Canada could support another 3-4 teams at the NHL level.

Finally, it's much better for us if North American pro sports isn't segregated. As much as the CFL is great, it succeeds mostly because of its rules and the fact that there is an immense quantity of football players looking to play after they finish university. So whatever scraps the NFL doesn't want come here and really the quality doesn't suffer because there are only 8 teams. Money also isn't an issue at this point because guys in the CFL are just happy that they can continue playing. There's no competing with the NFL for players. A Canadian pro hockey league wouldn't be able to compete with an American counterpart. Essentially you'd end up with the Leafs, Canadiens and Canucks being able to afford good players and the rest of the Canadian teams would effectively be feeder clubs for those three (they'd keep players until they couldn't afford them any longer much like what happens in soccer). Then you'd have those three teams wishing they could play the American teams so they could make more money. Sounds like the Rangers/Celtic problem doesn't it?

Obviously the CFL can't attract the top talent the way the NFL does, but "scraps" in an exaggeration at best. The CFL game is better suited to smaller, more versatile players and sheer sized doesn't work as well. CFL players have gone on to the NFL with great success, but the reverse isn't always true. Ricky Williams routinely puts up better numbers in Miami than he did with the Argos.

The NHL will never split in two, but considering the Canadian teams bring in a third of ticket revenues and several American teams are losing money, I don't share your pessimism about a potential all-Canadian league. If it were to happen the number of Canadian teams would likely increase and the number of American teams would go down, and all of them would be competitive for the best players.

 

[jn_12]

Hyper-patriotic? lol...it takes more than little slogans to discredit an argument.


I didn't know that about the Old Firm clubs, but I guess it's not a huge surprise considering how much bigger England is. What impresses me about Scotland is that with a population less than the GTA, it still manages to have a professional league bigger than anything in Canada. If Celtic and Rangers started playing in the Premier League, would that really be good for soccer in Scotland? Do the Toronto Raptors do anything for basketball development in Edmonton or Montreal? Would English players want to play for Scottish teams? (although Scotland isn't really foreign to England the way that Canada is to the US)

The Scottish league is smaller than the CFL. The CFL actually has attendance figures on par with the German Bundesliga. So I would say it's a huge stretch to say that the SPL is bigger than any professional league in Canada.

Also, Celtic and Rangers are huge clubs compared to the rest of the league and bring in a significant amount of the league-wide revenue. Without them the league would be probably on par with Ireland's soccer league (re: not even on the radar). I'd argue Scottish football would be better off if Rangers and Celtic (and the rest of the SPL) competed in England. Scottish homegrown players would compete with far better competition especially at the Reserve level and that would only raise the quality of Scottish footballers. There's an old saying that if you want to be the best you have to play the best.

The reason the Raptors aren't great for Canadian basketball is that there isn't a development system related to the Raptors. If the Raptors were expected to develop Canadian Talent who would eventually rise through the ranks and play with the team one day, then it would be a different story, but there's no comparison between the NBA and any soccer league.

Would non-Scottish players want to play in Scotland? Sure, why not? If the Old Firm played in the EPL, they would have significantly more money to attract players and they would probably be top-ten clubs in the EPL. As long as they're willing to pay players at a satisfactory level they'd be fine. And English players have played for Scottish teams before. It would be nothing new.

I could see a European super-league working for the same reason the EU works - there's no single dominant power. That's also why the Raptors and Blue Jays can have trouble attracting talent while the Leafs don't - the first two are American-dominated while the latter isn't.

It would be horrible if the top teams broke away from their domestic leagues. You're talking about the collapse of a dozen leagues all because the rich want to get richer. They make enough money right now and far too many teams depend on the Arsenals and Chelseas of the world as a means for survival. Every team in the EPL gets a cheque at the beginning of the year for 22 million pounds from their TV contract and by the end of the year they usually rake in 9million more. All of that money would be gone if the big clubs left the EPL. Considering clubs in the Championship only receive 1million pounds per year, an EPL club in a league without Man U, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool, Man City, etc. would barely see more than that. What a huge blow that would be for soccer as a whole.

The raptors and Jays don't have trouble attracting talent. Look at the Raptors roster. You could make the argument (and people like Michael Grange, Eric Smith and Doug Smith have) that it's the 5th best in the East this season. And the Jays have attracted many big names over the years.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. The Canadian NHL teams are more valuable on average than the American ones - all the Canadian teams are in the top half of the league in both revenue and overall value except Edmonton. When it comes to operating profit their performance is even better. Canada could support another 3-4 teams at the NHL level.

They are, but that's because they're in a league with American teams and there's a salary cap in place that helps stabilize expenses. Hypothetically, if there were two separate leagues, would they both of an identical cap? Probably not. Would they both even have a cap? maybe not. So essentially, the biggest factor is money, and we've seen what happened before the lockout when teams like Edmonton kept losing their star players because they couldn't afford them. We're talking about a hypothetical situation here but really all it would take is for the dollar to drop back down to $0.70 for a Canadian league to be in serious trouble.

You say 3 more teams in Canada... How could Winnipeg or Quebec City suddenly support a team without much corporate support? Fan support isn't enough. You need companies to buy boxes and purchase season tickets.

Obviously the CFL can't attract the top talent the way the NFL does, but "scraps" in an exaggeration at best. The CFL game is better suited to smaller, more versatile players and sheer sized doesn't work as well. CFL players have gone on to the NFL with great success, but the reverse isn't always true. Ricky Williams routinely puts up better numbers in Miami than he did with the Argos.

The NFL will always be the top destination for any football player. If they can't make it there they come to Canada, and maybe over time they establish themselves here as talented players because they learn to play our game our way. But I don't think any player with any skillset picks the CFL over the NFL (at least not since Rocket Ismail). I'd argue few CFLers would make an NFL roster, and you see that every year when talented CFLers get offered tryout contracts down south and then get sent back. Very rarely do you get a Jeff Garcia or Doug Flutie, who goes down there and makes an impact.

The NHL will never split in two, but considering the Canadian teams bring in a third of ticket revenues and several American teams are losing money, I don't share your pessimism about a potential all-Canadian league. If it were to happen the number of Canadian teams would likely increase and the number of American teams would go down, and all of them would be competitive for the best players.

But you're essentially adding weaker markets to the Canadian league and removing the weak markets from the American league. If there's any sort of revenue sharing or cap, the American league improves and the Canadian one gets weaker. If one league's cap is higher they're going to attract the better players. And, once again, what happens when the dollar falls against the US$? Also, currently any real TV revenue going to the NHL is coming from TSN and CBC. Do you think those TV contracts are worth the same if the Canadian league only has a third of the talent?

I don't think a Canadian league lasts long nor does it do anything for Canada or the US. It's a continental league and is stronger because of this.

 

[Team Me]

Oddly enough, I just saw one of those "TO in TO" ads on TV, despite the fact that the game was 4 days ago. Seems like a waste of someone's advertising dollars. And makes Rogers look even a little more ridiculous.

 

[harsh]

1. NFL tickets in any other american city are expensive but people support their teams regardless. I don't see why thats so hard to fathom considering how the Leafs never seem to make the playoffs or passed the first round yet they're one of the most profitable teams in the NHL with die hard(borderline idiotic) fans who never complain about prices or results.

2. You cannot compare the attendance of a THURSDAY game in toronto to a sunday game in any other amercian city which has 2x the population and has a long team history and call the event a failure. If you do, you might as well call every american team expansion in the NHL is a failure.

3. Why is it a surprise that local ppl from toronto are not bills fans?Why would they be? These experiments are new so there's no relationship between toronto and the bills. Plus we have sat/cable so we can watch/root for any team we want w/o the reprise from other locales questioning our home team loyalties. the notion that being in close proximity makes us loyal fans is ri-god-damn-diculous. Are there leafs fans in Ottawa? Flyers fans in Pittsburgh? Steelers fans in Philly? Not enough to fill up the skydome.

The real reason it wasn't that great was obvious....both teams suck. if it was colts vs saints trust me tickets would sell quick. The fact that an NFL game was played in Canada is a success in itself. Never thought we Canadians would be so closed minded. Or is the hatred for anything Rogers so blinding?

 

[Team Me]

1. NFL tickets in any other american city are expensive but people support their teams regardless. I don't see why thats so hard to fathom considering how the Leafs never seem to make the playoffs or passed the first round yet they're one of the most profitable teams in the NHL with die hard(borderline idiotic) fans who never complain about prices or results.

I have a friend with season tickets in Buffalo. The price of one the lower bowl tickets to this Toronto game is nearly the cost of his lower bowl endzone tickets in Buffalo for the entire season. While there definitely will be more expensive markets in the States, these costs are crazy, and there seems to be the perception that if you go to this game and pay that, you're a sucker.

2. You cannot compare the attendance of a THURSDAY game in toronto to a sunday game in any other amercian city which has 2x the population and has a long team history and call the event a failure. If you do, you might as well call every american team expansion in the NHL is a failure.

The Toronto market is the 4th largest urban area in North America. Far bigger than Minneapolis, Indianapolis, Green Bay and almost any other NFL city except for New York and Chicago. Also, starting in November, there is an NFL game every Thursday night, and I don't see empty seats at these other places...even smaller markets like Cleveland or Nashville. You have a point about a long team history and building a fanbase...but we're more tuned in to the NFL than London, England and they sold out their game in 20 minutes. And as for calling most American NHL expansion franchises a failure in the States, that's almost accurate – at least most of the more recent ones. How many people do you see in the seats at Panthers, Thrashers, Coyotes or Predators games these days?

3. Why is it a surprise that local ppl from toronto are not bills fans?Why would they be? These experiments are new so there's no relationship between toronto and the bills. Plus we have sat/cable so we can watch/root for any team we want w/o the reprise from other locales questioning our home team loyalties. the notion that being in close proximity makes us loyal fans is ri-god-damn-diculous. Are there leafs fans in Ottawa? Flyers fans in Pittsburgh? Steelers fans in Philly? No enough to fill up the skydome.

You have a good point here. I think one of the main reasons this Bills in Toronto thing is not working is because people feel like they are having Bills fandom shoved down their throats. I know tonnes of NFL fans, but only a handful of them are Bills fans. If this what proposed as "NFL in Toronto," and had different teams each year, I think you'd have a far more positive response from fans. Don't get me wrong: I go to a Bills game almost every year in Buffalo. And it's great. But this calculated way they are trying to plant them in Toronto seemes to have built up a lot of resentment both in Buffalo and Toronto – from Bills fans and others. Most Bills fans I know want the Bills to stay in Buffalo.

The real reason it wasn't that great was obvious....both teams suck. if it was colts vs saints trust me tickets would sell quick. The fact that an NFL game was played in Canada is a success in itself. Never thought we Canadians would be so closed minded. Or is the hatred for anything Rogers so blinding?

I agree. Different teams each year would no doubt draw better. I don't think their closed-minded. Just the opposite. Toronto NFL fans want more than just one team being forced on them as their home team.

 

[MisterF]

The Scottish league is smaller than the CFL. The CFL actually has attendance figures on par with the German Bundesliga. So I would say it's a huge stretch to say that the SPL is bigger than any professional league in Canada.

I was talking about the number of teams, not attendance. The SPL has 12 teams, the CFL has 8. It's bigger than any professional league in Canada with a fraction of our population, and is likely to be for the forseeable future.

Also, Celtic and Rangers are huge clubs compared to the rest of the league and bring in a significant amount of the league-wide revenue. Without them the league would be probably on par with Ireland's soccer league (re: not even on the radar). I'd argue Scottish football would be better off if Rangers and Celtic (and the rest of the SPL) competed in England. Scottish homegrown players would compete with far better competition especially at the Reserve level and that would only raise the quality of Scottish footballers. There's an old saying that if you want to be the best you have to play the best.

So essentially you'd like to see the English and Scottish systems merge. That would have its pluses and minuses, but Scotland would be left with fewer teams at the top level - basically the way Canada is with hockey. And the same drawbacks you mentioned for a hypothetical European super-league. Soccer is aleady the biggest sport in Scotland, I doubt it would improve the sport. Every system has its drawbacks, whether it's national leagues or continental leagues that take up more than one country.

You say 3 more teams in Canada... How could Winnipeg or Quebec City suddenly support a team without much corporate support? Fan support isn't enough. You need companies to buy boxes and purchase season tickets.

You keep saying there's no corporate support with nothing to back that up. Every one of the MTS Centre's 50 boxes is spoken for at AHL games, and there's a long waiting list.

The NFL will always be the top destination for any football player. If they can't make it there they come to Canada, and maybe over time they establish themselves here as talented players because they learn to play our game our way. But I don't think any player with any skillset picks the CFL over the NFL (at least not since Rocket Ismail). I'd argue few CFLers would make an NFL roster, and you see that every year when talented CFLers get offered tryout contracts down south and then get sent back. Very rarely do you get a Jeff Garcia or Doug Flutie, who goes down there and makes an impact.

Like I said, the CFL can't get the best of the best. But the difference is overstated and there are NFL players who woudn't excel in the CFL.

They are, but that's because they're in a league with American teams and there's a salary cap in place that helps stabilize expenses. Hypothetically, if there were two separate leagues, would they both of an identical cap? Probably not. Would they both even have a cap? maybe not. So essentially, the biggest factor is money, and we've seen what happened before the lockout when teams like Edmonton kept losing their star players because they couldn't afford them. We're talking about a hypothetical situation here but really all it would take is for the dollar to drop back down to $0.70 for a Canadian league to be in serious trouble.

But you're essentially adding weaker markets to the Canadian league and removing the weak markets from the American league. If there's any sort of revenue sharing or cap, the American league improves and the Canadian one gets weaker. If one league's cap is higher they're going to attract the better players. And, once again, what happens when the dollar falls against the US$? Also, currently any real TV revenue going to the NHL is coming from TSN and CBC. Do you think those TV contracts are worth the same if the Canadian league only has a third of the talent?

A Canadian league would fare just fine. It would probably be just like any of the European soccer leagues, where the stronger teams support the weaker ones. That's the way the NHL operates right now actually. Who's to say the a Canadian league wouldn't have a higher salary cap than an American league? The Canadian teams are the ones bringing in all the money right now. Canadian TV viewership tends to be highest for games showing Canadian teams, and the American TV deal is practically invisible. As for adding weaker teams, that's exactly what's going to happen anyway. More Canadian cities will get NHL teams and American cities will lose them, it's just a matter of time.

As for what happens if the dollar ever goes back to 70 cents US, it's not as much of an issue now with a salary cap and revenue sharing. But if economic conditions are that much of a factor, maybe a Canadian league wouldn't get the best talent in a 70 cent economy, just like an American league wouldn't get the best talent right now.

the notion that being in close proximity makes us loyal fans is ri-god-damn-diculous. Are there leafs fans in Ottawa?

Tonnes. Ever been to a Leafs game in Ottawa, Montreal, or Buffalo, especially when the Leafs had a good team?

 

[harsh]

Tonnes. Ever been to a Leafs game in Ottawa, Montreal, or Buffalo, especially when the Leafs had a good team?

you forgot about the part that says " not enough the fill the skydome" The point I made was that just because toronto is close to buffalo it doesn't mean they inherit us as fans. you wouldn't bank on leaf fans in ottawa to fill up the seats would you? Or expect to see Torontonians in sabres jerseys at the ACC?

More Canadian cities will get NHL teams and American cities will lose them, it's just a matter of time.

I don't think so. Except for maybe hamilton what other canadian cities can sustain a NHL team? Winnipeg had one but couldn't afford T.Selanie's contract. SK, nope. The atlantic region, nope. Plus if another team is added to cities close to existing NHL teams it will have a vulture effect. Not a good idea. Don't think the commissioners haven't thought about expanding into Canada before.

 

[GenerationW]

With a 90+ cent dollar and the current salary cap system, I think teams in Winnipeg and Quebec City with a good enough arena would prosper. A second GTA team is probably inevitable, and even a third could work in theory (i.e. one new team in Toronto, one in Hamilton).

As for Celtic and Rangers, they had preliminary talks with the Premier League a few years ago, and one rumour was that they were told to apply to join the league formerly known as the Second Division (which then became the First Division and is now called The Championship -- gotta love marketing stupidity), and then earn promotion to the Premiership.

More recently, they were shot down by the Premier League only a month ago:

Celtic and Rangers overwhelmingly rejected by Premier League


A proposal to invite Scottish Premier League giants Celtic and Rangers into a re-formatted Barclays Premier League as been rejected by members of the Premier League at a meeting this afternoon.

Bolton chairman Phil Gartside proposed that the Premier League be made up of two 18 team tiers in a revamp of the current system, which would also see the Old Firm invited to enter the bottom of the two tiers.

However representatives of the current 20 Premier League clubs moved to reject the idea, although a new two-tier format is still up for debate in the near future.

“Bolton Wanderers submitted a discussion paper detailing ideas concerning the restructuring of the Premier League into two tiers with the inclusion of Celtic and Rangers,†read a Premier League statement.

“The clubs welcomed the additional input into an ongoing process, however, they were of the opinion that bringing Celtic and Rangers into any form of Premier League set-up was not desirable or viable.

“The other relevant ideas contained within Bolton’s paper will now be taken forward as part of the wider strategic review being undertaken by the Premier League since November 2008 with the aim of providing recommendations before December 2010.â€

 

[jn_12]

I was talking about the number of teams, not attendance. The SPL has 12 teams, the CFL has 8. It's bigger than any professional league in Canada with a fraction of our population, and is likely to be for the forseeable future.

Size doesn't mean anything. Actually you can say that there are 42 teams in the Scottish League with 12 in the SPL since they have a pyramid system. But size doesn't mean anything though because just look at how bad some of those SPL teams are. Half the league attracts less than 6,000 people per game. They're lucky to attract as many people in a season as Celtic does in two games. That's not healthy whatsoever. Most of these teams probably are the calibre of England's L1 or even L2, with Hearts and Hibs maybe at Championship calibre. I don't know how they would shake down if England and Scotland merged, but if you want a healthy CFL, you're looking at their current set-up and maybe if you can secure solid ownership in Quebec City, Ottawa and Halifax you can make it an 11 team league. So don't let the number of teams fool you. If you want a good example of just how hard it is for teams to compete at the same level as Celtic and Rangers look at the story of Gretna FC.

So essentially you'd like to see the English and Scottish systems merge. That would have its pluses and minuses, but Scotland would be left with fewer teams at the top level - basically the way Canada is with hockey. And the same drawbacks you mentioned for a hypothetical European super-league. Soccer is aleady the biggest sport in Scotland, I doubt it would improve the sport. Every system has its drawbacks, whether it's national leagues or continental leagues that take up more than one country.

Hockey is still a success in Canada. Post-lockout it might have come out stronger than ever even with 6 teams. Would it have been stronger with 8? Doubtful. It would have been the same probably. The same I would imagine would be true with Scotland. Fact is, other than Celtic and Rangers there aren't really any teams that would be considered Premier quality. A match between St Mirren and Hamilton is only Premier quality in name. It might actually be worse than watching Hartlepool and Colchester. At least if the two leagues merged teams would face other teams of similar quality and Scottish players would be exposed to more teams and players. That can only be good for the development of Scottish players.

Plus, for mid-level teams like Hearts and Hibs, they'd have better quality teams coming in more often. Instead of having to play host to Hamilton twice a year, they'd be bringing in some Championship quality English sides which would bring in far more money. In terms of TV revenue, the SPL contract is worth almost the same as the English Championship contract, so the difference there would be negligible. I'd argue that half of the SPL would make more money in the English system than in the SPL.

You keep saying there's no corporate support with nothing to back that up. Every one of the MTS Centre's 50 boxes is spoken for at AHL games, and there's a long waiting list.

I realize that, but the costs are different. You're looking at triple the price for the NHL (currently they run for $50,000). Maybe the economic climate of Winnipeg can support that, I don't know.
I've been reading up over the last few days on HFboards about the potential in Winnipeg. It's a really interesting and smart discussion and if you have time to go through all 28 pages, it's really good. http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=640857

I think from reading that thread there are concerns but they're in a pretty good spot compared to some of the US teams. My main concern is the dollar. We saw what happened in the 90s and I can't help but fear that a similar situation could occur with or without a cap.

With a 90+ cent dollar and the current salary cap system, I think teams in Winnipeg and Quebec City with a good enough arena would prosper. A second GTA team is probably inevitable, and even a third could work in theory (i.e. one new team in Toronto, one in Hamilton).

As for Celtic and Rangers, they had preliminary talks with the Premier League a few years ago, and one rumour was that they were told to apply to join the league formerly known as the Second Division (which then became the First Division and is now called The Championship -- gotta love marketing stupidity), and then earn promotion to the Premiership.

More recently, they were shot down by the Premier League only a month ago:

The Celtic/Rangers issue is really interesting. Their attendance figures are rather huge (57k for Celtic and 49k for Rangers) and they'd have the 3rd and 4th best attendance figures in the EPL (and look at who they play now compared to who they would play in the EPL...). Their valuations according to Forbes put them in the top 25 in Europe ($218m for Celtic and $194m for Rangers) and that would immediately put them in the top ten in England. I see this being a money issue and a fear for at least everyone but the top 6 or 7 clubs that their place in the EPL could be lost to Celtic and Rangers. If I'm Man U, Liverpool, Arsenal or Chelsea, I want Rangers and Celtic in my league because they would bring in far more money than the Burnleys and Wigans of English football.

I think there's a bit of a double standard too, since the English league allows Cardiff and Swansea to play in the English system. Ya, it goes back over a hundred years, but it still seems a bit strange to allow one and not the other.

 

[GenerationW]

If I'm Man U, Liverpool, Arsenal or Chelsea, I want Rangers and Celtic in my league because they would bring in far more money than the Burnleys and Wigans of English football.

The Premiership as a whole isn't hurting for money, but if I'm one of those clubs, why reduce my chances of qualifying for the golden goose that is the Champions League? It's already going to be tougher now that Man City is spending like mad.

As for the future, Newcastle and sleeping giant Nottingham Forest (and their future 50,000 seat stadium) could both be promoted to the top flight next spring. Leeds, another sleeping giant languishing two divisions down below, has recovered from financial meltdown and will be back in the Premier League sooner rather than later. Sunderland, Liverpool (possibly with Everton), Aston Villa, Chelsea, Sheffield Wednesday, Leeds, and many others have plans to either expand or build new stadiums, many of which will be accelerated if (when?) England gets the 2018 World Cup.

I don't believe the Premier League needs Celtic and Rangers.

 

[Translude15]

Guys, I just read through all the posts and these are all pretty interesting arguments. Just a question though:

1) I only casually follow the NFL, so I guess somebody has enough knowledge to answer this. Every NFL team sells out, or is close to selling out each of their home games. All this regardless of the team record. The Lions were at 83% capacity last year, which was the lowest in the league, yet they also had that 0-16 record. Why do NFL fans flock to games in such numbers, even if the team is playing like absolute garbage? Is it the quasi-religious factor of football in the US, or is it that ticket prices are reasonably affordable to all? Does the large amount of corporate sponsorship down there allow large corporations to buy many tickets and subsequently hand them off to multitudes of employees at a time? It's something that I've always wondered about.

Additionally, there is some ranting going on about the NHL and its struggling Southern franchises, and the merits of forming an all Canadian pro hockey league. Many Canadians bitterly resent Bettman's attempts to implement hockey in certain non-traditional markets, but I'm all for his attempts to try and integrate hockey into the mainstream American sporting market.

I am a firm believer of this theory, and this has been shot down by many, but eventually the US will be spitting out hockey talent on par with our Canadian players, and at the same rate. It will take time and patience to see any legitimate results, but I am already seeing various instances of good American players sprouting up from non-traditional markets. Emerson Etem is a highly touted prospect with the Medicine Hat Tigers and he's from Long Beach, California. Sure he's being developed within Canada, but as time progresses, we will eventually see more established American developmental leagues. They have the population base and the money to allow such things to come into fruition. People are going to be all over me for saying such blasphemous things, I know, but it's only a matter of time until an American Crosby/Ovechkin-esque player comes along. Once that happens, the hockey boom will begin in the good ol' US of A. Just my prediction.

 

[jn_12]

The Premiership as a whole isn't hurting for money, but if I'm one of those clubs, why reduce my chances of qualifying for the golden goose that is the Champions League? It's already going to be tougher now that Man City is spending like mad.

As for the future, Newcastle and sleeping giant Nottingham Forest (and their future 50,000 seat stadium) could both be promoted to the top flight next spring. Leeds, another sleeping giant languishing two divisions down below, has recovered from financial meltdown and will be back in the Premier League sooner rather than later. Sunderland, Liverpool (possibly with Everton), Aston Villa, Chelsea, Sheffield Wednesday, Leeds, and many others have plans to either expand or build new stadiums, many of which will be accelerated if (when?) England gets the 2018 World Cup.

I don't believe the Premier League needs Celtic and Rangers.

Good points. I didn't consider the CL berths. I wonder if Celtic and Rangers feel as though they'd make more just being in the EPL than being guaranteed their spots in the CL (since the top Scottish club gets into the group stage and 2nd place gets into the 3rd round of qualifying and is guaranteed to play in either the CL or Europa league). I agree that the money in the EPL is outstanding and that there are a number of clubs on the outskirts looking in who can throw their weight around as well. But still, Rangers and Celtic are in the top 25 of club value and you have to think it'd be even higher if they were considered "English" clubs. I'd put them in a tier right below the big 4 and either on par or just ahead of clubs like Everton, Spurs, Man City (mind you, they could join the big 4 soon). I don't know what the economic significance of Rangers/Celtic replacing the West Broms and Wigans would be, though i can only assume it would make the EPL an even stronger product. But it's all hypothetical right?

Guys, I just read through all the posts and these are all pretty interesting arguments. Just a question though:

1) I only casually follow the NFL, so I guess somebody has enough knowledge to answer this. Every NFL team sells out, or is close to selling out each of their home games. All this regardless of the team record. The Lions were at 83% capacity last year, which was the lowest in the league, yet they also had that 0-16 record. Why do NFL fans flock to games in such numbers, even if the team is playing like absolute garbage? Is it the quasi-religious factor of football in the US, or is it that ticket prices are reasonably affordable to all? Does the large amount of corporate sponsorship down there allow large corporations to buy many tickets and subsequently hand them off to multitudes of employees at a time? It's something that I've always wondered about.

Additionally, there is some ranting going on about the NHL and its struggling Southern franchises, and the merits of forming an all Canadian pro hockey league. Many Canadians bitterly resent Bettman's attempts to implement hockey in certain non-traditional markets, but I'm all for his attempts to try and integrate hockey into the mainstream American sporting market.

I am a firm believer of this theory, and this has been shot down by many, but eventually the US will be spitting out hockey talent on par with our Canadian players, and at the same rate. It will take time and patience to see any legitimate results, but I am already seeing various instances of good American players sprouting up from non-traditional markets. Emerson Etem is a highly touted prospect with the Medicine Hat Tigers and he's from Long Beach, California. Sure he's being developed within Canada, but as time progresses, we will eventually see more established American developmental leagues. They have the population base and the money to allow such things to come into fruition. People are going to be all over me for saying such blasphemous things, I know, but it's only a matter of time until an American Crosby/Ovechkin-esque player comes along. Once that happens, the hockey boom will begin in the good ol' US of A. Just my prediction.

1. Re: the NFL. It's a couple things. It's a social and cultural phenomenon. Tailgating is a big part of it and since it's only 8 games per year, the tickets seem relatively cheap. I think the quality of the team plays a part in how many people show up, but we'll never see anything on par with what is happening in the NHL. Also, people are really unlikely to give up seasons tickets because once you give them up, you're out of luck. Depending on the team, you might be facing a large waitlist for tickets. And since teams can turn it around pretty quickly in the NFL you would never want to give up tickets when things are at an all time low (it can only get better). My Dad is a season ticket holder for the Bills and goes to every game because whether they win or lose he's a fan and he enjoys the social aspect of it.

One thing I hate is the mentality that you should only support a winner. It's very North American. There are hundreds of soccer teams who have never had a sniff at a trophy, or they celebrate cup wins from 50 years ago, but every week people keep showing up and are incredibly passionate about their team. That's how things should be.

2. re: US hockey.
The US had its huge influx of star players in the 90s. That was about as big as it could get I think for hockey's popularity. There's a famous article from Sport Illustrated in 94 called "Why the NHL's hot and the NBA's not" that outlined why hockey was on its way to becoming a huge (which obviously never really happened). When Gretzky went to LA and guys like Hull, Roenick, Chelios, Leetch, Modano, etc were all coming into their prime in the 90s (combined with the US World Cup win in 96) it coincided with a huge influx of American youth to the game. I know all it takes is one guy to become a Crosby or Ovechkin, but in Canada and Russia many of the top athletes gravitate towards hockey. In the US, you have competition with 3 other sports that are ingrained in the national culture.

Also, having played against a lot of American teams, American youth hockey at the highest level is far more expensive than ours. you're talking $10-15,000 per year to play for a team like Detroit Honeybaked or Detroit Compuware organizations. So if a kid has talent and wants to learn from the best coaches and play the best competition, it's an insane cost, which makes it harder for raw talents to break through. Playing AAA in Welland, it cost my parents $5,000/year for me to play when everything gets tallied up. That doesn't include the time taken off of work to go to tournaments and other random expenses (all those Tim Hortons coffees at 5am add up!). So it's an incredibly taxing sport, maybe more so than any other.

Plus there's the coaching. The American system isn't as sophisticated as ours. Junior leagues are few and far between and don't come close to anything we have here. Guys make huge strides between 13-18 and it's important that players at that age are getting the right coaching and right training if they want to be elite players. I played on a summer hockey team out of Toronto from when I was 13 to 16 and we had a few kids that would drive up from Detroit for practices and tournaments simply because of the quality of coaching and training we had as well as the quality of players that we played with.

Do I think one guy could get as good as Crosby and Ovechkin. ya I do. But I don't think they'll ever come close to creating the depth we have. We develop so many good players because of the system we have, because all of our top athletes play hockey and we have a system that no one is even close to, nor does anyone else have the resources to copy.