PFT Mailbag: Does the NFL have a future in Canada?
Mike Florio opens up the mailbag, where he dives into the idea of jersey patches and field sponsors, why the NFL hasn't returned to Canada, if players should exchange 18 games for all-grass fields and more.
Video Transcript
All right.
I'm moving fairly quickly today just because there isn't a whole lot to cover, and we're getting started late.
I wanna get the video done and get it posted for those of you who have been waiting patiently for it, or otherwise, as the day has unfolded.
Let's answer a few questions before we wrap it up.
Now, this is where it's gonna get tricky because I've got an issue with my return.
So what I'll ask Kristen to do, if she can, is just text me each question as we get ready to do it, or flag the ones that I sent.
How about that?
Give me a thumbs up.
Give me a thumbs up through our text chain on each of the questions I sent, and I'll do those first.
There it is.
There it is.
There's the thumbs up.
From CD's Country Pickins, "Are jersey patches or field sponsors a realistic outcome for the next NFL CBA?
It feels like it'd be an easy bargaining chip for the players."
This gets into an interesting philosophy.
What the players could say to the NFL, especially if the NFL is thinking about reducing the extent to which the money is shared by the league and by the players under this argument that expenses have gone up, we need to keep a bigger piece of the pie.
You're still gonna make plenty of money because the pie keeps getting bigger, but we've got all these operational costs.
It would be very reasonable for the players to say to the league, "You've left meat on the bone.
You have other ways to generate revenue that we could share that you are choosing not to do."
And as it relates to the uniform, the only ad that's ever been on the NFL uniform is the logo of the company that makes the jersey or the pants.
I think you see a swoosh from Nike on the pants.
You definitely see it on the jersey.
The shoe deals, you'll see the logos of the officially licensed NFL shoe providers, the gloves.
Those are the only ads we've seen.
And at a time when-- and I've been meaning to write this at PFT.
I've seen enough scattered reports about what the college teams are doing.
It's gonna look like the NASCAR jumpsuit that the driver wears.
You got logos here, you got logos there, you got ads that are gonna infiltrate the top.
We've seen for years the logo patches on the practice jerseys for teams.
They've been allowed to sell those.
Would the NFL cross that river?
Would they cross that line?
People would be upset, but you know what?
They were upset when they started selling naming rights to stadiums.
They'll be upset if all of a sudden the jerseys are infiltrated with ads.
But when you think about the viewpoint that we see I'm not advocating for it.
I'm not saying I would like it.
I'm just answering the question, 'cause it's a reasonable position for the union to take.
The teams could make more money that we could all share if we transform a portion of our uniforms into mini billboards.
There's money to be made.
When you think about watching a game on TV, think about that shot that we see, the default broadcast shot before a play and during a play.
It's not gonna affect how it looks if there's a patch on the upper right-hand corner or the upper left-hand corner or both of the player's jersey.
They get patches on there all the time that are Super Bowl or the captain's patch, whatever it may be.
It's not going to affect the vast majority of what we see on TV.
We're only gonna see it after the play when they show guys going back to the huddle or when they have a close-up of a replay.
It's not gonna change all that much.
It is something that fans won't be happy with, but it really won't change all that much.
Now, superimposing logos on the field, they've done that in the preseason.
Is there a way to have a little sponsor logo on the line to gain, the yellow line?
There's ways they could discreetly do it.
We know the technology's there to do all sorts of stuff, and when you watch other sports look at FIFA.
There's nothing on the pitch but that ribbon all around the field.
Lotta ads on there.
It makes you think of a basketball game, baseball, or hockey, where in the field of vision, there's some sort of an advertisement.
That is a potential moneymaker, and we know the NFL's the hottest property.
Think about what they could make if they wanted to do it.
I think it's a good way for the players to push back if the league is gonna cry poor mouth, if the league is gonna say, "Well, you know, we're having a hard time running the business here.
We're paying you too much.
We're not making the kind of profit that we'd like to make."
And then out come the Green Bay Packers annual financial report, and we see how much profit the teams make.
But it's one thing to turn a profit.
It's one thing to turn the kind of profit that they think they should be turning, especially the kind of profit that will support these ridiculous valuations now that are going north of ten billion dollars.
So, hey, as a fan, I wouldn't like it.
Most fans wouldn't like it.
But gets back to the point I made as it relates to turf versus grass.
No one's gonna boycott watching a game on TV because it's played on turf.
No one is gonna stop watching NFL games because there are ads on the jerseys.
And I suspect if the NFL were doing it all over again in that Hupmobile dealership 105 years ago- One of the things they would have done from the get-go is just put ads all over the uniform and just make it part of the normal viewing of the game.
Look at soccer.
They all got a big ad on the front of their jerseys.
Nobody says boo about it.
So one of these days it's going to happen.
And to the extent that the NFL is going to try to say to the players, we're paying you too much money, I think it's more than fair for the players to say, well, why not go make more money?
Why not go do that thing, sell that space?
They do it with the headsets that the coaches wear.
We see shots of those after plays.
Now, the manufacturer of the headset is the ad that we see.
See, that's the thing.
It's crossing the line between the name of the company that makes the thing that we see and some other company that just happens to be encroaching on that space.
But I feel like it's a matter of time.
And I think it would be a fair position for the league to take.
Next up, from Kyle Schrader.
With the NFL doing all these games overseas, I'm surprised they haven't gone back to Canada.
I know the Bills played preseason games in Toronto a couple of times a few years back.
Why are they not getting Canada involved in the international stuff?
They're doing it with Mexico.
The Bills actually played some regular season games in Toronto.
There was a period of time while Ralph Wilson was still alive that the Bills would play a game in Toronto.
And I think it was just one.
And the idea is let's regionalize the fan base.
Let's pull in Toronto to make them part of the Buffalo fan base.
So we play a game there to strengthen that bond.
They stopped doing it because I don't think it was making enough money.
Because you're giving up a home game in Buffalo and you're trading it for a home game in Toronto.
It doesn't make sense to do it if you make more from staging that home game in your home.
And with that swanky new stadium, they're not going to want to give up home games to Canada or anywhere.
It is strange, though, when you think about it.
All these different markets that the NFL is exploring internationally and Mexico and North America, and they haven't gone back to Canada.
I think that they believe they've already saturated the Canadian market to the extent that they're going to and that playing games in Canada won't move the needle and it won't be part of this broader effort to globalize football.
See, the goal is to globalize football.
Canada's already got the CFL.
Canada's already got their football fans.
They're not infiltrating some new market that is foreign to the game and trying to convert people into football fans.
So I think that's the easy answer to the question.
They didn't make enough money on the Toronto series in Buffalo, and they're much farther along with getting Canadian NFL fans than they are in other countries.
Next up, this comes another one from CD's Country Pickens.
If you could have worked on any major NFL-related case over the years, which one would you have chosen and why?
And I don't want to fall victim to recency bias here, but I've spoken at length about the Brian Flores case.
I think it was just yesterday I talked about how it's really the only way to affect real change when it comes to the chronic issues that the NFL has faced as it relates to the hiring of minority candidates for the biggest jobs in the sport.
I'd kind of like to be involved in the Flores case.
If I had to pick one, I had to pick one.
Now, this is going to take a lot of work.
It's fun to go to trial.
But, you know, it reminds me of what did Mickey say to Rocky?
You got a 45-minute fight.
And for each minute, you got to train a thousand minutes.
You got to train 45,000 minutes to get ready for a 45-minute fight.
When you're getting a major complicated piece of civil litigation ready for trial, it is a shitload of work.
And the case is won or lost in how well you work it up and the kind of evidence that you discover, especially an employment case.
Because the party line is going to be, we didn't do anything wrong.
You're going to have to prove through circumstantial evidence, aggressive questioning of witnesses, examination of documents.
And here's how it works.
You get a stack of documents three feet high.
And there will be a needle somewhere in the haystack.
You got to read every page.
And you got to stay awake and alert and vigilant.
And you got to kiss a lot of frogs.
And there's no guarantee there's even a needle in that haystack.
But that's just an example of how cumbersome and boring and mundane the preparation process is before you get to trial.
Now, you get a big firm.
You get a lot of new associates who are the ones who have to do it.
But there's risk in that, too, because they may not know how important that document is.
And if the person who is given the assignment to review thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of documents, they don't spot that needle in the haystack that could change everything, you've blown your opportunity.
So there is a lot of careful, detailed, important work that gets done in getting the case ready for trial.
So, yeah, I'd like to be involved in it.
But at the same time, it makes me remember why I'm glad I don't do that anymore.
Every once in a while, there'll be news about the legal profession, especially as it relates to the amount of fees that change hands.
More than $12 million was paid by Michigan for an investigation that followed the firing of Sharon Moore.
It's a good business.
But there's a lot of grunt work, there's a lot of busy work, and there's a lot of work that you're gonna be drinking a lot of coffee to stay alert.
So you find that one thing, but boy-- let me tell you something, when you find that one document, when you find that one page, and maybe somebody scribbled something in the margin, that It can be that simple.
There, there was a case that I was involved in 33 years ago, and it was a commercial dispute between a couple of companies, kinda dry, kinda boring.
But there was one document, and the document itself was helpful.
But what made it more helpful is somebody from the other side in the case had written the word lethal in the margin.
And once you see that word lethal, man, that just that makes it interesting because then you get a whole separate skirmish over why, how, who put the word lethal in the document.
And s- sometimes the whole case can come down to that.
If you can convince the jury as to what your interpretation of lethal is, that that's the right way to look at it, that's, that's the domino that sends everything in motion.
So yeah, in theory, that's the case I'd wanna work on.
But the more I think about the amount of work it's gonna take for the firm representing Brian Flores, Steve Wilks, and Ray Horton, I wouldn't wanna be doing that 'cause it's gonna be a lot of work, and there's gonna be a ton of effort that is put into looking for that little comment, whatever it is, that, that extra word in a text message.
I, I remember my wife worked on a case once where it all came down to what someone meant when they said the word recant.
The person meant to say recount, but it came out recant, and that became the centerpiece of the whole case.
So my point is, it's a ton of work, and that work's very important because the case is gonna turn on whether or not you can find that needle in the haystack.
That needle may not even be in the haystack.
Now, I got a feeling, I got a feeling there's gonna be plenty of needles in the haystack that is the NFL's defense in the Flores case, and a lot of the great evidence is gonna come from questioning owners and the commissioner under oath.
But my point is, sounds good, sounds interesting, sounds juicy, sounds like a challenge.
Ton of work.
Next up, this one is from Brandon Elkins: "As a Packers fan, I think your idea of the corporation dissolving and being bought by an owner is an interesting one.
What are other ways the team could grow competitive revenue without pressing the red button and dissolving?"
Well, and to the extent that any Packers fans don't like the idea of the corporation dissolving and the stock that they own, which is already worthless, becoming equally worthless when a new owner buys it because the stock is worthless.
The stock is a piece of memorabilia.
It's a creative way to raise money.
You buy a piece of stock, you're an owner in the team, and you can't do a damn thing with it.
You can't sell it.
It doesn't appreciate.
It gets you a ticket to the shareholder meeting every year.
The easiest way to raise revenue is raise ticket prices.
You've got a waiting list that stretches into the decades.
It's supply and demand.
And we know what happens with the tickets that are sold at face value.
What happens?
They get resold at a higher value.
You know, all the criticism of FIFA and its system, and I know that there are real questions about it, and the New Jersey attorney general's looking into it, but why should someone else make the premium that attaches to the value of that ticket?
It's supply and demand.
So if you're just selling the tickets for, to keep it simple, $100, and someone's turning around and selling it for $500, why aren't you just selling it for $500 in the first place?
So raising the price of tickets, and to the extent that it causes that waiting list to shrink, so be it.
Supply and demand.
The demand for tickets far outweighs the supply to the tune of this, this, what is it, 70 years, something ridiculous like that waiting list.
And the other thing is, I hate PSLs, but it's just another way to raise money.
You gotta come up with other ways to raise, to raise revenue because you can't sell 10% of the team at a $12 billion valuation and walk away with $1.2 billion that you can use to fund whatever it is you're trying to do as a team.
So there are ways to do it.
There are ways to do it, and at some point they may have to do that if they wanna be financially competitive in a small market.
All right, couple more.
Tad Funderment: "Would it be a win-win for the owners and the players to commit to all grass fields in exchange for the 18th game each year, or is that too much to give up just for grass fields for the players?"
It's too much to give up.
Somebody was asking me the other day, I think it was an email I got, what should the players ask for in exchange for 18 games?
And it was a very thoughtful, creative, should they ask for this?
Should they ask for this?
Should they ask for this?
Should they ask for this?
And my response was, "Here's what they should ask for: money, money- Money and money.
The other stuff doesn't matter.
If they want you to play another game, you want more money for the players.
You want more money available in the fund that determines the salary cap and the salary floor.
That's it.
And if they ever would sit down at the table and negotiate putting in all grass fields, I guarantee you the NFL is going to say, "Here's our estimate of what it would cost to retrofit stadiums.
Here's our estimate of what it would cost in lost revenue for the stadiums we can't retrofit and therefore can't have any other events all year long because we got to protect the grass."
It's one of the things they can do at Lambeau Field, have more events, but they protect the grass.
You're going to protect the grass, you're going to miss out on other opportunities to make money.
And so the NFL would come up with the biggest possible number that would be presented to the players, divide it by two, and say, "Here's your bill for all grass fields."
This money is going to cost us to ensure that you have all grass all the time.
Here's how it affects the bottom line.
And I do not believe the players are going to have the appetite to give up that money.
You can prefer grass all you want.
When you got to pay for grass, that's a different issue.
One last point on the grass too before I move on.
The big unveiling of the renderings of the new Chiefs stadium.
I noticed last night of all the stuff that's in there, transparent surface that will allow for military flyovers, all the other bells and whistles they're going to have at the new Chiefs stadium, didn't address whether or not it's going to be grass or turf.
And the Chiefs are one of the teams currently playing on grass.
So I reached out to the Chiefs.
The Chiefs said no decision's been made, but the Chiefs prefer grass.
They prefer grass, but when they get the bill for what the grass is going to cost and when they're going to have to pay for some of it or a lot of it or all of it, the preference may change.
So right now it's 16-16 grass and turf.
Chiefs go indoors, a grass field may turn to a turf field.
Bears go indoors, grass may go to turf.
Browns are going indoors.
I assume grass is going to turf there.
I'm going to have to look that up.
I'm going to have to add that to my list of things to research.
So it's a PR issue.
It's not a CBA issue.
And as I've suggested, if the union really wants to put pressure on teams, you put it on teams one at a time.
And hey, I've said pressure the new ownership in Seattle as they come through the door.
You want to take care of the players, rip up the artificial turf and put in grass.
From the Chiefs' perspective, probably a good idea for the NFLPA to start applying pressure to Kansas and to the Chiefs.
We want grass.
We want a retractable field like they have in Arizona and Las Vegas if you want to do that.
Or you want to put in a system like they have at Real Madrid and put that grass field underground and take care of it down there.
And the other side of this too, because I've seen this pushback.
Well, it's one thing to say we want grass, but what's it going to be like in December?
It's part of the investment.
They can do it at Lambeau Field without an issue.
Philadelphia, we never hear any peep about the grass at Lincoln Financial Field being anything other than perfect.
And they're in all climates.
Other side of the state, what did they have 20 years ago?
Remember the game between the Dolphins and the Steelers on the Monday night, Mike Tirico in the booth?
The punt that didn't bounce?
That's how bad that field was.
And right now, the field was so bad in Pittsburgh, they had to put in a new grass field.
And apparently, if that doesn't work out, turf is an option.
It's not just grass.
Not all grass fields are created equal.
If you have a grass field that's a mess in November and December and January, you're not paying enough to have the right grass and to take care of it.
If they can do it in Green Bay, if they can do it in Philadelphia, they can do it anywhere.
All right, last question.
This is the most important question I think that we've had in the six-week run of PFT PM from Zachary Barnett.
You get one sandwich to eat for the rest of your life.
You can eat other foods, but what is the one sandwich you would choose?
And I got to go all the way back to square one.
I have rediscovered the peanut butter and jelly sandwich, not this prepackaged uncrustable or whatever.
No.
You get out the bread.
You get out the peanut butter of your choosing, smooth or chunky, whatever quality, however expensive you want the peanut butter to be.
You get your jelly, whatever flavor it may be.
Put the peanut butter on one side, the jelly on the other side, slap it together.
I've been eating that for lunch like every day for the last month.
Now, my taste will probably change at some point, but man, there is I had one before I came up here.
I got home from the physical and the visit with the doctor for the back problem.
It's like, you know, I'm really hungry.
All I had was a protein bar after my physical because that's the thing about getting the physical, you get the blood work, you got to go like 12 hours and you can't have anything but water.
So I was hungry then, starving when I got home, peanut butter and jelly sandwich.
Still kind of hungry.
May eat another one.
So yeah, before the last month or so, I probably would have had to think about that one.
Maybe turkey.
I don't know.
Is a hot dog a sandwich?
I don't know.
Peanut butter and jelly.
And again, not this prefabbed PB&J.
It is the one It is the first thing that we all learn how to make, isn't it?
Toast and peanut butter and jelly.
Coincidentally, that is the extent of my culinary range at age 61.
