What is the recipe for a successful startup football league in your opinion? Beyond the obvious — money.

The single most important element you need to have is something that will draw a TV audience. Great quality football is not enough of a draw, as the UFL proved. Fans can get good quality football on TV in the fall from the NFL. So you need a hook....something that your start-up league has that the NFL doesn't. Crazy rules...Play at a different time of the year...Co-Ed teams...it's got to be different. Small markets will embrace a good start-up league featuring good players, but not enough people across the country will watch Des Moines vs. Spokane to make it viable, unless there is something different about the game-play or the time of year it is played.

I completely agree with a need to play in the spring after my own experience with the UFL.

I agree on more than just good football. I don't think football fans want too many "crazy" rules - the UFL did the just right amount of tweaking (OT rules, intentional grounding). There can be a good mix of big markets (NY, CHI, LA) and smaller non-NFL markets (HAR, ORL, SAC, R-D, etc.). Of course, this would have to be a spring league.

I agree that real football fans don't want many crazy rules...but my point is that TV revenue is critical to the recipe, and to attract a TV audience it takes more than just good football if you are playing at the same time as the NFL.
I like Dusty's idea of mixing big markets and smaller markets...but why would a league agree to that? Large NFL markets would probably support a Spring team. So why would the league take the hit on TV market size by putting teams in smaller markets? Maybe if the league was NFL-affiliated and the NFL wanted to spread their footprint. But a true start-up league would want as many TV viewers as possible, especially at the beginning...no?

I agree with everything that has been said. I think most importantly they need to have in addition to the Money, the "design" and the markets they need a powerful, aggressive marketing campaign on every form of media. The thing in my mind that screwed the UFL was the complete lack of marketing. Very few (relative to other sports) knew about the UFL. Sure the ones that knew in some markets(Omaha, Sactown,VA) became very loyal fans. In other markets(NY, FL, SF) there was next to nothing. In major markets like NY and SF you have to fill the air with marketing to get any traction, in LV even more so. Not only look for the locals, but anyone that's on the strip.who might be interested in some solid football.

One of the problems is that UFL marketing was largely traditional due to time. We could have/should have found ways to take communities of passion and leverage them to make a difference. I believe that we were well on our way to doing so after 2010 until financial difficulties hit.

Unless you have XFL money you have to avoid traditional advertising as a cure all.

Take a look at my proposed USFL 2013 league (since they won't start until 2014). It is in the spring. Pluses, minuses, everything inbetween - let's talk!

EASTERN DIVISION - Hartford Knights, New York Empire, Orlando Waves and Raleigh-Durham Pilots.
WESTERN DIVISION - Chicago Blitz, Los Angeles Express, Portland Breakers and Sacramento Rivermen.

This combines the top 3 TV markets in the US with the top 5 TV markets currently without an NFL team.

I love your league Dusty, but again, why would they put a team in Hartford or R-D if they could put one in Dallas and Philly? I don't see the motivation for a new league to start in such small markets in the spring...maybe down the line during expansion.

Honestly, I think the best chance a spring league will have is if it has the NFL brand name on it. The NFL should create its own Spring developmental league in a mix of major markets and smaller non-NFL markets. People would be drawn to something that was produced by the NFL.

Personally, I think the AAFL was a pretty good idea because it was tapping into existing college fan bases. However, that league was missing "the obvious"...money.

Steve, a new league can't simply rely on established NFL markets. One of the big reasons the original USFL worked was being able to draw in non-NFL markets like Birmingham, Memphis, Oakland (at the time), Jacksonville, etc. My proposed league strikes the right balance of both. Not sure the actual new USFL will have that balance, but markets starved for professional football and have been known to support it is the way to go.

Not to be contrary Dusty, but why CAN'T they rely on the established NFL markets, which also happen to be the largest TV markets? I'm not hearing from you the reason it makes sense to have non-NFL markets right out of the gate.
Is it because it will give the new league an identity of it's own?
Because I think a well run spring league in major markets could be seen as "major league"...but when folks see a match-up of Birmingham vs. Hartford, they are going to think "minor-league." So to establish a major league image, maybe you start with major league cities and expand from there. I could see having non-NFL major league towns like Los Angeles, Portland, Toronto, etc.

The reason is an alternative football league can't do well if it bills itself as a copy of the NFL, because it won't be. And I was just 8 at the time, but I don't remember seeing in my research where the thought of a late-season Birmingham Stallions-Memphis Showboats 1985 game was anything but important for the playoffs, and not "minor league."

And, in my proposed league, you still have 8 of the top 35-40 US media markets. As for international expansion, I could see a move to, say, Windsor or the Maritimes in Canada, or Mexico City.

Steve, some of your most loyal fans will come out of the mid-sized markets and many of the larger markets are already saturated with not just the NFL but other professional sports. People only have so much money to spend on tickets and merchandise. Tapping a few markets untapped by the NFL is not a bad idea.

You have to strike the balance between major markets, which are expensive and crowded, and markets that are untapped. I would eliminate most markets which have MLB, NBA + NHL with a few obvious exceptions.

Patience is one essential ingredient. I know I ruled out money earlier, but you have to understand that year one revenues can't pay for year two. It just won't happen. The UFL spent a lot in 2010 to try to generate enough enthusiasm to pay for 2011 and beyond.

Unfortunately that well ran dry...

I think all of your points and ideas are great but I feel the UFL will still work. And if the leagues would collaborate together, things can be more effective. Who could I talk to at the UFL and USFL to help out?

Here are my additional thoughts friends: medium.com

And a new Branch just for my op/ed: branch.com

There is nothing from the UFL failure that leads to the conclusion that alternative pro football should be played in the Spring. The UFL did prove that fans will turnout in certain cities in the Fall and that networks are interested in additional pro football in the Fall. I think this Spring talk comes from individuals are always looking for a shortcut, history has proven that there is none

I would argue that what the UFL did prove, from being on the inside, is that the market for media and television attention is quite tough. The same applies for time slots for television. Week day games were hard to sell tickets for, weekend games were tough because we were often scheduling against college football. Given the growing popularity of Thursday night games, for example, it has become even tougher to find slots.

I don't think the Wednesday and Friday night TV format of 2012 was given much of a chance .(4 weeks). but in the original concept of the UFL Friday night was the additional night for pro football. I think that still holds water. You will find that in the Spring you will find the same problem as a new league would try to compete with other sports. Even the USFL disappeared during March Madness and this event was not anything close to what it is today.

This part of the argument boils down to this - do you want to compete with college basketball, the NBA, the NHL and baseball (spring/summer) or do you want to compete with more football (fall)? In reality, in the fall, you are competing against yourself in some ways when going against more football.

Compete against yourself ? No I would say that you are trying to be part of the football landscape. Are there legitimate markets that don't have pro football and can support it , yes. Is football the most popular sport , yes. The struggle is to make yourself a legitimate member of the football landscape , the UFL failed in doing this not because of the lack of demand or a bad product. but by their own incompetence. The enthusiasm that was witnessed at times, just proves that a better business organization would of gone far.

I agree, Andy, that the UFL could have worked. Despite long odds we came close multiple times, but the landscape was incredibly difficult. We ran into far more scheduling issues, time slot issues and media coverage issues than we would have in the spring.

And that is the point - while football was made to be played in the fall, as Donald Trump so abruptly said in the mid-1980s vis a vie the USFL, alternative football works better logistically (scheduling, TV, attention) in the spring. One thing Nation and I have discussed many times is this - would you have gotten the same high-quality players in the spring as you did with the UFL in the fall? There's no chance any spring league would get the first-round rookies and Heisman Trophy winners the USFL did, but would the player quality still be good enough?

@ Nation. That is to say that the resolution of these "key" issues is the road to success. Then the XFL had it all, one major network a couple of lesser networks. Great time slots Saturday nights, Sunday afternoon and Sunday nights. But it lasted only one season.

@Andy. I think you're making a good point that a better organization may have found success in the Fall. UFL marketing was very poor, and you can not expect people to buy a product they do not know exists. Investing in San Francisco and New York in season one was a waste of money and effort because those markets gained absolutely no traction. The uniforms in season one looked like I vomited on myself. No one wanted to buy them.

Despite that, my vote is for a well-marketed Spring league with solid financial backing. Because, as a consumer, my demand for more football is in the Spring and not the Summer. I do not need more football in the Fall. Hail to the Redskins!

*Spring not the Fall.

And you are in that very small group of consumers that want football played in the Spring. Other than alternative league freaks, there isn't any demand.

This is the crux of the discussion right here. Leagues like the old USFL, WLAF, XFL and Arena Football prove there is some market in the spring/summer for professional football. And it is more than just "freaks." To say that only alternative league "freaks" would want to see something like the new USFL or SPFL or whatever in the spring of 2014 is, at least, a little disingenuous.

I think that you are off base, Andy. If you look at XFL ratings and attendance you could argue that they would have lasted longer without the NBC deal due to the expectations that it brought to them. I am actually convinced that more of a market exists in the spring after my two years with the UFL than I am that a market exists in the fall.

I think you are all wrong, sometimes when we get into a group and a very small one at that . We begin to think that the whole world is with us.
The XFL failed because of a lack of demand for Spring football, while NBC should of not been part of the package the other lesser networks did not think it was that great either. You can continue to come up with excuses about why Spring football has failed but you can't deny history.

The XFL failed because a) the quality of football wasn't high enough to keep the many people who were interested because of the hype engaged and b) it was more pro wrestling-like than football.

Spring football worked when the product was good. The USFL worked - it was destroyed from within and the goals were changed to something impossible (competing with the NFL).

And, for the record, I don't live in a bubble and don't think everyone agrees with me. What I do think is enough people ("freaks," if you will) agree with me that an alternative pro football league in the spring can work - if all the stars align properly.

And what type of Spring league will we have today. A low budget league trying to build it's niche. That is low quality football. The USFL didn't work from the beginning . It's big crowds in some markets and good TV ratings was because they outbid the NFL for stars. This type of league will never happen again.

Andy, no alternative league has proven there is a strong market for more football in America, in any season, since the 1960's (when America was far less saturated with pro sports). I think the only chance an alternative football league has to turn a reasonable profit is to spend big on marketing and product (i.e., known players) and have the financial backing to deal with big losses early. You get what you pay for. If it is not feasible to invest in some star players, than I do not think an alternative league (independent of the NFL) is financially sustainable long term. I think the only way a developmental football league works is if it is owned by an organization like the NFL that can afford to take losses or break even every year.

The product was very good in 2010.If that can be duplicated with more financial backing , with more teams and the right markets, then that is what will work. You will always get good players at a reasonable price if after a short season you are able to move on to the NFL. This can only be done in the Fall. Ultimately when we look back at who contributed what. We will look at the UFL. I do agree that the NFL would need to be involved to a certain degree, including financially for a the league long term success. It might be crazy sounding that another Fall league would replace the one that just failed. But really these current proposed Spring leagues are in route to what happened to the AAFL.

Maybe the product was so good in 2010 because the UFL was spending money they didn't have. Not sure the small markets can support that level of product we saw in 2010.

@Andy. Perception is reality. Many consumers did not perceive the UFL's talent pool as a good one, so they did not give the UFL a chance. Your players sell your product.

Not exactly. In the case of the UFL so few people watched that fans didn't have any perception at all . @ Steve, yes they were spending money they that didn't have , that was the problem.,the quality began to go down when they stopped paying their bills.Players will jump at the chance at the opportunity to showcase themselves (for the NFL) , but if they are not getting paid , then economic questions pop up. Mid -level markets(NBA type cities) can support a UFL , smaller markets I doubt it.

I actually believe players are playing for the opportunity more than the money which is why any league with a solid exposure/television deal, solid financing and six-eight teams will find good players whether in the spring or fall. AndyG, I am not sure where the anti-spring fervor came from, but I lived the UFL and I am confident of better chances in the spring.

I call it looking for a shortcut and wishful thinking.

Given that the USFL, WLAF and XFL outdrew the UFL I would love to know what you are basing it on. With all due respect, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

Hey guys, thanks for allowing me into the conversation and I hope you don't mind me throwing in my $0.02. I think one of the less appreciated concepts behind getting media attention and luring in the fans would be the need for inexpensive name players. I know there's been a lot of speculation about what their actual salaries were, but you can't deny the UFL had its most media attention and highest attendance numbers when they had NFL name players on the field. I would have to agree with the previous sentiment that most players come to the league looking for exposure rather than salary, which is why the league should have originally offered much smaller salaries to the majority of men in the league. $25k for 8 weeks of outdoor ball...

...tops $20k for 18 weeks of Arena ball. Not to mention the simple fact that playing in a league with conventional rules will prevent some scouts from writing you off. As far as the fall v. the spring, I've always belonged to the camp that believed an alternative league in the spring could and should be the most logical placement. However, and forgive me if I am mistaken, did the UFL not advertise some type of survey data that showed an overwhelming demand for alternative football in the fall? I see the advantages for both sides. By the time the fall comes around, guys typically know if they are still on the NFL bubble - should they look for alternatives? Non-NFL markets are hungrier for football. There are less outdoor activities...

...keeping the fans away from the game. Omaha showed me an alternative football league can succeed in the fall.
bradwilliamsphotography.com
However, football is king. The TV ratings tell us this is evident. Why go to head with the World Series, college football, high school football, and the NFL? Football fans will not be permanently swayed away from watching their favorite college or pro football teams in exchange for a gamble on a new team. You will, however, have the opportunity to lure those same fans to your team in the spring as well as fans from baseball and basketball because of their extended schedules.

The UFL seemingly put all of their eggs in this idea that TV exposure was make or break. If someone was not willing to offer them a deal then they were still going to do whatever it took to get on the screen. Why was the UFL unable to get any offers for TV exposure? Was it bad management on the UFL's part or have the major players already made up their mind after NBC's fiasco with the XFL and Arena Football? If a TV deal won't present itself there remains a huge gap for necessary revenue to operate. I'm not sure what kind of attendance and sales figures would be needed to overcome this. I've always loved the idea of substituting television for online media. But how has this worked for the AFL and CFL?

Could a league prepare a package similar to the NFL network that would be available on your PS3 and Smart Phone? Can this compensate for the revenue lost on the lack of a TV deal? I'm looking forward to the day we find out.

Sorry if I posted too much.

i64.photobucket.com

@Dallas.

1. A low base salary for players is good. However, I don't think negotiating a higher salary for a real name player that will draw crowds and free publicity is a bad idea at all (e.g., Michael Vick when he first got out).

2. Nation would obviously know better than anyone, but I don't believe the UFL's market research regarding Spring vs. Fall was specific to an alternative league. It was basically just asking during what season consumers prefer to watch football. Obviously you will get a lean towards Fall since the NFL, NCAA, and CFL already play in the fall, and other Sports are more popular in the Spring.

3. While Omaha generated a lot of fan support for the UFL, the revenue you generate in a market as small as Omaha is finite even with a lot of support. You probably need to tap some major media markets (e.g., New York, L.A., etc.) to generate enough revenue to cover your expenses.

I believe that the real draw will be the opportunity to play football so plenty of players will be drawn to the league regardless of salary. With that said, thoughtful salary increases for name players could work. I believe that the extra money spent on Dominic Rhodes worked, while the extra money spent on Simeon Rice was a flop.

The survey showed that people associated the fall with football. It wasn't particularly compelling on spring v fall.

My guess is the UFL massaged the survey, just as the original USFL massaged its survey prior to launch to make its point. Unsurprising.

Did they massage it? Maybe. Too much research is developed with an end result in mind - which our firm is constantly trying to disrupt.

With that said, the results did show people associate football with the fall. I do not believe that the resources were conclusive on whether this meant that the league SHOULD play in the fall or not.

I think by "massage" Dusty means the same thing you are saying. The wording of a polling question can make all the difference in what results you get, and you can pick and choose what polling data to use to promote your agenda.

Any start up should expect to pay for a broadcast deal for years to come. That's just the way it works today. Look at the MLS they paid for ten years. If you don't have the financial backing to do this, then don't do it. I don't think you need to spend that much on players 20-25 K for 10 games should be enough and coaches don't put fans in the stands . Coaches should be ones that are looking for the opportunity to head coach a pro team for the first time. Not former NFL head coaches. A successful league also has to plan on 10-15k attendance figures and be able to survive with them. Attendance should not be a major revenue stream.

I am not sure what the salary figures were for guys like Garcia, Fassel, Glanville, and Culpepper. I think Culpepper and Garcia were tremendous additions that brought ESPN headlines and lured many fans to the games. Masoli, Devine, Crouch, and Rhodes are probably better examples of the low budget name additions. This is something I do believe the UFL did a superb job with, especially in 2010 and 2011. I have to agree with Andy to an extent. I think you have to accrue enough financial backing to be able to live in the red for a number of years before you are able to see a stable turnaround. I don't know if that will also require having to pay for a broadcast deal as well.

Backtracking, someone earlier mentioned how you need to have some sort of gimmick that separates you from the NFL. I read an interesting article on Yahoo today about the NFL discussing the possibility of widening their field to CFL standards. The CFL's attempt to flow stateside was a failure, but could it work today with proper management? Not only would it be something different, but I think it would give alt. league teams a better opportunity for explosive and entertaining scoring plays - something the XFL and UFL lacked in a great majority of their games for a multitude of reasons.

I always thought that if done properly the CFL US expansion could of worked? However it was carried out in a very haphazard way. Again it was a situation where it was underfunded. But at the same time there were some bright moments with some good crowds and exciting football. And yes it was football in the Fall, with some summer months added. I'm not sure if it is viable today. But, there is something to the gimmick of fast action , wide open football for a second tier league.

Did you notice that attendance in virtually every market was better in the summer, Andy?

Well if you look at it in 1995. The only market that there was a big difference was Birmingham. And Birmingham is a major college market which should be avoided. You need to re examine some of those attendance stats.
San Antonio - Drew a little better in the summer , Opening day crowd was 18K but in late late August Doug Flutie was in town and drew the biggest crowd 22K , which jacked up summer attendance. They also drew a very large crowd in late October and drew consistent crowds in September.
Balltimore drew good crowds season for two years. It did hurt when the Browns announced they were moving there, Memphis was not a great draw summer or fall. Shreveport had a terrible team never drew well in 1995.

I have spoken to a half dozen folks who worked for WLAF, the XFL and even consulted with CFL-USA in the past two months and none of them support fall football. I just tend to trust the people who have been through the trenches.

These are individuals who have had a hand in failures and continue to make the same mistake. But the most significant thing is that the only movement of capital since 2001 was the UFL and that group of capital played in the Fall. This is the only league that has got off the ground, while the Spring leagues haven't . Do you see a significant movement of individuals with money for Spring football? The answer is, no. I believe that if the UFL had been managed properly more investors would of come forward.

It is very significant that crowds came out to see alternative pro football in the Omaha ,Sacramento, Hartford and Virginia Beach especially for a poorly run league.It is also significant the two or three networks provided a space to air this product.

But instead you and others want to go for the shortcut and gimmick of Spring football and repeat the same failed endeavors of the past. And what really wacks me is that the sports landscape istotally unfavorably different today . Yet many overlook that.

While I also sit in the spring camp, the success in Omaha during that 2010 campaign is difficult to ignore. The failure down the road is also impossible to forget.
i64.photobucket.com

I don't believe spring ball is a gimmick. The Arena league has managed to stay afloat for a quarter of a century with a game most sports fan don't even recognize. If fans want to watch football in the fall they're going to watch HS, college, and NFL games Thursday thru Monday. Not only because college and pro is marketed better, but because their allegiances are already taken. By going to the spring you can corner your very own market.

Arena Football is a major gimmick. But yes this type of modified very low budget football has a proven attraction even though it struggling. I say leave Spring football to the AFL. Allegiances, what allegiances ? I'm from San Antonio we are Cowboy fans 7 to 1. But if you ask anyone , we want our own team. An alternative league has to provide the confidence that it is going to be around today, tomorrow, and the next day. You can't tell me that this empty stadium has something to day with playing in the Fall and had nothing to do with the way that this league was managed.

youtube.com

A much better view of alternative pro football in the Fall ,when things are done right. how fast we forget

Profits for Arena football leagues have been finite or non-existent. Many have come and gone. Even the established Arena Football League went bankrupt at one point and had to be restructured years later with new ownership. I do not believe that is because arena football is played in the Spring though. I believe it is because it is not the same as real football.

Andy, I must respectfully disagree. Although I've always thought of San Antonio as a prime destination for an alternative league, but I don't believe fans would give up their allegiances to a NFL or college team in order to watch a alt. league team in San Antonio. Profits for the AFL may be small, but they've obviously done something right in their ability to play for a quarter century. Arena ball may not be real football, but I believe the fact they've managed to stay afloat shows the market for spring ball. An outdoor league with "real football" using the same format and structure would bring in multiple times as many fans IMO.

As far as the Nighthawks 2010 season, it was a real blast and probably one of the most memorable moments in my life. Do I think fall ball could exist in Omaha? Probably. It'd be a little tough now because of what that organization did to the fans, but it showed me that the market does exist in some place. However, with that said the UFL's off-the-field product was still horrendous. I can say with all sincerity that a big reason that team was so successful in attendance that first year was because of fans who were not even employees of the organization who went the distance to recruit people to go to the games. This coupled with the fact they signed the most low cost name players. At least a majority of them should have been low cost.

The AFL is struggling in San Antonio because of the saturation of sports in the Spring. They are the 6th pro team playing this time of year. Don't know how long they will stay afloat. Put in a 7th , they will have no chance. San Antonio is a pro football market, without a pro football team. No one is telling anybody to switch allegiances , just expand them. And it is much easier for that to happen if less pro sports in your city are taking place. . In the Fall we have a start-up college program which draws, but this is mostly students and recent alumni and and people who watch the Dallas Cowboys on Sundays. Texas is touted as big on high School hotbed. It is only true in small cities and towns,

In San Antonio high school football would not be a major factor. Put a pro football team in the Fall and you will have a market. Put in a another minor league team in the Spring you won't. I believe San Antonio is comparable to other key cities in the Spring.