Read the debate intro and arguments from Loyal Homer and Babe Ruthless about whether or not the recently completed inaugural season of the UFL can be judged as a success.
How is success defined for the UFL? Each argument defined success differently. Loyal Homer defined success as the quality of the league as a feeder system into the NFL. Babe Ruthless defined success as long-term viability and the ability to deliver on the defined business objectives.
Loyal Homer made some valid points, especially when relaying that Graham Gano was recently signed by the Washington Redskins after a successful run in the UFL. The proximity of the UFL’s season to the NFL’s season makes connections easy. Plus, with so many former NFL people in charge of teams or playing on them, relevant connections remain alive and well for the UFL to act as a feeder system for the NFL. If judgment of success is rendered based on NFL connections and the feeder system concept alone, then it is a success.
But, ultimately, for that feeder system to remain viable the UFL must also succeed as a business. Therefore, the debate verdict is awarded to Babe Ruthless.
It is true that making money requires spending money. But, with spending projections already higher than normal – and costs set only to increase based on expansion plans and the costs of moving two franchises – it is difficult to understand how the league will correct an already accelerated spending rate. The break-even point is moving farther away, yet plans for expansion continue. This is not the recipe for success in business. It is the recipe for debt. But, there is some TARP money is left, so perhaps the UFL is angling for that.
Loyal Homer is correct that a business plan is in place. But, that does not mean it is a good business plan. It is superficial and easy to say “better marketing, higher attendance, and more corporate sponsors” are the path to success. Identifying how to bring those goals to fruition is the key. The leadership has not displayed the ability to do that yet. In fact, the league’s attendance forecast for its first season – which was no doubt conservative – was off. Attendance was underwhelming. Is the recipe for fixing poor attendance expansion of the number of both teams and games? Doubtful. All of that marketing ambition requires more money, even though the business has not proven it can deliver the desired results. That’s a tough pitch to make in this, or any, economy. Even if you’re Ron Popeil.
The NFL’s content machine – NFL.com, various sports outlet’s coverage of the league, NFL Network, etc. – means that access to the highest quality football (sans the Cleveland Browns, of course) is available to anyone who wants it. Therefore, I do not believe that, as Loyal Homer argued, the UFL provides an alternative to the NFL in football starved parts of the country. Because the style of football is so similar to the NFL, it may make for a good feeder league. But, it does not have the inherent entertainment quality of arena football that was just enough different to make liking both okay. Watching the UFL isn’t like watching football. It’s like watching football light.
I am not as alarmed as Babe Ruthless is about the league losing money. All startups gather investors and lose money – especially startups on this scale. However, one salient point struck home… and was a decisive blow to Loyal Homer’s argument: The UFL launched during a terrible recession. When major, successful sports leagues are already discussing how to adjust for a recession, it is difficult to comprehend the introduction of a new league. Further, it is nearly impossible to forecast its future success with any shred of credibility.
I also agree with Babe Ruthless that it is difficult to sum up a $30M loss as a success. It reminds me of General Motors’ recent announcement that the “mere” $1.2 BILLION dollar loss in the third quarter of 2009 was a sign for optimism. No one is buying that argument. (Secretly, Babe Ruthless also gets points for the Yoda quote.)
The definition of success for the UFL is at the heart of this debate. While success requires the feeder program to be a component, its epicenter is in sound business strategy. The UFL appears to lack that now, and for the future.
