Read the debate intro and the argument from Loyal Homer about whether or not the recently completed inaugural season of the UFL can be judged as a success.
“Who the heck is the UFL!?” These were the first words out of my mouth, when I was asked to debate whether the league was a success after its inaugural season. Seriously, I did not even know that the United Football League existed. Before the UFL fans – all three of you – start questioning my knowledge of sports, give me a chance to explain.
Sure, I noticed the initials UFL on a few sports websites that I visit daily. And I admit I may have noticed those same initials scrolling along the bottom of my TV screen while watching ESPN, but I had no idea what they actually represented. I simply dismissed them as another incarnation or new name for arena league football. But lo and behold! As I researched for this debate, I learned that those initials represented a new football league (if you can call it that) which hemorrhaged some $30 million dollars in its inaugural season. And I am asked to debate Loyal Homer on whether or not it was a success… riiiggght.
Where should I even begin? I could start off by pointing out that the league boasts only four teams, half the number of teams that previous flop – the XFL – had before it went belly up after one season in 2001. I could point out the fact that the UFL was repeating matchups by week four. I could question the seemingly undefined goals of the UFL because speculation remains about whether the league will serve as a complement to the NFL or a competitor. But instead, I want to focus on the overwhelming financial losses of the UFL.
The UFL lost money in a big way, approximately $6 million dollars worse than expected. To me the real kicker is that the league was EXPECTING to lose money. The UFL’s commissioner, Michael Huyghue, told a Fox Business analyst that he hopes the UFL will break even by the league’s third year. But how likely is that considering that the UFL is choosing to launch its product during the largest economic recession since the Great Depression? Commissioner Huyghue further shored up my argument with his comments defending the UFL’s decision to air games head-to-head with the NFL season stating, “I think we actually have the right formula. We opened up almost ahead of hockey on Versus our first week… Which is very good for a product we didn’t do a tremendous amount of advertising for.” Wow… let me get this straight. Mr. Huyghue’s idea of success is almost beating hockey ratings on a cable network and failing to provide adequate advertising. Now a rudimentary understanding of business and economics (which I probably do not even have since I got Bs in both Macro and Micro Economics) explain that businesses do not always start out as immediately profitable ventures, but no one can justify a $30 million dollar loss as a success.
In life you win or lose. The UFL lost – big time. This conclusion brings us to Babe Ruthless’ Universal Truth # 1: “A loser, is a loser, is a loser!” There is no such thing as a moral victory. Any qualification of a loss is an excuse. Like a great philosopher once said, “Do or do not. There is no try.” (Yeah that’s right, I quoted Yoda.)
This entire debate boils down to the definition of success. If you are one of those soft hearted sissies that needs trophies for “best effort” and “most improved” then maybe the UFL’s $30 million loss is not that big of a deal to you. Maybe you think, “Hey, they could have done worse.” I ask one simple question: Would you invest your money in a company that lost $30M in its first year ($6M more than expected) and had a three year plan to break even? I know I wouldn’t.
Simply put, a loss of the UFL’s magnitude is still a loss despite the long-term objectives of the organization.
Posted by Babe Ruthless 
