Kraft: "London ready for own NFL team"

[TEXANRED]

Miami Dolphins. Moves the London Jaguars (total ****ing BS move) to the AFC East and closer to their divisional opponents. Gets the Dolphins into the AFC South where they probably belong anyway.

I doubt their fans even give a damn about division rivalries at this point. they probably just will be grateful to get away from being ass-pounded by the Patriots twice a year.

This makes sense, and that's why it will not happen. The Texans are going to have to make a trip to London every year where our games will be played at 2am Monday morning.

How's this for a theory: The Jags get moved to London only to find out that they are no longer in the NFL but the Keystone franchise of the new NFLE and at the same time the NFL expands back to 32 putting the new franchise in L.A. thereby erasing two colossal mistakes in one fell swoop.

 

[IDEXAN]

Just curious, but all things considered if the NFL is serious about going international how is London a
more appealing option than Mexico City ?

 

[TEXANRED]

Just curious, but all things considered if the NFL is serious about going international how is London a
more appealing option than Mexico City ?

Not as many drug cartels kidnapping people and leaving dead bodies littering its streets streets over there in London like there is in Mexico.

 

[Hervoyel]

Not as many drug cartels kidnapping people and leaving dead bodies littering its streets streets over there in London like there is in Mexico.

Yeah, Tailgating just doesn't work when you're trying to party near a freeway overpass with human bodies dangling from it.

If I were an NFL player I'd have serious reservations about living in or playing in Mexico.

 

[mattieuk]

Just curious, but all things considered if the NFL is serious about going international how is London a
more appealing option than Mexico City ?

If you are looking for a North American market outside of the USA, I think Toronto would be the best bet. Makes much more sense than London...

 

[IDEXAN]

Not as many drug cartels kidnapping people and leaving dead bodies littering its streets streets over there in London like there is in Mexico.

OK there's that, but even though Rio de Janeiro also has severe criminal activity to include drug cartels they are scheduled to have both the next World Cup & the next Olympics. It's the 21st century that we are now in and we've learned how to meet all kinds of logistical and security challenges for these international events attended by large crowds. And don't forget, London also has had some extreme security challenges: remember the Islamic terrorist attacks there in 2005 ? To my knowledge Mexico city has yet to have any such problems ?
On the plus side Mexico City has so much going for it as it's this continents largest city, only a bit over 2 hours flying time from Houston and not much farther from LA, and it's CST.

 

[Hookem Horns]

Just curious, but all things considered if the NFL is serious about going international how is London a
more appealing option than Mexico City ?

Would you rather have people spending pesos or pounds for your product?

 

[infantrycak]

Would you rather have people spending pesos or pounds for your product?

You can exchange to dollars either way at the current rates so what is the problem?

 

[Dan B.]

You can exchange to dollars either way at the current rates so what is the problem?

I believe the British Pound is still the most stable currency on earth is it not? Hell you can exchange gold and bitcoins for cash at their current rates. I'd rather have gold though.

 

[mattieuk]

OK there's that, but even though Rio de Janeiro also has severe criminal activity to include drug cartels they are scheduled to have both the next World Cup & the next Olympics. It's the 21st century that we are now in and we've learned how to meet all kinds of logistical and security challenges for these international events attended by large crowds. And don't forget, London also has had some extreme security challenges: remember the Islamic terrorist attacks there in 2005 ? To my knowledge Mexico city has yet to have any such problems ?
On the plus side Mexico City has so much going for it as it's this continents largest city, only a bit over 2 hours flying time from Houston and not much farther from LA, and it's CST.

I'm not arguing for London at all, but some of those points don't stand up.

Do we not let the Giants and Jets have New York as a base because of 9/11? Should Dallas have a football team after JFK? Security issues on a week to week basis would be infinately easier to deal with in London, which on any given Saturday deals with up to 150,000 soccer fans descending on the city. Getting a city like Rio togethrt for a month, whilst throwing billions of dollars at a problem is easy compared to having the tried and tested infrastructure of a city like London.

Completely with you on flying time. That is why I think Toronto makes much more sense.

 

[infantrycak]

I believe the British Pound is still the most stable currency on earth is it not? Hell you can exchange gold and bitcoins for cash at their current rates. I'd rather have gold though.

Again, so what? It is a simple issue either way to convert.

Not getting off into bit coins which aren't issued by any country or gold which isn't used for transactions of this nature.

 

[Dan B.]

Again, so what? It is a simple issue either way to convert.

Not getting off into bit coins which aren't issued by any country or gold which isn't used for transactions of this nature.

Fair enough we will stick to currency exchange. My point is that the pound is more stable. When you are a millionaire player or even a billionaire owner, it makes sense to have your money in a currency that will hold in value over the years. Personally if I could have the same amount of money in pounds, dollars, or pesos I'm picking the pound for that reason. It's more likely to still be there.

 

[infantrycak]

Fair enough we will stick to currency exchange. My point is that the pound is more stable. When you are a millionaire player or even a billionaire owner, it makes sense to have your money in a currency that will hold in value over the years. Personally if I could have the same amount of money in pounds, dollars, or pesos I'm picking the pound for that reason. It's more likely to still be there.

I don't think this involves player or owner money in a significant fashion. Contracts would be done in dollars because of cap requirements. The NFL is going to hold and distribute in dollars. Anything subject to revenue splitting will have to be converted to dollars. So really what we are talking about is handling of money from tickets, merchandise sales, concessions and operating expenses. Those are all transitory and readily converted. Heck if the owner in Mexico wanted he could take all his pesos ticket sales money and convert it to pounds. You aren't stuck with what you started with.

I understand arguments like crime, better sales for suites, where more TV revenue would result, etc. but I don't see currency as a stumbling block for either.

 

[2012Champs]

OK there's that, but even though Rio de Janeiro also has severe criminal activity to include drug cartels they are scheduled to have both the next World Cup & the next Olympics. It's the 21st century that we are now in and we've learned how to meet all kinds of logistical and security challenges for these international events attended by large crowds. And don't forget, London also has had some extreme security challenges: remember the Islamic terrorist attacks there in 2005 ? To my knowledge Mexico city has yet to have any such problems ?
On the plus side Mexico City has so much going for it as it's this continents largest city, only a bit over 2 hours flying time from Houston and not much farther from LA, and it's CST.

I read a good article the other day about crime in Mexico compared to other countries. I will see if I can find it because it certainly made it seem as though the crime in Mexico isn't nearly as bad as the perception

 

[2012Champs]

I don't think this involves player or owner money in a significant fashion. Contracts would be done in dollars because of cap requirements. The NFL is going to hold and distribute in dollars. Anything subject to revenue splitting will have to be converted to dollars. So really what we are talking about is handling of money from tickets, merchandise sales, concessions and operating expenses. Those are all transitory and readily converted. Heck if the owner in Mexico wanted he could take all his pesos ticket sales money and convert it to pounds. You aren't stuck with what you started with.

I understand arguments like crime, better sales for suites, where more TV revenue would result, etc. but I don't see currency as a stumbling block for either.

The currency isn't an issue but it is something I've seen many people get hung up on. As you point out players income staying in USD keeps most of "their" potential issues out. Even if that wasn't the case it comes down to simple ratios

 

[Showtime100]

If you are looking for a North American market outside of the USA, I think Toronto would be the best bet. Makes much more sense than London...

Or how about your town of Vancouver?...lol. At least that way Seattle would have a real turf rival for the first time in history.

 

[mattieuk]

Or how about your town of Vancouver?...lol. At least that way Seattle would have a real turf rival for the first time in history.

Whilst I would love it (I think - it'd be a bit weird having a genuine second team behind the Texans who I'd be socially expected to get more amped up for...), to be frank Vancouver doesn't deserve it (and doesn't really have the stadia for it - BC Place has just been redeveloped for $500 million and is still under 60,000 seats, which barely ever sell out for sporting events).

Seattle is just a phenomenal sports city. I've not managed to hit many places in the USA for sports, but having experienced their college football fans, their NFL fans and their MLS fans - it is absolutely insane down there. They could sell out any of the major sports at ease.

If you want an under the radar NFL base for Canada I would nominate Regina, Saskatchewan! They are by far the most passionate loyal and 'into' it Canadian Football city - it's like a high school football following fused with professional football. Even though their population is 180,000 people, I think they'd still have a decent shot at selling out a 70,000-80,000 stadium. Maybe it is because there is nothing else to do out there, but man do they love their football (if anyone is getting it on their TV schedule, tomorrow they are hosting the Grey Cup - Canada's Superbowl - it should be absolutely mental in Regina).

 

[infantrycak]

Or how about your town of Vancouver?...lol. At least that way Seattle would have a real turf rival for the first time in history.

It appears Vancouver already has their hands full:

Known as the Hollywood of the North, Vancouver is one of the few destinations where one can ski and golf on the same day. These are just two of the many wonderful things to know about Vancouver. Here's another one: incidents of public masturbation are on the rise.

Link

 

[Carr Bombed]

It appears Vancouver already has their hands full:



Link

Geez, It sounds like a dream vacation spot for Hopkins this offseason. Ski, Golf, and then um.. skeet shooting.

When our rookie was a DB, he used take vacations south of the border to watch cockfighting, maybe our rookie WR will go north of the border to do some...

 

[Dan B.]

I don't think this involves player or owner money in a significant fashion. Contracts would be done in dollars because of cap requirements. The NFL is going to hold and distribute in dollars. Anything subject to revenue splitting will have to be converted to dollars. So really what we are talking about is handling of money from tickets, merchandise sales, concessions and operating expenses. Those are all transitory and readily converted. Heck if the owner in Mexico wanted he could take all his pesos ticket sales money and convert it to pounds. You aren't stuck with what you started with.

I understand arguments like crime, better sales for suites, where more TV revenue would result, etc. but I don't see currency as a stumbling block for either.

I agree that it's not just players and owners. It's the citizens of the city/country the franchise is located in. You want a team that is on firm financial footing and whose fans will have the constant income to support their team. What is the owner of Mexico's team going to do though when he tries to convert his pesos ticket sales money and only gets half the revenue he would have the year before? Or when their economy craters and no one can afford to buy t-shirts or tickets anymore? A stable economy helps pro teams immensely. That's why teams struggled in Detroit for so long and why the Bills are threatening to leave. There's a reason that American owners from the Glazers to Khan to the Red Sox also own EPL teams rather than teams in Mexico's top league. We don't see many owners that own pro teams in Mexico and America (I can only think of Chivas and Chivas USA in the MLS). And the Mexican teams don't have nearly as solid of a financial footing as teams in England.

I also think that the main factor is going to be TV revenue. The NFL has much smaller potential growth in tv revenue in the states. The opportunity for growth is all overseas -- and Europe has far more disposable income than Latin America.

 

[welsh texan]

How much do top end sports tickets sell for at face value in Canada and Mexico City? Because the average price in London will be around £75 I'd have thought. Just to do some hazy maths around that it means wembley rakes in around $9 million per game in ticket sales alone.

How many pesos can you charge for an event in Mexico City regardless of how easy it may be to convert it to dollars?

I think the main problem here, is that because people are so against it, they are trying to make economic and logistical arguments against it. But some of the most successful business men in the world have the inside line on years of market testing and toe dipping and they see past it for good reason.

Fulham are in need of a new stadium btw, as are Chelsea. I'm not for the move, just realistic on the potential success of it for the nfl as long as the fans change team, ( I won't, but I'm sure plenty of new fans would take them up).

 

[2012Champs]

I agree that it's not just players and owners. It's the citizens of the city/country the franchise is located in. You want a team that is on firm financial footing and whose fans will have the constant income to support their team. What is the owner of Mexico's team going to do though when he tries to convert his pesos ticket sales money and only gets half the revenue he would have the year before? Or when their economy craters and no one can afford to buy t-shirts or tickets anymore? A stable economy helps pro teams immensely. That's why teams struggled in Detroit for so long and why the Bills are threatening to leave. There's a reason that American owners from the Glazers to Khan to the Red Sox also own EPL teams rather than teams in Mexico's top league. We don't see many owners that own pro teams in Mexico and America (I can only think of Chivas and Chivas USA in the MLS). And the Mexican teams don't have nearly as solid of a financial footing as teams in England.

I also think that the main factor is going to be TV revenue. The NFL has much smaller potential growth in tv revenue in the states. The opportunity for growth is all overseas -- and Europe has far more disposable income than Latin America.

How much do you know about the economics of Mexico City? It's has good economic growth, ranks pretty high in terms of GDP vs other cities in the world. It ranks 19th in the world in the number of millionaires and 7th in multimillionaires. Your comments about Detroit lead me it believe you don't know much about MC and it's economic situation. Detroit was not diverse in terms of its industries, peaked at less than 2mm in population vs MC nearly 9 million. MC could more than support a NFL team as they have plenty of people making good wages to spend they money

 

[Dan B.]

How much do you know about the economics of Mexico City? It's has good economic growth, ranks pretty high in terms of GDP vs other cities in the world. It ranks 19th in the world in the number of millionaires and 7th in multimillionaires. Your comments about Detroit lead me it believe you don't know much about MC and it's economic situation. Detroit was not diverse in terms of its industries, peaked at less than 2mm in population vs MC nearly 9 million. MC could more than support a NFL team as they have plenty of people making good wages to spend they money

We had another thread about this recently. Just to make it clear, I'll go ahead and reiterate my thoughts on it.

I'm not against a team in Mexico City eventually. I just think it's fairly obvious that London is the most coveted international market, and I don't think the NFL is considering Mexico City at all. The NFL tried to purchase a long term lease at Wembley already, they play multiple games a year in London (they haven't been back to Mexico in nearly a decade and have shown no signs of playing a game there in the near future), and several owners own teams in both countries. I also think that the NFL has done well in London -- much better than I expected. I think it could easily succeed.

TBH I think the NBA will be going international too. I'm not sure how they would make it work but basically a European Division of 4-5 teams.

 

[ziggy29]

It's just too much to expect of players on a London team to make that transatlantic trip 8 times a year, when other teams have to do that (at most) once, if at all. I can't imagine many players wanting to deal with the travel that a London team would require.

 

[Dan B.]

It's just too much to expect of players on a London team to make that transatlantic trip 8 times a year, when other teams have to do that (at most) once, if at all. I can't imagine many players wanting to deal with the travel that a London team would require.

People said the same thing in 1946 when the NFL moved a team to Los Angeles and there was no other team west of the Mississippi. I think a first class international flight today is a bit less strenuous than a train ride from Pittsburgh to LA in the '40's. By 1950 the NFL had another team in San Francisco. I could see them doing the same thing in Europe and going to Berlin or Frankfurt eventually.

 

[2012Champs]

We had another thread about this recently. Just to make it clear, I'll go ahead and reiterate my thoughts on it.

I'm not against a team in Mexico City eventually. I just think it's fairly obvious that London is the most coveted international market, and I don't think the NFL is considering Mexico City at all. The NFL tried to purchase a long term lease at Wembley already, they play multiple games a year in London (they haven't been back to Mexico in nearly a decade and have shown no signs of playing a game there in the near future), and several owners own teams in both countries. I also think that the NFL has done well in London -- much better than I expected. I think it could easily succeed.

TBH I think the NBA will be going international too. I'm not sure how they would make it work but basically a European Division of 4-5 teams.

While the nfl might not be looking at Mexico nearly every one of your arguments about business or economics made little sense

 

[Dan B.]

While the nfl might not be looking at Mexico nearly every one of your arguments about business or economics made little sense

lol ok dude:

Poverty and income disparity has been a persistent problem in Mexico, and while the recent exponential growth of the economy has caused an overall fall in the percentage of the population living in conditions of poverty, this fall has not been proportional to the general growth. Currently 17% of the population lives below Mexico's own poverty line, making Mexico rank behind Kazakhstan, Bulgaria and Thailand

A single person in Mexico has a net worth equal to eight percent of GDP: Carlos Slim.[40] Additionally, only ten percent of Mexicans represent 25% of Mexican GDP. A smaller group, 3.5%, represent 12.5% of Mexican GDP.[41]

According to the OECD, Mexico is the country with the second highest degree of economic disparity between the extremely poor and extremely rich, after Chile - although this gap has been diminishing over the last decade. The bottom ten percent on the income rung disposes of 1.36% of the country's resources, whereas the upper 10% dispose of almost 36%. OECD also notes that Mexico's budgeted expenses for poverty alleviation and social development is only about a third of the OECD average - both in absolute and relative numbers.[38] According to the World Bank, in 2004, 17.6% of Mexico's population lived in extreme poverty, while 21% lived in moderated poverty.[42]

Yea that sounds like a nice stable economy. Have you ever been to Azteca? I have, for a Club America game. The stadium was maybe half full, and my host (who lives in the District) said the stadium never sells out unless the Mexican National team is playing. BTW he has a point. They average 39,000 fans and 37% capacity. The other major local team, Cruz Azul, averages 25,000 a game. If all those millionaires in Mexico City won't support their hometown futbol clubs why on earth would they support an NFL franchise?

On Forbes' list of Best Paid Cities London finished 19th. They didn't list Mexico City, but said this:

But two other cosmopolitan North American cities, Montreal and Mexico City, didn’t make the cut–in fact, Mexico City was one of the lowest-earning of all those surveyed, beating only Delhi, Manila, Jakarta and Mumbai in wages earned. The top 20 includes one city each from the Asian and Australian continents–Tokyo and Sydney.

 

[2012Champs]

lol ok dude:

Well much of your argument was around currency however I assure you that many businesses around the world do business in other countries where currencies are different and econs might not be as stable. FWIW how many econs have been stable in the last 10 years? Those businesses are often times much larger than a single NFL team and are able to manage or hedge currency issues.

Yea that sounds like a nice stable economy. Have you ever been to Azteca? I have, for a Club America game. The stadium was maybe half full, and my host (who lives in the District) said the stadium never sells out unless the Mexican National team is playing. BTW he has a point. They average 39,000 fans and 37% capacity. The other major local team, Cruz Azul, averages 25,000 a game. If all those millionaires in Mexico City won't support their hometown futbol clubs why on earth would they support an NFL franchise?

On Forbes' list of Best Paid Cities London finished 19th. They didn't list Mexico City, but said this:

Again I dont know if the folks in Mexico City would support a team. The economics of Mexico City would be able to support a team however. Those are two totally different issues can vs will. Even with a poor distribution on wealth/income with a metro population of 20MM+ it would not take much to support a team. Luxury Brands do well in Mexico so thats all it would take from a marketing standpoint from the NFL. If it is seen as a highend/luxury deal it could very well work

 

[welsh texan]

Well much of your argument was around currency however I assure you that many businesses around the world do business in other countries where currencies are different and econs might not be as stable. FWIW how many econs have been stable in the last 10 years? Those businesses are often times much larger than a single NFL team and are able to manage or hedge currency issues.








Again I dont know if the folks in Mexico City would support a team. The economics of Mexico City would be able to support a team however. Those are two totally different issues can vs will. Even with a poor distribution on wealth/income with a metro population of 20MM+ it would not take much to support a team. Luxury Brands do well in Mexico so thats all it would take from a marketing standpoint from the NFL. If it is seen as a highend/luxury deal it could very well work

You honestly think you know better than Robert Kraft when it comes to business?

Arsenals cheapest ticket - £62 (~$100) average attendance 60,000 (capacity)
Cruz azul average ticket - MX€70 (~$5) average attendance 25,000 (below capacity)

How the hell do you think Mexico City can compete?

The nfl owners, by large a bunch of self made billionaires, don't think so, why do you?

I'm not even in favour of the idea of a London franchise I just can't believe the strange arguments made to try and bring it down.

 

[2012Champs]

You honestly think you know better than Robert Kraft when it comes to business?

Arsenals cheapest ticket - £62 (~$100) average attendance 60,000 (capacity)
Cruz azul average ticket - MX€70 (~$5) average attendance 25,000 (below capacity)

How the hell do you think Mexico City can compete?

The nfl owners, by large a bunch of self made billionaires, don't think so, why do you?

I'm not even in favour of the idea of a London franchise I just can't believe the strange arguments made to try and bring it down.

I never attempted to make the case for Mexico City over London. Mexico City has the population and an economy that could support a team. Would London be better? Sure I never said otherwise

 

[welsh texan]

I never attempted to make the case for Mexico City over London. Mexico City has the population and an economy that could support a team. Would London be better? Sure I never said otherwise

How on earth would an nfl franchise survive on 8 games worth of 25 thousand people paying $5 each?

That would come to $1,000,000 in tix per year? Would the owners really dilute their profit for such a tiny amount just to say they were expanding internationally? I really doubt it.

 

[infantrycak]

How on earth would an nfl franchise survive on 8 games worth of 25 thousand people paying $5 each?

That would come to $1,000,000 in tix per year? Would the owners really dilute their profit for such a tiny amount just to say they were expanding internationally? I really doubt it.

It's a false comparison. You are talking about not the top league in the sport in a sport saturated with a million leagues around. More importantly ticket sales aren't the major component of NFL revenue. Gross receipts on tickets for the Texans are about $75 mil per year which doesn't even cover the $120 mil in player salaries. The money in the NFL is in the TV deals. ESPN pays $2 bil per year for one game a week. That's $62.5 mil per team. So the big issue is viewership such that people will buy ad time.

 

[Dan B.]

It's a false comparison. You are talking about not the top league in the sport in a sport saturated with a million leagues around. More importantly ticket sales aren't the major component of NFL revenue. Gross receipts on tickets for the Texans are about $75 mil per year which doesn't even cover the $120 mil in player salaries. The money in the NFL is in the TV deals. ESPN pays $2 bil per year for one game a week. That's $62.5 mil per team. So the big issue is viewership such that people will buy ad time.

Don't the EPL's TV contracts pay more per team than any league on earth? I agree that the lion's share of the revenue will be from TV. But advertisers want to hit an audience with the disposable income to purchase their product.

 

[infantrycak]

I agree that the lion's share of the revenue will be from TV. But advertisers want to hit an audience with the disposable income to purchase their product.

You trying to sell that Mexico is too destitute to buy Budweiser, Coca Cola, Doritos, Wheat Thins and Taco Bell (or their market place equivalents)? - you know Super Bowl advertisers.

Which is more viable is something beyond our knowledge. All I have said is Mexico City is greatly more practical and should not be dismissed out of hand.

 

[2012Champs]

How on earth would an nfl franchise survive on 8 games worth of 25 thousand people paying $5 each?

That would come to $1,000,000 in tix per year? Would the owners really dilute their profit for such a tiny amount just to say they were expanding internationally? I really doubt it.

I'm not sure why you are using 25k and 5

 

[Dan B.]

You trying to sell that Mexico is too destitute to buy Budweiser, Coca Cola, Doritos, Wheat Thins and Taco Bell (or their market place equivalents)? - you know Super Bowl advertisers.

Which is more viable is something beyond our knowledge. All I have said is Mexico City is greatly more practical and should not be dismissed out of hand.

There's also Apple, Samsung, Audi, Volkswagen, Chrysler, etc. etc.

Televisa & TV Azteca paid $100 million for domestic broadcasting rights to the World Cup in Mexico. Univision paid $325 million just for the Spanish language rights in the US for the next 2. Why would FIFA get more than twice as much for the secondary rights here than the primary rights in Mexico?

United States 29,056
United Kingdom 23,182
Mexico 4,456

Oh yeah -- that's why.

Also, I don't agree with the practicality argument. As I've said a few times I think the travel complaints are overblown, and I think England is less of a culture shock than Mexico. In my experience it's much more similar to the US than Mexico is. Both of them obviously speak the language for one, but they are very close to each other in other ways as well. The same albums tend to sell in both countries. British TV shows American TV shows at night. There are American chains like Starbuck's & McDonald's everywhere. Their news revolves around US politics and culture. While these things are still noticeable in Mexico they are much less prevalent. The British are very closely aligned with America and always have been.

 

[HJam72]

Plus, when they come to play here, we can have a guy ride the length of the field on a horse yelling, "The British are coming!"


Ya gotta consider the important stuff.

 

[Hervoyel]

There's also Apple, Samsung, Audi, Volkswagen, Chrysler, etc. etc.

Televisa & TV Azteca paid $100 million for domestic broadcasting rights to the World Cup in Mexico. Univision paid $325 million just for the Spanish language rights in the US for the next 2. Why would FIFA get more than twice as much for the secondary rights here than the primary rights in Mexico?


Oh yeah -- that's why.

Also, I don't agree with the practicality argument. As I've said a few times I think the travel complaints are overblown, and I think England is less of a culture shock than Mexico. In my experience it's much more similar to the US than Mexico is. Both of them obviously speak the language for one, but they are very close to each other in other ways as well. The same albums tend to sell in both countries. British TV shows American TV shows at night. There are American chains like Starbuck's & McDonald's everywhere. Their news revolves around US politics and culture. While these things are still noticeable in Mexico they are much less prevalent. The British are very closely aligned with America and always have been.

I've even heard that they've got "eternal dibs" on being the 51st state. Israel apparently is disputing this but even so, it's going to the UK. Not a doubt in my mind

 

[2012Champs]

There's also Apple, Samsung, Audi, Volkswagen, Chrysler, etc. etc.

Televisa & TV Azteca paid $100 million for domestic broadcasting rights to the World Cup in Mexico. Univision paid $325 million just for the Spanish language rights in the US for the next 2. Why would FIFA get more than twice as much for the secondary rights here than the primary rights in Mexico?


Oh yeah -- that's why.

Also, I don't agree with the practicality argument. As I've said a few times I think the travel complaints are overblown, and I think England is less of a culture shock than Mexico. In my experience it's much more similar to the US than Mexico is. Both of them obviously speak the language for one, but they are very close to each other in other ways as well. The same albums tend to sell in both countries. British TV shows American TV shows at night. There are American chains like Starbuck's & McDonald's everywhere. Their news revolves around US politics and culture. While these things are still noticeable in Mexico they are much less prevalent. The British are very closely aligned with America and always have been.

Median income is a number you have to be careful with. For one its a median number for an entire country but the number for Mexico City would be higher I have no doubt. Also MC's metro area has a population over 20MM which means you wouldnt have to capture nearly as much "market share" as you would in a city that has 3-4MM

In your comparisons of england/us/mexico you list language and then list music and tv as though thats 3 things when it really all is language based.

Second the number of MCD in the US is 18,600 vs England at 1250 and Mexico at 500+ so neither are more like the US in that aspect. The travel would be far easier for a team in Mexico and the numbers work in favor of England it really is that simple

 

[Dan B.]

Median income is a number you have to be careful with. For one its a median number for an entire country but the number for Mexico City would be higher I have no doubt. Also MC's metro area has a population over 20MM which means you wouldnt have to capture nearly as much "market share" as you would in a city that has 3-4MM

In your comparisons of england/us/mexico you list language and then list music and tv as though thats 3 things when it really all is language based.

Second the number of MCD in the US is 18,600 vs England at 1250 and Mexico at 500+ so neither are more like the US in that aspect. The travel would be far easier for a team in Mexico and the numbers work in favor of England it really is that simple

We were talking about TV advertising rates. If Mexico or England were to get a team, they would show the team throughout the country wouldn't they? And if we're talking about the average income for the cities of London vs Mexico City you should probably know that Londoners make an average of 45,000 euros (that's $62,000) a year. There are 14 million people in London by the way, not 3-4 million. It would be the largest home market of any team in the NFL not in New York. Inner London (which has 3.2 million people) has an average income of $110,000.

I'm not saying that travel wouldn't be easier to Mexico -- of course it would. I just think it's overblown. I don't think it's insurmountable to tell a guy in his 20's to live overseas and make 8 cross Atlantic trips a year as part of his job these days.

You are missing my point by just counting up the number of restaurants. But since we are you left off Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales, which have 160 franchises themselves. Mexico has twice as many people as the UK; ergo there are around 5 times the McDonald's per capita in the UK. Also the McDonald's that I have seen in Mexico tend to be in areas that cater to American tourists. Not so in England. Probably because Mexico is 8 times as large (you can get from one side of the UK to the other in a little over an hour plane flight -- the whole place is smaller than Michigan).

And yeah -- the music and sitcoms do share a common language. That's the point. But it's much bigger than that. You can get a burger and fries almost anywhere in England, not just at McDonald's. Rick Perry was running for the GOP nomination when I was in the UK, and people would ask about him when I told them I was from Texas. I wore my Rockets shirt one day and got into a friendly discussion in a Fulham bar with a Sikh from Glasgow about whether the Rockets deserved their titles.