The uncertain future of football

For anyone (including myself) struggling to keep up with the machinations of the current NFL Labour dispute, yesterday's Freakonomics podcast is an excellent overview of the issues at stake.

Essentially the podcast only served to reinforce my backing of the players, not least because the owner featured, Green Bay's Mark Murphy, didn't particularly make a good case for their position.

Murphy not only admitted that the owners had readily agreed to the deal just a few years ago which they are now rejecting, but as one of his core arguments stated that cities and municipalities no longer finance the building of stadiums as they once did, and that this was an expense that the owners had not previously had to account for.

Now, most people know that the NFL actively forwards money to the owners for the building of new stadiums under their G-3 stadium financing program, partly in an attempt to keep want-away owners from moving franchises and remaining in their existing city. So the financing of new stadiums as justification for a new agreement is a red herring.

And who wants these new stadiums in the first place? The owners themselves, who by building new luxury boxes and concession stands can generate more revenue that they can keep exclusively for themselves. The experience for fans is the creation of largely clean and spacious but sterile and corporate identikit arenas that chip away the history and character of the game.

Murphy also unwisely went on to criticise players for not appreciating the supposed benefits that the NFL provides in terms of health care coverage and benefits packages. I've never heard anyone say anything but the opposite about the health care most players end up receiving; fundamentally it's not nearly enough. Former players such as John Mackey, who now suffers from dementia caused by his days in the League, had to battle both the Union and the League for recognition of the causes of his condition and suitable compensation.

Yet Murphy stated that he wondered if the League does 'too much for the players', and made the comparison back to the Vince Lombardi-era, when players would work in the off-season to support their football income.

But this isn't that era, and here is where the problem lies. The public in general have a hard time seeing beyond the large salaries that players earn, conveniently forgetting that their careers are both short and fraught with possible risks to their future health.

Not only that, but to even have a chance of playing in the NFL in the first place, players have to commit their entire life to an uncertain career path of struggle; physical and mental toil on a daily basis that most of us can't fully comprehend.

In other words, if they're on an NFL roster, they've worked hard enough to get there and will likely have made plenty of personal sacrifices along the way. Moreover, many will have come from impoverished backgrounds to relative wealth.

If that income source is suddenly stripped away, not many will have transferable skills that will allow them to find an income-equivalent replacement in any walk of life. And why should they have to because the owners are suddenly demanding more money?

• The podcast also alerted me to Dave Duerson's suicide last week, yet another death linked to CTE. Duerson had asked in a note left that his brain be examined by the researchers at Boston University in order to establish the extent of his suspected brain damage caused by playing football.
  
  I had meant to link to this article sooner, and also this short ESPN video on the future of youth football, with former professional players stating that they won't let their children play football for fear of their susceptibility to brain injuries.
  
  With an increasing number of cases gaining more media attention, the future of the sport in its current guise could be in serious jeopardy. The CBA dispute then is just one hurdle the NFL must overcome in the months and years ahead.
  
  
  
  

An excellent article.

Perhaps the most insightful article I have read whilst following the sport. An excellent summation of the hypocrisy and egotism of the league and those now in the positions of power.

I'm beginning to hope that there is a lockout, if only for it to signify that the NFLPA hasn't capitulated to the demands of the owners. But of course the owners are the ones least dramatically impacted by a lockout; the players and fans suffer far more.

Oh for Pete Rozelle to return as commissioner now; he must be turning in his grave.

In which Nick Halling semi-implodes

The Sky Sports NFL pundit Nick Halling yesterday published a strange article on the NFLUK.com website ostensibly looking ahead to the uncertain future of the NFL, but one that ended up being a passive aggressive attack on his detractors.

Regular visitors to the site will be familiar with the large amount of negative content targeted at Sky's coverage of the game and Halling himself. As I don't have access to Sky, my opinions on Halling are largely based around the work he does on the NFLUK podcast, Inside the Huddle.

Much of the criticism of Halling stems from his supposed bias for his favourite team, the Pittsburgh Steelers. And when he talks about the Steelers there is clearly an intensity to his love for the side. When Pittsburgh are playing on Sky, Halling tends to let his colours shine through rather too vividly for some people's liking.

I can live with that. Whether a sports pundit should ever come out openly as a fan of any team is another matter, but Halling supporting the Steelers shouldn't necessarily cloud the judgement of his analysis.

However, having listened to his breakdown of many games, he does seem to have certain personal prejudices against figures within the game, such as the questioning of the methods of Patriots coach Bill Belichick in the AFC Divisional game against the Jets in benching Wes Welker:

'Well you know what I think about Belichick. The man lives in his own weird world. If they ever did a psychological evaluation of Bill Belichick, he'd be a care in the community case.'

For a prominent pundit on the game to come out and make such extreme statements about one of the leading coaches, even if it were in jest, is showing a serious lack of tact.

More frustrating still is the vague air of arrogance that surrounds the analysis on occasion. Halling has worked in the sport for so long that his knowledge clearly outweighs the majority of us, but the manner in which he delivers information can come across in an abrasive fashion. For example when commenting on a key interception made by Jarrett Bush in the Super Bowl, Halling referred to the relatively obscure player with matey familiarity as a 'smashing fella', an endorsement which rightly or wrongly doesn't ring true.

So Halling doesn't always offer the most in-depth analysis available, but maybe this is unfairly stretching his remit. His role on Sky is to be a familiar face that can make the game more accessible to the more casual fan, a job he does well.

To write an article wallowing in self-pity comes across as unprofessional at best. Whilst there is undoubtedly an disproportionate percentage of bile aimed at Sky's coverage in general in the forums at NFLUK, this criticism should always be taken with a pinch of salt.

The internet is awash with forums full of people whose sole pleasure in life is attacking anything and everything produced by someone else, and when much of the content is written in semi-literate English and adds nothing constructive, it is best considered void as an opinion.

Given this, the idea that Halling reads the spam and troll-infested NFLUK forums at all is surprising, and more surprising still that such comments would personally hurt him. The modern journalist needs a thicker skin; the new interactive media world has changed dramatically to that in which Halling began his career.

Halling has contributed a significant amount to the growth of interest in the sport in Britain, and it would be a shame for him to turn his back on the game now, and more so in such a disappointing way.

A prophetic warning

I recently finished the Michael McCambridge work 'America's Game', which I can't recommend highly enough, and since I then I've been dipping back into passages here and there because I found it such a joy to take in.

McCambridge concludes the book (published in 2004) by praising the control of the league exhibited by commissioners Bert Bell, Pete Rozelle and Paul Tagliabue in keeping it prosperous and steady, the professional league with the best setup in terms of creating relatively even competition on the field, and sustainable finances off it.

But he ends the book with a prophetic warning note that is particularly telling in the current disagreement between players and owners that seems increasingly likely to threaten the existence of an NFL season this autumn:

'But just as in the days of Pete Rozelle, the ultimate decision is up to the owners of the National Football League franchises. The people who own those thirty-two clubs are inheritors of one of the great enterprises in modern American society. The game has a purpose that goes far beyond business and a meaning that goes far beyond entertainment.

But history, and the fall of Major League Baseball, has shown us that the NFL's status is not a birthright. If pro football falters, it won't be because its players misbehave, or its fans are fickle, or because the networks drive too hard of a bargain. It will be because, in seeking ever greater riches, the owners commit the cardinal sin of taking their eyes off the ball.'

I don't claim to know the inside details of the current fractious state of affairs, but it seems to fundamentally revolve around owners determined to keep more money back from the players and share less of it with fellow owners. In this sense it contrasts the spirit of the old owners, who recognised or could be persuaded of the need to maintain strong competition. This old guard have now largely passed on and are increasingly thin in number, against the new breed of investor in franchises, generally more concerned about bottom line revenues against the success of competition on the field.

As Mike Carlson is repeatedly at pains to point out, it seems utterly reckless to throw away a setup that put the NFL well above the more chaotic and less egalitarian baseball and hockey organisations (both of which have seen more labour related disputes and strikes over recent decades than pro football) for the sake of small percentage differences that would result in the owners lining their pockets.

The fact that Super Bowl XLV was set in the house that Jerry Jones built, representative of an owner keen to dredge additional money from large new corporate stadiums that can provide lavish luxury suites, was won by Green Bay, a non-profit community owned franchise, was not lost amongst many sports writers.

Super Bowl aftermath

I need more time to fully review the game as I'm short on sleep and still buzzing in the aftermath, but that was an odd feeling game to me, and I'm not sure if I can put my finger on it.

At times it felt like I was watching a video-game version of American football where the parameters of the familiar sport are slightly skewed. There was almost no running by Green Bay. The Packers got into difficult third and long situations and then easily completed huge passes to keep the ball. The Steelers could seemingly score with ease towards the end of the game in a laissez-faire fashion.

I'm glad that this game was this way because it will attract those that stayed up and witnessed the near comeback to take an interest in the sport, and it certainly helps you stay alert in the early hours when the game is a close one.

This would have been an all-time classic game if Ben Roethlisberger had completed the improbable comeback for Pittsburgh, and although the scene seemed to have been set perfectly within the final two minutes to establish a game-winning drive, it petered out disappointingly.

If the Packers had lost despite causing numerous turnovers and capitalising on the mistake with points, the historical statisticians' brains would have been frying in attempting to recall a similar feat.

But it was an excellent and very watchable second half after a first that only entertained in fits and starts, and a half-time show that was spectacularly awful. The depreciation value of a show that has had memorable performances by Bruce Springsteen, The Who and Prince in recent years was in clear evidence.

The sound quality for the half time show was equally abysmal, and from having seen their playoff coverage this year Fox appear unable to correctly balance stadium sounds for a broadcast. Their noise suppression filters to dampen the crowd completely sucked the energy out of what otherwise sounded like a charged atmosphere in Dallas, and instead inverted it into an awful echoing tinny murmur.

Joe Buck and Troy Aikman were their usual underwhelming presences in the Fox booth, and the BBC was hit and miss. Mike Carlson and Tiki Barber were excellent, offering the usual sharp insight with good humour and energy. But why was Jake Humphreys hosting on a day where he had already been involved with the earlier South Wales derby, and was clearly flagging as a result towards the end?

When Humphreys started to lounge backwards in his chair and make the stereotypically British-sounding irritation noises towards the Packers being labelled 'World Champions', he had clearly begun to lose interest. It was disappointing as Humphreys has hosted several Super Bowls before and has usually done a good job. We can blame tiredness for this poor display, so why didn't the BBC replace him with Matt Roberts who hosts the playoff highlights, or Gary Imlach from Channel 4?

It's patronising to believe that viewers here need a familiar face on their screen to make them feel at ease watching the programme. It would be far better to have someone with plenty of relevant knowledge to offer (not referring to Formula 1 during the game, for example), and energy for the long night ahead.

In contrast, from the frequent moments I tuned in during the night, Radio 5 sounded as if they did their usual sterling job in covering the game. Listening by radio is actually far more involving for most sporting events, and American football is no different. Darren Fletcher and Greg Brady were informative, enthusiastic and involved with the game from the kickoff, and the broadcast actually did a better job of conveying the carnival atmosphere to the listener than the television production.

Defense wins championships?

Some good last minute reading material to be had over at Smart Football in the form of some defensive analysis focusing on zone blitzing.

A lock-out looms

A quote from Mike Carlson's weekly column on NFLUK. I think it speaks for itself:

'Green Bay, of course, is the only NFL team without an owner, being a publicly-held company whose shareholders choose a board which chooses a president. This also means they are the only NFL team whose finances are open to public scrutiny, which is important when you're examining the battle over a new CBA, because the real issue is not what percentage of revenue goes to the players, but revenue goes into the pot that is shared. The owners want money set aside so they can build new stadia, and they want more money kept out of the pot which they share, not just with the players, but with other owners.

This is the legacy of Pete Rozelle being destroyed just as surely as politics over the past 30 years has been dedicated to destroying the remnants of the New Deal in America or the welfare state here. My question is which would YOU prefer: the publicly-owned Packers, who can't threaten to move to LA or charge $20 to park at pre-season practice, or butcher rosters and play with coaches with impunity, or more Jerry Jones, Dan Snyder, or Al Davis? Snyder, BTW, is using Super Bowl week to launch the mother of all libel suits against the Washington City Paper, who illustrated their very complete and to all impressions accurate guide with a photo of Dan grafittied to look like the devil, which his lawyers say is anti-Semetic. Call it the Protocols of the Elders of Zorn.'