Could the Saudis PGA the NFL?

[Cobra Mgr]

Interesting column

One aspect I hadn't though of is the Saudis sweeping in & taking over the XFL/USFL.

[Amazin69]

Third paragraph:

For a league that prohibits foreign ownership of its franchises, the odds of Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF), or any sovereign wealth fund, acquiring an NFL stake remain extremely slim.

Translation:

This column is pure clickbait and this will never happen. I guess I should put this up front, so people don't accuse me of trying to hide it. Now, back to my fear-mongering.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Amazin69

Third paragraph:


Translation:

Question: Who made the "rule" that the NFL cannot be owned by a foreigner?

[Marinersfan51]

The angle for the Saudis to take over American sports is the LIV/PGA approach, not the way they are moving in on Premier League soccer. Forming a rival league (or buying out the USFL) and poaching players would be the way to do it rather than buying their way into the existing league structure. Most American sports leagues are fairly picky about who they let into the owners club because they are all in business with each other much more than is the case with European soccer. The leagues are structured to make it harder to buy your way to the top with salary caps and amateur drafts, so there is less value to the foreign investors if they do buy their way in. They are set up to maximize everyone's profits over letting a handful of teams truly dominate.

I think forming a rival league and poaching stars like they did with LIV would be a more effective angle if their goal is sportswashing. The sport best suited for it would be basketball because of the smaller team sizes and outsized impact of single players along with the relative profile of star players compared to teams. Basketball fans root for players over laundry more than most teams. If they could pull half of the top 50 NBA players over and provided an alternative to the NBA draft for the top amateur prospects, they could probably deal a very serious blow to the NBA in just a few years.

The sheer roster sizes in football and need to have a lot of quality non-marketable players make a compelling product make taking on the NFL a significantly more expensive proposition. Even if they were to poach a bunch of the top QBs and skill players, it would be tough to get a good product out of it without lineman and DBs who aren't really going to drive attention by themselves, but are key to getting the games to be a good entertainment product. They could do it, but basketball seems ripe for the picking comparatively.

[rudel.dietrich]

As I said in the golf thread, if this happens again, it will be with tennis.

It is much easier to do with a sport that has individual athletes.

And the fears around this changing European football I think are unfounded.
About a decade ago there was fear that the Chinese Super League would do this exact same thing. Buy their way into having the best players.

They did attract a lot of good to great players towards the end of their careers.
But then the money dried up and players began to end their contracts early as they realized living in China was not for them.

Now we still see a handful of transfers, but that league has shifted to instead trying to focus on developing domestic talent and attracting the occasional regional player from Korea, Japan, Australia and New Zealand.

Some players towards the end of their careers will be lured into big paydays to pad their retirement. But I cannot see in their prime players wanting to move there.
Money is always important to them, but their are also professional athletes and want to play against the best and also live a European lifestyle.

It is really hard to adapt to go from living a western lifestyle to suddenly living in China or SA.

I think this is a temporary blimp that will pass.

But I could foresee the Saudis after the success of this golf venture going after another sport that employees individual athletes.
My prediction is tennis or maybe auto racing.

But I would say tennis would be the best guess.

It has a similar situation as in golf where players 1-25 are happy but players 26-100 are very interested in bigger pay days per event and more guaranteed money.

[Westheim]

Originally Posted by Marinersfan51

The sheer roster sizes in football and need to have a lot of quality non-marketable players make a compelling product make taking on the NFL a significantly more expensive proposition.

There's no "this is too expensive" for the people scheming here, though.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Westheim

There's no "this is too expensive" for the people scheming here, though.

[Amazin69]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Question: Who made the "rule" that the NFL cannot be owned by a foreigner?

Not a clue off of the top of my head, but the League has a whole bunch of bylaws. For example, you think that Oakland would have wanted to just buy the Raiders and end the Davises moving them like a chesspiece? Nope, there's a Rule against that.

Rule 3.2(a) prohibits teams from being owned by non-profit corporations, or the public at large. (The Packers were grandfathered in.). You can't sell stock in a team any more.

In the AFL days, the Patriots were publicly owned, but Billy Sullivan bought up all the stock in the early 1970s. 20 years on, Billy wanted to sell 49% of the stock to raise some $$$m but NFL said that just because there was an exception for the original owners, once you took it private you can't undo it. (Sullivan sued, saying this violated anti-trust law, but he lost. Thus Victor Kiam and soon Kraft.)

So the NFL could reverse itself to allow foreign ownership, but it would have to be individual Saudis buying teams and not the Public Investment Fund. And for the League, which is very much a White Dudes Club (see the whole coaching issue…Bienemy still can't get a HC slot…grr) and very "We ARE America!" right-wing politically, to get a 24/32 majority to even change the rule, much less let 17 individual Saudis buy up enough franchises to have controlling interest seems a very long shot, thankfully.

(Shahid Khan, of the Jaguars, is Pakistani-American and has been here since 1967. He's not selling to the Saudis any more than he'd sell Fulham to them. And his boy Tony hasn't shown any interest in following in the WWE's footsteps and taking his wrestling shows to the Kingdom, either.)

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Amazin69

Not a clue off of the top of my head, but the League has a whole bunch of bylaws. For example, you think that Oakland would have wanted to just buy the Raiders and end the Davises moving them like a chesspiece? Nope, there's a Rule against that.

Rule 3.2(a) prohibits teams from being owned by non-profit corporations, or the public at large. (The Packers were grandfathered in.). You can't sell stock in a team any more.

In the AFL days, the Patriots were publicly owned, but Billy Sullivan bought up all the stock in the early 1970s. 20 years on, Billy wanted to sell 49% of the stock to raise some $$$m but NFL said that just because there was an exception for the original owners, once you took it private you can't undo it. (Sullivan sued, saying this violated anti-trust law, but he lost. Thus Victor Kiam and soon Kraft.)

So the NFL could reverse itself to allow foreign ownership, but it would have to be individual Saudis buying teams and not the Public Investment Fund. And for the League, which is very much a White Dudes Club (see the whole coaching issue…Bienemy still can't get a HC slot…grr) and very "We ARE America!" right-wing politically, to get a 24/32 majority to even change the rule, much less let 17 individual Saudis buy up enough franchises to have controlling interest seems a very long shot, thankfully.

(Shahid Khan, of the Jaguars, is Pakistani-American and has been here since 1967. He's not selling to the Saudis any more than he'd sell Fulham to them. And his boy Tony hasn't shown any interest in following in the WWE's footsteps and taking his wrestling shows to the Kingdom, either.)

And you don't get the point. The owners made a rule, so they can end the rule. Get enough of them to vote on it & they can add to their bylaws entities like the PIF can buy in or buy outright the shield. And the Saudis have enough $ to tell greedy owners "name your price" to accomplish just that.

Never say never.

[Amazin69]

Anything is "possible", but two dozen billionaires all deciding to sell their pride & joy at the same time? Seems unlikely.

Or at least less likely than a bunch of scrub golfers jumping at the big cash, with a bare scattering of "Big Names" intended for credibility. Too bad for LIV that Dustin Johnson hit the skids all the way down #90 in the world and even Patrick Reed at #47 seems like poor value for the money. Phil Mickelson plays a grand total of one event each year for LIV; he's just a brand ambassador, as Norman is.

The current Top 25 in the World rankings has exactly ONE golfer from LIV…Koepka at #13. Hardly a threat to competitive balance.

(Which does make the PGA's panicky caving rather sad, IMO, but that's a different issue.)

To extrapolate from that the idea that Jerry Jones would suddenly want to sell Dem Cowboys to MBS's cousin, or whomever, seems dubious. That 23 other owners would simultaneously agree with Jerry and sacrifice their pride and family heritage for money they don't need is also a pipe dream, I'd say

Especially as they'd actually have to get 24/31, since there's literally no way the collective Packers ownership would do it. They're presumably enjoined by a Brown County statute from selling to any single owner. Even Aaron Rodgers.

[Cobra Mgr]

I never spoke on the likeliness. I spoke on the possibility. And the point I made was the "rules" exist at the owner behest. When the rule is no longer convenient for what they want to do, it can easily be taken care of. So the bylaws aren't a prevention. They are the current standard able to be changed at any time. And if the Saudis offered a $50B entry fee for an expansion team, do we really think a significant group of owners wouldn't want to make an amendment?

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

I never spoke on the likeliness. I spoke on the possibility. And the point I made was the "rules" exist at the owner behest. When the rule is no longer convenient for what they want to do, it can easily be taken care of. So the bylaws aren't a prevention. They are the current standard able to be changed at any time. And if the Saudis offered a $50B entry fee for an expansion team, do we really think a significant group of owners wouldn't want to make an amendment?

Actually yeah, I think even that would raise such a backlash that they would not do it.
I will never say never on anything. But I simply do not see a pathway for them to operate a NFL team or any team in any of the major pro North American sports.

The leagues are set up so they usually have to have a 3/4 majority owner vote for new ownership groups to buy in.
Same with expansion teams.

And the media has done a good job of exposing this for what it is.
Sportswashing

Also, most of the leagues operate with a salary cap beside the MLB. So it is not like they could offer huge money deals to land the best players either.

Again, I will not outright dismiss it. But it would face significant hurdles to happen.

That is why I feel like if it happens again, it would be another sport that employs individual athletes.
That is why I keep using tennis as an example.

It is popular and has a model most similar to golf that could be replicated.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by rudel.dietrich

Actually yeah, I think even that would raise such a backlash that they would not do it.
I will never say never on anything. But I simply do not see a pathway for them to operate a NFL team or any team in any of the major pro North American sports.

The leagues are set up so they usually have to have a 3/4 majority owner vote for new ownership groups to buy in.
Same with expansion teams.

And the media has done a good job of exposing this for what it is.
Sportswashing

Also, most of the leagues operate with a salary cap beside the MLB. So it is not like they could offer huge money deals to land the best players either.

Again, I will not outright dismiss it. But it would face significant hurdles to happen.

That is why I feel like if it happens again, it would be another sport that employs individual athletes.
That is why I keep using tennis as an example.

It is popular and has a model most similar to golf that could be replicated.

I think you guys under estimate the tolerance billionaires have for public criticism especially when billion$ are involved. Washington remained the Redskins until corporate sponsorships started to be threatened.

[Amazin69]

"Possible" is a very low standard.

It's possible I could spontaneously combust in the next 10 seconds, but I wouldn't think it too likely. Which, as my cat is currently contentedly nestled between my legs, is probably for the best.

ETA: Nope, still here.

And Dan Snyder's ego-centric refusal to merely rename, much less sell, the Red[acted]s hardly seems a metric to measure the hypothetical willingness of others to take that step.

And even if some hypothetical future Dan did reach that point, they would need 23/30 fellow owners (remember, the Pack simply can't do this) to reach this same conclusion at the same time.

It might happen…but so could a comet crashing down into NFL HQ. I wouldn't worry, personally.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Amazin69

"Possible" is a very low standard.

It's possible I could spontaneously combust in the next 10 seconds, but I wouldn't think it too likely. Which, as my cat is currently contentedly nestled between my legs, is probably for the best.

ETA: Nope, still here.

And Dan Snyder's ego-centric refusal to merely rename, much less sell, the Red[acted]s hardly seems a metric to measure the hypothetical willingness of others to take that step.

And even if some hypothetical future Dan did reach that point, they would need 23/30 fellow owners (remember, the Pack simply can't do this) to reach this same conclusion at the same time.

It might happen…but so could a comet crashing down into NFL HQ. I wouldn't worry, personally.

I'm not worried. Nor am I expecting it. That would be foolish. But I'm also not dismissing the possibility. That would be equally foolish.

The likelihood of me getting struck by lightning in a t-storm is small. But because of the possibility I'm going to seek shelter.

The likelihood the Saudis buy a team or league may be small. But the greed of mankind & the virtual limitless bank accounts of the Saudis keeps it from being an impossibility.

[Syd Thrift]

I agree that where this is far more likely to happen is in an individual as opposed to a team sport. The Saudis buying out Dana White wouldn’t strike me as crazy, for example, nor would the McMahons selling their stake to foreign nationals (although I think they already got tied in to the Mouse). I think Khan is really unlikely to sell AEW to the Saudis because he dislikes them as much as American billionaires say they do. Tennis, of course. Boxing would be super easy, as easy as buying one of the big 3-letter organizations or even going off and creating their own. The only real issue with that is that everyone is very aware that boxing is corrupt to its core and they’d have to do a lot of heavy lifting to make it a sportswashing experience the way they want these to be.

I think it’s super unlikely that US sports franchises get sold off because of the aforementioned requirement that everyone has to be voted on. That’s just plain not how soccer works. Outside of demonstrating that the team itself has a given stream of revenue - and the consequences for that are assessed to the team, not the owner - pretty much anyone with the cash can buy teams at any level, and that’s if anything more noticeable at the lower levels where you don’t need a great deal of money to own and operate them. Lower level teams are owned by local millionaires but also local communities and businesses (there’s a long history of the English system having teams composed of a bunch of guys who work at a given factory and some of that lives on today). There’s even a team called Hashtag United (it being England you’d think they’d call it Octothorpe United but I think an American owns it).

I want to say the German system either requires partial community ownership or there just happens to be a ton of teams in it that are owned by local communities.

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

I agree that where this is far more likely to happen is in an individual as opposed to a team sport. The Saudis buying out Dana White wouldn’t strike me as crazy, for example, nor would the McMahons selling their stake to foreign nationals (although I think they already got tied in to the Mouse). I think Khan is really unlikely to sell AEW to the Saudis because he dislikes them as much as American billionaires say they do. Tennis, of course. Boxing would be super easy, as easy as buying one of the big 3-letter organizations or even going off and creating their own. The only real issue with that is that everyone is very aware that boxing is corrupt to its core and they’d have to do a lot of heavy lifting to make it a sportswashing experience the way they want these to be.

I think it’s super unlikely that US sports franchises get sold off because of the aforementioned requirement that everyone has to be voted on. That’s just plain not how soccer works. Outside of demonstrating that the team itself has a given stream of revenue - and the consequences for that are assessed to the team, not the owner - pretty much anyone with the cash can buy teams at any level, and that’s if anything more noticeable at the lower levels where you don’t need a great deal of money to own and operate them. Lower level teams are owned by local millionaires but also local communities and businesses (there’s a long history of the English system having teams composed of a bunch of guys who work at a given factory and some of that lives on today). There’s even a team called Hashtag United (it being England you’d think they’d call it Octothorpe United but I think an American owns it).

I want to say the German system either requires partial community ownership or there just happens to be a ton of teams in it that are owned by local communities.

UFC and WWE were recently sold to Endeavor.

A larger possibility would be for SA to form a MMA or boxing promotion offering big guaranteed paydays and fighters defecting to those and then forcing a PGA like situation where the other side feels like it has to merge.

As for German football, it operates under the 50+1 rule
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50%2B1...he%20investors.

[Ragnar]

If money isn't that big of an issue, they should just try to compete with the NFL. If they can absorb the losses for 5-10 years, it might catch on.

Don't include several of the safety measures the NFL uses that make the game worse, like the kickoff rules and 15 yards for touching the passer. Allow more contact downfield to lessen penalties. And cut back on the obnoxious commercials, they might get some interest after a while.

[Mat]

Very interesting topic.

I think there would be many sports on their wish list before NFL. Like the article mentions, this doesn't seem a sport that fits the typical interests of MBS and his friends.

[Reed]

Hmmmm. The bigger question IMO is China and the NBA. Does China get a bigger role in the NBA? Could someone from China become a consultant to the commissioner. Could they play other roles in team/league operations. It seems like the NBA will do about anything to keep China happy.