Kraft talks shop on London trip

Mike, Mr Krafts article was excellent and a real thought provoker.
Just a question and an English perspective for you -
(1) The salary cap is what makes football better than soccer (in my opinion). There are many reasons why a cap wouldn't work in Soccer, and justifiably, but it really is the single most important thing that makes your sport great. I really hope the CBA gets itself sorted this year . My question though - would Mr Kraft sell the Pats if the CBA failed and a non salary cap era was prevalent?
(2) A UK based NFL team (Old England Patriots!) would be fantastic, but doomed to failure. At first the novelty would see large crowds, following that, interest would naturally wane to a hardcore. This would put the Franchise in the smaller class, say like Buffalo. Also, I think I'm right in that numerous States financialy assist Franchises? If so, it is very unlikely that London would provide funds, especially with the cost of the Olympics so far, and the enterprise would loose a revenue stream. As a business man I would find it very hard to take that kind of risk, even with the CBA and all types of backing.
(3) Would American players, either from College or Free Agency, want to live in the UK to play? At least when they change states they are still in the USA and have a sense of home. The UK is a different way of life.

Mike, could you compare and contrast how each team fared after their owner's appeared in England prior to the season? Thanks.

The NFL would never work in Europe. Europeans have a similar game that is more rough and tougher, rugby. They tried the NFL over in Europe and it failed. The only places that it did well was Germany, where there are many US army bases. The novelty factor is the only reason why the NFL is doing ok in London for it's annual game. NFL football will never become a world sport, it's too complicated with it's rules and has too many players and is boring.

I too am an Englishman back in the UK (after living in Boston for 7 years), and I concur with the Redcoat's comments.

I am a big fan of a the salary cap principle - the NFL is far more competitive, and as recent seasons have shown any team is only 2-3 years from a potential SB trip (Arizona being the prime example) - well, apart from Detroit obviously! This is an impossibility in the Premier League - even with the vast resources available to Manchester City this summer, the title will once again be decided by the same 4 teams that have dominated the league for the past 10 years.

A salary cap would be well night impossible to administer in the Premier League, however - it would need to be a combination of salary and transfer fees for a start, and the top teams play in two distinct competitions each year (Premier League and Champions League), so the cap would realistically have to be the same for all teams across Europe competing in the latter competition? Can't see that ever working (sadly)...

As for an NFL franchise in London - I don't see it having the sustainability to survive. Yes, the one off games each year at Wembley sell out in no time (can't wait for my Pats to come this season!), but if it became a more everyday experience (i.e. 8 games a year), I would expect the attendances to tail off...

Some nice sentiment from Mr Kraft though - one of the better owners in sports for sure.

A salary cap wouldn't work because all the good players would go to leagues that don't have one. Too bad, because the cap makes the NFL even better, and it would certainly make the Premier League more interesting. I don't know how people over here can get excited every year with no chance (and I mean no chance; not even a Cardinals or Marlins chance) of winning. The fact that there's no playoffs makes it even worse.

Steven, I won't point out the obvious irony of you saying football is boring while posting a comment on a football blog (which you have obviously read)...that being said, yes football is complicated, but that's what makes it great. You can't just do whatever you want, you have to do it within the rules of the game. Take, for example, holding. If offensive lineman could do whatever they want, there would be significantly fewer sacks, significantly larger holes for RBs, and the scores would probably routinely be in the 60s and 70s, if not higher....but they can't do whatever they want. Same with pass interference. If DBs could do whatever they want, they'd just tackle receivers while the ball is in the air and it would be almost impossible to throw....but they can't do that. That's what makes it a great game. The complexity of the rules brings a serious element of strategy to everything going on.

I understand there is strategy in soccer and basketball and whatnot, but it's nothing compared to the strategy in football, as well as the team building aspect. The management of a football team is more important than the management of a team in any other sport and can lead to success. Again, that's what makes it interesting. The hits, the runs, the throws, that's what makes it exciting.

Steven: rugby is a fine game but lacks the razamatazz of American Football, games are often dull as dishwater and only attract the hardcore supporters. Football [soccer] and American Football have strong bases and will, in time, become the prevalent sports globally.

Pete, there are three American Owners in England, Liverpool, Manchester United and Aston Villa. Man U have won the league many times, but they were doing that before the take over (they used to be a public company). Liverpool challenged for its first title since the early 90's, this year. They are the team I support and are doing very well, but need to improve to win the League. Aston Villa was once a strong team, but before they were purchased had become a joke. They are doing better now, but realistically stand no chance whatsoever of winning the league - 4th or 5th place would be an achievement in itself. All in all, American owners have done well, despite the complaints and chicken-little predictions of doom

Stu/Steve, let's point out that there are two types of Rugby, first of all, my preference is Union. NOT dull, in the slightest! Rugby Union has been on a Renaissance since professionalism was introduced. The problem with the NFL in Europe is the same one Rugby encounters - the rules and tactics are too complicated for the layperson to understand. Soccer needs a ball, two posts and 22 players, it's hard to compete with the simplicity of that. Most casual soccer fans still don't understand the offside rule, fully.

Im based in the UK too (in Scotland) and I am not sure that a franchise would work here either. Im sure Mr Kraft, who I respect greatly, has a better idea of how a business works than I, but i just dont think it could sustain itself over a whole season. It would, fairly or not, be seen as somewhat of an interloper. There *is* a grassroots game here in the UK but it is still seen as a niche and specialist interest. Which is a shame! But thats the truth. It wont grow properly until there is genuine support at a local level, and is built from the grassroots up, rather than a top-down approach.
The comparisons to rugby are a bit specious. Rugby is a tough game, for sure, but the hits are not as violent, collision-wise as football, and the degree of complexity in rugby is similar, at least from a rules point of view. At least in football, fouls and so on are explained to the audience, unlike in rugby, where I am frequently lost as to what is happening. My father played both football and rugby and said football was far the tougher game to play. Soccer, right now, is the world game - and i cant see it changing,

A salary cap in soccer would only work if it was enforced by UEFA, Europe wide.
Otherwise players would just move to where there isn't one. Also, I just cannot see the big clubs - Man utd, AC Milan, Barcelona, etc - agreeing to one.
The Premier League now is a joke, only 4 teams can win it, and they are getting bigger and bigger, and the rest wither on the vine, hoping to nick a cup competition or qualify for a place in Europe.
At least if I was, say, a Jacksonville fan (which I aint!) I would have a glimmer of hope every year.

Name dropping Steve Nicol, nice. Go Revs!

Kraft is an old fool. He was on the WEEI owner's series talking to D&H about the difference between an away game at Tampa Bay and an away game vs Tampa Bay in London. He said the plane trips were about the same length but he liked the fan support in London better. I had to look online to see that Boston-Tampa distance is 1180mi versus Boston-London distance of 3325mi. Only 180% more!

Good catch Jack
Robert Kraft, appearing in London to promote
This should be all you need to read to see this is about $$$$ not fans. Money stole the real fans game. That should be the healine. The NFL don't need overseas games to succeed. What they need to look into is the over pricing of resale tickets. So the fans they have now that can't afford season tickets can see there favorite teams play.