Is the NFL leaving money on the table?

So argue two WP economic writers.   Their basic point is that the NFL could relocate some of its teams and create a stronger revenue stream and global brand presence for the league.

The recent move of the Rams from St. Louis to Los Angeles underscores the basic idea: some very large US markets are not being served.  So the article suggests that San Diego Chargers head to Orange County, the Buffalo Bills move to Brooklyn, the Cincinnati Bengals move to Vegas and the New Orleans Saints move to Austin-San Antonio.

But wait, there's more.  Why not move franchises to Jacksonville to London, Detroit to Toronto and Cleveland to Mexico City to create a true global presence?  Better do it quick before Clinton or Trump imposes a relocation tax!

My only pushback is whether relocation makes more sense than expansion.  And why not have games  on Tuesday and Wednesday night?

More union unrest -- this time it's on the gridiron

Yesterday the NFL and its players union broke off talks, the union dissolved itself and the owners locked out the players.  A few observations:

• The dissolution of the union is a bargaining ploy that will allow 10 players (including Tom Brady, Peyton Manning and Drew Brees according to NYT) to sue the NFL for antitrust violations.   Antitrust cases and possible appeals can take 5 to 10 years to be litigated.  I doubt the owners are worried about this. 
• Today's WSJ says that the average career of an NFL player is 3.5 years.  The players are not likely to support a season-ending strike.  
• The owners are offering less money and a longer season.  The league is enjoying record-high levels of fan support and revenue.  The players know that better offers will eventually be made. 

Strikes rarely make economic sense because they prevent both sides from enjoying gains from contracting with each other.  Also strikes in the US are quite rare; we are not France or Argentina.  Panthers fans beware -- I bet the regular season starts on schedule.   

How much is your fandom worth?

Yesterday's WSJ contains a front page article summarizing economic research that attempts to put a price upon an emotion, in this case how much is it worth to be a fan of the Minnesota Vikings. Some fans put their money where there feelings by buying tickets and merchandise. But many fans simply follow a team, so how much is it worth to them?

The research reported here revolves around a survey done at the time the owner was threatening to move the Vikings to another city (would they still call them Vikings in San Antonio?). Citizens were asked how much they would be willing to pay to subsidize a new stadium to keep the Vikes in M-town and the average answer came to $530 per household. In a cost-benefit analysis, this information would be used along with tangible economic benefits (such as extra sales of tickets, hotel rooms and viking helmets) to determine if the city should subsidize a new stadium.

This same type of research is used to determine the value of such items as maintaining a pristine wilderness that most people will never visit but value nonetheless. The obvious criticism: it is one thing to say you would voluntarily spend $500 in a survey and quite another to actually part with the $500. The researchers might get a better answer if they posed the question this way: mayoral candidate X proposes raising your taxes $500 to pay for a new stadium -- does this make you more or less likely to vote for this candidate?