Quote:
Originally Posted by Boston Saint
(Post 974526)
Saying it’s “pointless” Is denying that there is a connection between America’s history and the European continent. The Saints are represented by their symbol because it has an attachment to the history of New Orleans, Quebec, and France. It’s not just pulled out of a hat like you are Insinuating. The Vikings are in Minnesota because Scandinavian people settled there. The Tampa Bay Vikings wouldn’t make sense. It’s not always the case, But without a doubt, some teams have ties back to European roots.
|
Of course there is a cultural connection between Louisiana and France. But that does not mean pro football international marketing rights in countries with minimal interest in football have any point. Football was invented long after Louisiana split off from France and its not something they have in common.
If the Minnesota Twins incorporated some nordic royal cross in their logo, highlighted their cultural connections to Norway, and obtained a letter from MLB authorizing them to market in Norway, it would be pointless, because people in Norway would still not want to watch baseball, and if they did a fancy MLB letterhead and a symbol on a uniform would not be enough to make them choose to follow the Twins as opposed to following one of the 30 odd other teams that happens to have bigger stars or stars with more Norwegian heritage at the time, or just starting their own minor league and following that. Actually I think the Mets colors have something to do with New York's dutch heritage. However, MLB granting the Mets international marketing rights to the Netherlands would not create any Mets fans there.
The letter is pointless. As far as I can tell, since the NFL has multiple teams marketing rights in some other countries, nothing would prevent other teams from marketing in France too, if there was a market, they would just add their names to the meaningless list. And if there was a market for the NFL in France, there would probably also be more talent developing with French connections, and then French fans might follow the teams with that talent rather than the team with marketing rights and cultural connections.
For example, there is a market to follow basketball in China. That market happens to be led by the NBA team from the city with the most cultural connections to China, the Warriors from San Francisco. But in the past the Rockets were more popular because they had a Chinese star, Yao Ming. Golden State was only able to surpass the Rockets, barely, by winning a lot about a decade after Ming retired. They did not need a letter about marketing rights for any of it, and I doubt a letter would have made a difference. The cultural connection is worth something. The letter is worth nothing. But ultimately winning and acquiring star talent from that market if it appears is what will matter. And still it may matter little if that market develops its own leagues and doesnt want to watch 2AM games to follow our leagues. And besides that, France is a relatively small market.
Perhaps in the long run the Saints could play one home game a year in Paris with the notion of making it a second fan base. It would not work. Imagine if Manchester United played one home game a year in Philadelphia, Chelsea player one home game a year in Boston, and Arsenal played on home game a year in DC. Would that make each of those cities suddenly very loyal to that team? I highly doubt it. It would be a novelty, many of the fans would be expats, and many would be traveling from out of town or going to see the other team in the game. It would be like a road show even if it happened ever year.
I think the NFL might as well try to market itself internationally. To at least some degree it is bound to eventually work somewhere. But I think these particular assignments of requested 'marketing rights' are meaningless. I doubt they have any force of preventing other teams from marketing there, and if they do, boundaries to that marketing are probably an obstacle to growth. Imagine if the NBA had done this 20 years ago and it so happened that the LA Clippers ended up with international marketing rights to China, as LA does have a lot of cultural connections to China too. Then Yao went to the Rockets, and the Warriors won a bunch of rings, while the Clippers struggled and dealt with racism scandals. Well, if the marketing rights had any force, the result would have been the NBA losing China as a market because they gave it exclusively to a team that didn't end up being attractive. Any team that thinks they can catch on and make a buck should market in France. If they Saints want to host their next international game there, great. But these marketing rights will mean nothing. If they really want to become popular in France they could do 3 things: win impressively, play games in France, sponsor camps etc to develop French NFL athletes. But all those things require a lot more effort than a meaningless letter.
