There wer. some good things that happened in the UF.s first season. They proved they could deliver a credible product, gave some coaches and players a chance to showcase their skills and they survived a season full of empty stadiums, inopportune dates, shifting cities, small sponsor support and well produced but negligible eyeballs on TV.
So now comes season two in the fall, with a better relocation plan and the rumors that the NFL is looking to invest in the league as a development tool. Now while that investment would be a big jump in brand value for a league that was an afterthought on the football landscape last fall, the question is why would the NFL inves. While it is true that the NFL is the only sport without a designated developmental league (the NBA, NHL, MLB and MLS all have various stages of developmental investments), why does the NFL need on.? They have perhaps the best, most cost efficient developmental tool of any sport in the NCAA, and their ability to carry additional players gives each team the ability to control and nurture players in their own system. The NF.s.traditiona. developmental platform.the WLAF, NFL Europe, even in some ways the AF.all offered offseason ways for young or emerging talent to grow outside of the NFL window, and all were never cost efficient ways to cultivate players. The NFL also has perhaps the most stringent control of brand of any league in the world, so why would they look to invest in the UF. Good question.
A UFL investment, even a token one, would give the NFL some say in development of coaches and officials for one, and give them the ability to test market rule changes and other innovations in real time. It would provide even more programming to the NFL Network (although the value of more football may be debated, and it could provide an instant call-up system for teams, since the UFL season runs concurrent with the NFL as it stands now. The money would also give the UFL lifeblood and the ability to potentially attract some second tier sponsors looking for a professional football experience but not looking to be able to afford NFL dollars, hence cultivating new brands that could graduate to the NFL as they mature. The UFL also provides some additional markets where the NFL is currently missing, which could again provide a very fertile test for expansion and fan interest should the league ever expand or look to shift franchises.
The question really comes down to dollar value for the NFL. Does an investment in some ways cheapen the NFL brand, and is it neede.? Would the UFL pose more value if it were a spring league, providing more content at a time of year when the NFL or college does not have games and the fan may want more onfield action away from spring practices, signing day, workouts and The Draf. That was what the premise was in all the other developmental efforts, only this time the NFL would take much less risk than before. Would sponsors come on boar.would they care, and would the UFL fill any gaps that the NFL now perceives they have in fan retention and valu.. If any of these things work and the UFL gets life, it would be a boon to the sport and to the industry. More jobs, more content, more brand opportunities all help grow a sport, no matter what size it is. The move would also give the NFL a chance to hedge its bet on the UFL, should the league catch on as a competitor (however minor it would be) or should there be a playe.s strike and fans of football suddenly start following the UFL if the NFL lost games. The one sure thing is tha. the NFL continues to be the driver in football and ultimately the league powers can make the decision as to whether the UFL is worth the time and the money or not. The league did prove it can run itself efficiently, even with a larger deficit than intended. Whether that is enough for fans, brands, the media or the NFL to care is another story, one that we will find out as season two unfolds in the fall.
