I'm glad they did a USFL 30 for 30, but I thought the portrayal of Donald Trump in that film was inaccurate. By the time Trump joined the USFL in 1984, the seeds of the league's destruction had already been planted. The problem for Trump and USFL regarding a merger was that 1) Trump was the 'leader' of the USFL merger push, and his personality was such that the NFL would never accept a merger...kind of like if the AFL's lead merger negotiator had been Al Davis instead of Lamar Hunt, and 2) the NFL already had teams in many of the USFL markets. Did the NFL really want to add the Generals to the Giants and Jets? The Express to the Rams and Raiders? The Oilers were having trouble at that time, would adding a second Houston team be sustainable?NWebster wrote:I think the most likely outcome over time - and this is likely what many among the ownership hoped for (it was referred to in the Small Potatoes 30 For 30 - would be an AAFC style semi-merger where a handful 4-5 teams merge in and the other are distributed by a draft. The NFL actually held a USFL/CFL Supplemental draft in Spring of 84. I'd think if 4-5 teams merged the Stars would certainly have been one of them, likely along with the Express, the Invaders, the Generals and maaaybe the Gamblers and Showboats. Now that said, none of these would merge in to the NFL with the success that the Browns did, but merging in with the best QB in the combined league makes a huge difference.
In the end, the USFL contracted back to 8 teams, jettisoning over half the league (including Chicago & LA). That may have been the most sustainable model...fewer teams, non-NFL markets like Baltimore Stars, Birmingham Stallions, Memphis Showboats, Jacksonville Bulls. I think that is where the USFL could have made more of a merger push. Its an interesting discussion. Here were my thoughts from a previous posting about Paul Reeths USFL book (which was superior to Pearlman's BTW, not that Pearlman's was poor):
1983 - teams had an unofficial salary cap of $1.5M. Certain people blame George Allen for spending too much money on NFL veterans, going against the 'USFL plan' of keeping costs down and developing their own stars. But I think somewhere in the book it says that the 1983 Blitz only spent $1.8M on salary, which isn't totally out of whack. Certain people blame the Panthers for signing three Steelers offensive linemen midyear, going against the 'USFL plan' of keeping costs down and only overspending on big name skill position players who can single-handedly increase ticket sales. The book never really mentions how expensive Pinney/McGriff/Dornbrook were, and the Panthers owner says the players weren't that expensive since they weren't making much with the Steelers. Did the Panthers & Blitz overspend in 1983?
1984 - After reading your book, in my opinion the massive expansion and ownership changes prior to the 1984 season is what killed the USFL. Steve Erhrardt was usually correct in his analysis, but he claims the USFL had to expand because Dixon was promised an expansion franchise when the USFL was founded. Be that as it may, it doesn't justify the USFL adding so many teams (especially San Antonio) when some of the current 'good' owners were already looking to get out of the league. It seemed very short-sighted to me that the USFL would think they were making money by collecting large 'expansion fees' from the new owners, who then right away wouldn't be able to meet team payrolls...in part due to having to fork over so much up-front cash to get into the USFL.
Trump - After reading your book, I don't think he really was the problem. He took over a franchise that was well-run but not all that successful on the field, paid a lot of money for NFL veterans (like George Allen did), and the Generals improved on the field. He could afford to do that and always met payroll. I think its important to note that while the Generals went from one of the bad USFL teams to one of the good USFL teams under Trump's ownership, its not like Trump bought so many great players that the other USFL teams simply couldn't compete with the Generals. I don't think the Generals ever won a postseason game...a far cry from the 1946-1949 AAFC Browns. Teams in the USFL could still be competitive by sticking with the original USFL plan of modest spending and good drafting; they didn't need to match Trump dollar for dollar.
More Trump - the problem was the new 1984 USFL owners were fools. Poorly run organizations, bankrupt owners. I'm not sure what the 'vetting process' was for the USFL. Even with the established 1983 USFL teams, attendance was acceptable but by no means spectacular. Tampa Bay and Denver were probably the best at drawing fans, and (coincidently or not) they were the only two teams that didn't lose substantial money initially. Why would you rush to add more teams to this mix? San Antonio had nothing (other than peculiarly attractive uniforms) going for them...no players, no stadium, no fans, crazy owner. I think Jacksonville was the only expansion franchise to put up decent attendance numbers, and they ended up folding anyways. On top of this, the new Chicago owner was immediately bankrupt, the new Express owner was eventually bankrupt, etc. Perhaps it was dumb luck and blatantly self-serving, but in my opinion it was genius of Trump to openly talk of moving to the fall and competing with the NFL in hopes of forcing some type of merger. The USFL was in such disarray that it probably would cease to exist in a couple years even if they kept playing in the spring. Many of the stable owners who were part of the 1983 startup already foresaw problems and sold their teams after one year...I think that is a very telling sign. Trump's best opportunity to have his Generals franchise continue to exist for many years would be to somehow get them into the NFL.
TV & ticket sales - I guess I should wrap this up. The initial USFL TV deal was essentially three years. The USFL teams would earn a fixed amount for those three years. Ticket sales for the most part remained stable. You didn't have some crazy deal where the Generals sign Herschel Walker and every home game is an 80,000 sellout. Most cases it was the opposite, a few franchises didn't draw well and those that were able to sell tickets sold them at a discounted rate. What I am getting at is that the USFL teams could fairly accurately predict the amount of incoming revenue...TV money was set and ticket sales weren't going to see some dramatic increase. Signing big name guys like Herschel Walker brought exposure, credibility, more TV viewers, and perhaps a modest increase in ticket sales, but it wasn't going to lift a franchise out of bankruptcy and into solvency. In fact, in some cases (like Steve Young and the Express) it was the opposite. So why did so many of the USFL owners feel the need to overspend? Did it really get them a competitive advantage? If it did, would that translate into a massive revenue increase? The Panthers and Stars already proved otherwise. That's the part that doesn't make sense to me.