Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There's nothing toxic. It's the damn stadium situation. If we could just get a state of the art stadium built here, teams would be lining up. Financing is the biggest hurdle and LA flat out will not finance a stadium.
LA could realistically have no pro teams right now. If Dodger Stadium, Staples Center, and Stubhub Center were not privately financed, LA would likely have no teams right now.
As I always repeat when this topic comes up, the NFL was in a completely different place in the 90's than it is today. It's the king of sports in America today and I'm pretty sure that was not the case in the mid-90's. You've got women wearing jerseys and playing fantasy football today. It wasn't like that back then (I know, I know, there was no fantasy football back then, but you know what I mean).
My point is, it's short-sighted to pedal the same old "Well LA had 2 teams and couldn't make that work" as a reasoning for why LA couldn't support one now. 1995 may as well be 1895 in NFL terms. The fan support and pent up demand for the NFL is there in LA, just need a team to rally around.
But also keep in mind that bad teams don't sell out games (except for a rare few), and LA would be no different. If the team was bad, there probably won't be sellouts, just being realistic. But that's the case with every sports franchise and you don't hear cries that "XXXX city doesn't support the team".
Never quite understand what is so toxic to football in LA. The PLAYERS love to be there!
Stadium issues.
By the 1990s, the Los Angeles Coliseum and Anaheim Stadium were terrible venues from both a fan perspective and from an economic perspective.
The Raiders were never a good fit, but the Rams regularly were among the top teams in attendance while they played in Los Angeles (the move to Anaheim in 1980 was a mistake, but has nothing to do with Los Angeles being a bad football town).
As long as my beloved Chargers stay in San Diego anyone else is welcome to move to Los Angeles. Hard to believe that the nation's second biggest city does not have pro football.
As long as my beloved Chargers stay in San Diego anyone else is welcome to move to Los Angeles. Hard to believe that the nation's second biggest city does not have pro football.
-Cheers.
America's biggest sport. What does it say about the population of LA that their governments won't partner to build a pro stadium? I mean, I'd be looking at a regional basis, not the city of LA. Take the whole metropolitan region and its tax base, and there would seem to be more than enough money to develop something. But the voters apparently don't miss the football(?)
America's biggest sport. What does it say about the population of LA that their governments won't partner to build a pro stadium? I mean, I'd be looking at a regional basis, not the city of LA. Take the whole metropolitan region and its tax base, and there would seem to be more than enough money to develop something. But the voters apparently don't miss the football(?)
Could it be that a city without a team gets more out of market games on basic cable? Between that, the rediculous traffic in L.A., the standard cost of living there, mixed with the exhorbant cost of the tickets (and you know they will be being a new stadium), I'd be much more content to watch games on my 60" HDTV in the comfort of my living room. Besides, most NFL fans in L.A. likely have already become dedicated to another team since there has been no football there in such a long time. Of course, you always got the youngsters to build a fan base with, but what's the point in getting a ton of people to love a team if it's just gonna up and move after 12 years on the whim of some billionnaire owner?
America's biggest sport. What does it say about the population of LA that their governments won't partner to build a pro stadium? I mean, I'd be looking at a regional basis, not the city of LA. Take the whole metropolitan region and its tax base, and there would seem to be more than enough money to develop something. But the voters apparently don't miss the football(?)
Why should tax payers foot the bill for a billionaire and then be expected to pay outrageous prices for game tickets, concessions and merchandise?
Sports infrastructure does not generate a profit for anyone other than the franchise owners.
LA has a professional football team. It's called USC.
It's so cute when Angelenos act like anyone in that town cares about any team aside from the Lakers and Trojans.
Actually those "pro teams" are all over the place. They get to play in BCS. But not the Super Bowl. As for the Rams owner paying for a stadium, for sure he needs to cough up serious money. On That Other Pregame Show, they speculated that the buzz about LA is really to get concessions in St Louis to stay there. Someone mentioned LA traffic. How does that affect Lakers, Clippers, and Dodgers games?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hard to believe that the nation's second biggest city does not have pro football. 
