OT: What does the future hold for sports?

[Deleted member 93465]

For the most, this topic is about traditional team based sports (not eSports or otherwise).

I'm interested in what the sports industry will look like in 2030/2050/2100, or whatever.

It's something that's been bugging me of late.

As a disclaimer, I'm mostly a soccer/hockey fan, and a lot of my questions about the future of sports comes from the soccer side of things.

Wanted to ask you guys about a few things, but feel free to add your own discussion points:

1. Do you think that the concept of 'home' arenas/stadiums will last the century? In other words, will teams still have a home in which they play at least 50% of their 'home' games in a single city and location?

2. Following on from that, do you think that teams will play more than once in a single location in the future? In hockey, this is probably less of an issue, as there are 41 home games. But in something like the premier league, where there are 19 home games in a season, it is feasible to consider a situation in which Manchester United played its nominated 19 home games in 19 different cities around the world. This would allow prime time matches in key timezones, increasing broadcasting rights. It would also allow teams to charge higher prices, as there'd be scarcity of events for any given city/venue.

3. Following even further from this, what does it mean for stadiums/arenas in general? If we assume that teams will become more globe trotting, will stadiums have to become even more multipurpose?

4. Do you believe that global convergence in sport is inevitable? That is, is the growth of any one sport going to concentrate fandom to a specific league, or even specific number of teams? Any success American football has in expanding globally will almost certainly lead to fans watching the NFL. That seems obvious enough. But in other sports, like soccer and hockey, where there are competing leagues across the world, do you see multiple leagues surviving the century; leagues that are capable of commanding a considerable amount of fandom relative to the largest league in the world?

5. What do you consider will come to be the preferred size of leagues in the future? For a long time, I was a supporter of expansion. I used to think expansion was a necessity. Recently, I've come to believe that less really is more. Where once I wanted to see 40 team leagues, these days I'm fascinated by the idea of 16 team leagues. The reason for this is that I feel like this is the perfect size to come to learn a lot about each of the teams in the league. With 30+ teams, not only do you get a good number of bad teams every year, but you're less likely to be familiar with those teams in general. 16 just seems to strike a great balance between familiarity and quality on the ice/field. What do you see as the future optimal size of a league?

6. People say that globalization helps to increase our entertainment options. I'd argue that it limits them. Instead of having distinct sporting cultures, globalization promotes concentration. Do you feel sports of all sizes will continue to grow in the future? Or do you think it will be 4-6 team sports dominating the globe even more than they do today.

7. Lastly, what do you believe the global sports order will look like in 2030/2050/2100?

That's all for now. If you have any other points you'd like to make about where you see sports going in the future, please share.

Click to read more...

 

[Fenway]

On the global stage soccer and basketball will continue to thrive.

I do worry that the concussion issues put the long term future of hockey and football in doubt. The problem is going to be insurance premiums may destroy youth programs in both sports and it will become too expensive for most high schools and colleges to play the sport.

 

[Jonas1235]

I can see some leagues getting to 36 teams. Expanding playoff systems.

I can see 30,000 seat indoor arenas.

I can see 100,000 seat outdoor arenas considered normal.

Hockey players will look like alot different. Robot like, players will be imperviase to pain.

Football will be popular, but only with the blood thirsty crowd.

 

[Tom ServoMST3K]

You would love nba y2k by jon bois.

 

[NYRFAN218]

I can see some leagues getting to 36 teams. Expanding playoff systems.

I can see 30,000 seat indoor arenas.

I can see 100,000 seat outdoor arenas considered normal.

Hockey players will look like alot different. Robot like, players will be imperviase to pain.

Football will be popular, but only with the blood thirsty crowd.

I only see stadiums and arenas getting smaller. Just look what's happened to baseball. 50,000 seat stadiums used to be common but now ballparks in the 38,000 to 42,000 range are the norm. Less seats equals less supply which equals higher prices. No reason to have an extra 10,000 cheap seats when you can just drive up the price on what you have. It's all about premium seating nowadays anyway.

 

[Bruins1233]

I only see stadiums and arenas getting smaller. Just look what's happened to baseball. 50,000 seat stadiums used to be common but now ballparks in the 38,000 to 42,000 range are the norm. Less seats equals less supply which equals higher prices. No reason to have an extra 10,000 cheap seats when you can just drive up the price on what you have. It's all about premium seating nowadays anyway.

Especially with Land Prices in cities Downtowns, there is no way for example the Bruins could afford to build a Stadium 2x the Size of the Garden in Boston.

 

[cutchemist42]

Based on surveys posted here and elsewhere through various orgs/ that gather stats, I think the trend of the % of the population that cares for sports as entertainment will continue to drop. I dont think sports will have as big of a hold on the population as it does now, and our current level doesn't match what existed even 20-30 years ago.

I really wonder what the NFL/CFL/NCAA CFB looks like in the future. I also throw in hockey and rugby in there too.

 

[berklon]

I only see stadiums and arenas getting smaller.

Exactly. Watching a sporting even live has a hard time competing with the comfort and convenience of watching the game at home. You can watch multiple games at home on your 65"+ TV in beautiful HD quality on a very comfy couch with full and quick access to the bathroom and the kitchen - all for a fraction of the cost. And you don't have to put up with getting to the game - it's only a few steps to the living room.

In order to keep people attracted to watching a game in an arena/stadium, they need to provide as much comfort as possible with the best view possible. This can't be done with an 30,000 seat arena or 70,000 seat stadium. The seats need to be larger and more comfortable and closer to the action - which requires the arena/stadium to be smaller and more intimate. As already stated, we're already seeing smaller arenas/stadiums being built in many markets... and it will continue to get smaller.

IMO, nothing beats watching the game at home today.

 

[Neil Hamburger]

Exactly. Watching a sporting even live has a hard time competing with the comfort and convenience of watching the game at home. You can watch multiple games at home on your 65"+ TV in beautiful HD quality on a very comfy couch with full and quick access to the bathroom and the kitchen - all for a fraction of the cost. And you don't have to put up with getting to the game - it's only a few steps to the living room.

In order to keep people attracted to watching a game in an arena/stadium, they need to provide as much comfort as possible with the best view possible. This can't be done with an 30,000 seat arena or 70,000 seat stadium. The seats need to be larger and more comfortable and closer to the action - which requires the arena/stadium to be smaller and more intimate. As already stated, we're already seeing smaller arenas/stadiums being built in many markets... and it will continue to get smaller.

IMO, nothing beats watching the game at home today.

Perhaps, if it's a relatively unimportant regular season game, you're right. It's nice to be able to be on your computer, watch multiple games, lay down on the couch, etc, etc because you don't have to focus so intently on the game.

There's nothing like being in a stadium watching a do-or-die playoff game - watching at home can not compare. The noise, the electricity, the pulsing rush of the moment...

I was at the infamous Bautista bat-flip game last year, and it is one of my best memories. Sure, it would have been a nice moment watching at home, but being there was incredible.

 

[Bruins1233]

Exactly. Watching a sporting even live has a hard time competing with the comfort and convenience of watching the game at home. You can watch multiple games at home on your 65"+ TV in beautiful HD quality on a very comfy couch with full and quick access to the bathroom and the kitchen - all for a fraction of the cost. And you don't have to put up with getting to the game - it's only a few steps to the living room.

In order to keep people attracted to watching a game in an arena/stadium, they need to provide as much comfort as possible with the best view possible. This can't be done with an 30,000 seat arena or 70,000 seat stadium. The seats need to be larger and more comfortable and closer to the action - which requires the arena/stadium to be smaller and more intimate. As already stated, we're already seeing smaller arenas/stadiums being built in many markets... and it will continue to get smaller.

IMO, nothing beats watching the game at home today.

Some sports are just as good/better on TV, like Football or Basketball, but IMO Hockey and Baseball are much better live.
Going to the ballpark is really fun, watching baseball on TV is almost a chore.

 

[Colt 55]

I only see stadiums and arenas getting smaller. Just look what's happened to baseball. 50,000 seat stadiums used to be common but now ballparks in the 38,000 to 42,000 range are the norm. Less seats equals less supply which equals higher prices. No reason to have an extra 10,000 cheap seats when you can just drive up the price on what you have. It's all about premium seating nowadays anyway.

Jerry Jones doesn't seem to agree with this philosophy. I think one reason Baseball stadiums are getting smaller is due to the fact that multi-purpose stadiums are a thing of the past.

 

[theaub]

Jerry Jones doesn't seem to agree with this philosophy. I think one reason Baseball stadiums are getting smaller is due to the fact that multi-purpose stadiums are a thing of the past.

Agree with this. With 81 home dates a year its just infeasible to have 50K people show up for every regular season game. When those stadiums doubled as football stadiums, where you can easily get 60K+ per game for 8 home games per year they had to be built that way.

As to actually answer the OP questions:

1. Yes, for the most part. If the true globalisation of sports occurs (ie where every Big 4 NA sport becomes a cross-Atlantic league), I could see some instances where teams represent a region instead of a specific city and games move around to those locations. But, for example, the Leafs will always play in Toronto until hockey ends.

2. I could see a scenario where each PL team loses a home match and they play in 20 different cities around the world (or the 39th match idea that gets floated around). But at a certain point if Manchester United plays in 19 different cities, why are they Manchester United? At that point they are more Global Red Team United and that's more of a turn off than anything IMO. This links more to later questions.

3. No, because I think that for the most part arenas are multipurpose as is. Soccer/football + basketball/hockey are relatively dual-use. The only ones who would lose out is baseball, and I think baseball is popular enough to hold its own.

4. I think in 10-15 years we will see a European Super League which will end up destroying football as its known in Europe and turn it more into an American-style system with minimal local attachment. The new era sports fan won't care that Colchester United is down the street when you can watch the giant football teams in Europe go at it 38 times per year. TV blackouts will end in England as people continually get angry about not being able to watch top tier football on TV. And in the long run, that will destroy what makes European sports so great. It will also greatly increase the interest of soccer in America, and will release the shackles on MLS and turn it into a legitimate top tier league that rivals the other big four sports, until it also becomes globalised like the Big 4 NA sports.

5. One other aspect of the 'European Super League' aspect is that owners will be less willing to risk losing massive amounts of money in their investments via being relegated back to their country leagues. So I could foresee leagues growing more than shrinking to protect the investments of the owners. I don't see any ways the NA sports leagues shrink.

6. Soccer and basketball will become even bigger. Baseball will grow in Europe but will still mainly be a North America/Southeast Asia regional sport. American football will die because of concussion issues and you'll see more top end American athletes go play rugby (safer) or soccer. I honestly have no idea where hockey will go.

7. 2030 will be pretty much the same as now. American football will slowly slide down and be extinct as we know it in 30 years.

 

[IamherefortheFinn]

I think that VR will chance pretty fast (within 10-20 years) the way we attend to live events. The classes and the broadcasts will at some point probably be so good, that you feel like you are actually there when you put on your VR -classes.

You can then choose the very best events so the local events will probably suffer. Why would you go to see a local football game live when you could "go" to see the FC Barcelona vs Real Madrid in Camp Nou?

Also it will be more comfortable and cheap to see your local teams games from your own sofa because of no traveling and drinks/snacks from your own fridge. At some point i can see the prices of tickets dropping drastically so that some level of atmosphere can be obtained and the venues can sell beer and food to the people that actually show up.

 

[Anton13]

Baseball will grow in Europe

I don't see this happening at all. Baseball is basically non-existent in Europe and there doesn't seem to be any effort by the MLB to change that.

Sure, you see some MLB apparel (mainly Yankees stuff) in Europe but it's just fashion. Many people who wear the stuff probably don't even know where the logo comes from.

 

[Havre]

1. Yes. More than likely that some matches will be moved, but to move more than 50% of a team's "home games" would be very odd. NA is quite different than Europe and South America when it comes to atmosphere in the stands. In Europe and SA home and away games really matter for the whole experience of going to games. I would never go to games if a "home game" were played in a location where the regular "home fans" wouldn't show up.

2. More than once? I'm sure we will see PL games outside of the UK in the future, but I can't see any sort of "global league" developing for the next 50 years at least. They really tried to create a global club competition some years ago for football (I guess it is still there in a smaller format), but most people really didn't care. Home games will stay.

3. More an argument for not moving games around. The fact that teams have spent so much money building these stadiums suggest you should still keep using them. If ManUtd play elsewhere what are you going to do with Old Trafford? Should Juventus play games there? Doesn't make any sense.

4. Convergence is already happening. How far will it go? Time zones will for as long as I live restrict the chances of proper global leagues. There are discussions about a "Nordic football league". Could certainly see that happening. My guess is that there will be one European Super-league for football. For American Football it is easier as you got far less games. I guess an European team is already planned so - will happen.

5. Depends on the sport and how the overall structure is. American-style with no promotion and relegation is a "problem". Even in today's NHL how would you restrict the league to only 16 teams? If it expands to Europe it would be even more difficult. With a European (or rather rest of the World) type of league system that "problem" is solved. You could have 16+16 in "tier 2" and 16 teams in "tier 1". I do agree that 30+ is too many. Much prefer around 16-20 which is common in European football.

6. A few will dominate. Football for sure. And I guess basketball even if I hate it. Could also see handball growing. Seems like it is a sport that is getting more and more popular.

 

[cutchemist42]

Theaub made me decide to want to repost another thought, which is sport specific regarding American football.

As an American/Canadian football fan, I actually do wonder a lot what the future of the sport is. There's no denying that the overall sports participation pie is shrinking (some would argue also that sport's hold on the general population has shrunk as well), and that football is losing numbers faster than the other sports. I think its fair to say football is behind soccer, basketball, baseball/softball in actually both NA countries for participation in team sports. At the same time, hockey maintains a league people watch with a smaller talent in NA. (I've seen it said elsewhere that American football still has more people overall playing it than ice hockey worldwide, not sure I believe it but have never looked into it)

I guess I wonder how quickly would support drop for the sport if we saw an obvious decline in its quality from less and less players playing it. At the same time, we really cant predict what medical advances could be made in the next 30 years that would benefit head injuries that occur in football,hockey, rugby, soccer, etc.

With no advances in medical tech though, how much could American/Canadian football change to make it safer, while still maintaining elements that make it appealing to watch. I'm actually not convinced rugby is extremely safer compared to football, based on snippets the Economist has posted from British medical journals. I do acknowledge there are safer elements though.

Basically, I just wonder what people truly watch American football for and how that differs from rugby which is a sport we dont watch in huge numbers.

-I think people watch for the designed plays, and I think fans really watch for the multiple downs and different strategy depending on each down's unique circumstance. I think we really like the down/reset flow of football vs what rugby is.
-I think people like the hits. I think rugby should have enough hits to be attractive.
-Lineman actually get the worst treatment, with almost mini-concussions on every play. Is there a solution there, as I dont feel people watch for the linemen hits. They do like the designed plays linemen allow to be created.
-Forward pass is a big distinction.

Can you create a safer sport while still maintaining the reasons we watch gridiron football over rugby?

 

[cutchemist42]

I don't see this happening at all. Baseball is basically non-existent in Europe and there doesn't seem to be any effort by the MLB to change that.

Sure, you see some MLB apparel (mainly Yankees stuff) in Europe but it's just fashion. Many people who wear the stuff probably don't even know where the logo comes from.

I actually think baseball does a lot in Europe. Unlike the NFL which does well-publicized games in London without doing much for development, MLB regularly helps fund Euro camps without getting any public recognition for it. Along with those camps MLB scouts are starting to take more interest in Europe.

It will never be huge but if we're talking 25 years from now, I could see it where annually MLB has 8-10 European players in the league, mainly from the Netherlands/Germany/CR/France/Italy.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Maybe it makes sense for globally recognized soccer teams to move their games around to a bunch of different cities, but that model makes no sense at all for domestic leagues. You're abandoning your STH base, eroding your relationship with your home city, increasing your travel costs... and for what? 10,000 people in the stands to see Blue-Islanders in Spokane?

In ALL of North American sports, I'm betting the Yankees and Cowboys are the only two teams who could reliably fill neutral-site stadiums regardless of their own record and opponent. A bad Lakers, Patriots, Rangers, whatever team playing a less glamorous opponent? Nope. You'd have depressed prices and empty seats, as compared to the automatic sellouts they'd have in their own arena.

I just can't see how or why this would work for leagues like the NHL, NFL, NBA, MLB.

 

[Burke the Legend]

In the shorter term, live sports broadcasts are currently the last line of defence against cord cutting. Once this is breached in the next 10 years the big leagues will have an awkward moment where revenues might fall dramatically when they lose the big premiums they are getting in bidding wars by networks.

 

[Bruins1233]

Maybe it makes sense for globally recognized soccer teams to move their games around to a bunch of different cities, but that model makes no sense at all for domestic leagues. You're abandoning your STH base, eroding your relationship with your home city, increasing your travel costs... and for what? 10,000 people in the stands to see Blue-Islanders in Spokane?

In ALL of North American sports, I'm betting the Yankees and Cowboys are the only two teams who could reliably fill neutral-site stadiums regardless of their own record and opponent. A bad Lakers, Patriots, Rangers, whatever team playing a less glamorous opponent? Nope. You'd have depressed prices and empty seats, as compared to the automatic sellouts they'd have in their own arena.

I just can't see how or why this would work for leagues like the NHL, NFL, NBA, MLB.

The occasional game would work, for example the Frozen Four tends to sell out even in Tampa where there is no local College Team, but as a regular thing it would probably fail.
Except in the NFL, look at the Jags, they probably draw better in London than Jacksonville.

 

[KevFu]

1. Do you think that the concept of 'home' arenas/stadiums will last the century? In other words, will teams still have a home in which they play at least 50% of their 'home' games in a single city and location?

Yes.

2. Following on from that, do you think that teams will play more than once in a single location in the future? In hockey, this is probably less of an issue, as there are 41 home games. But in something like the premier league, where there are 19 home games in a season, it is feasible to consider a situation in which Manchester United played its nominated 19 home games in 19 different cities around the world. This would allow prime time matches in key timezones, increasing broadcasting rights. It would also allow teams to charge higher prices, as there'd be scarcity of events for any given city/venue.

Probably not. While the revenue generation from playing in different venues around the world would be a positive, there’s be a massive drawback to it: You’d tick off people who thought the team was turning its back on their “home city.” And you definitely don’t want to do that in a city with multiple teams. In England’s open system, that would be terrible.

TV & the internet allow teams to sell to customers globally. Teams play around the world (summer training tours) to grow their brand internationally…

… but your home city is WHO YOU ARE.

3. Following even further from this, what does it mean for stadiums/arenas in general? If we assume that teams will become more globe trotting, will stadiums have to become even more multipurpose?

Venues will only become more multi-purpose in the sense that future NBA arenas will be slightly more likely to include NHL capability, and NFL stadiums will be FAR more likely to be built with soccer capability… because the municipalities will want to be able to bring events of that nature to their city.

But “OUR HOME” is always going to trump “sharing a venue” when it comes to the desires of each franchise.

4. Do you believe that global convergence in sport is inevitable? That is, is the growth of any one sport going to concentrate fandom to a specific league, or even specific number of teams? Any success American football has in expanding globally will almost certainly lead to fans watching the NFL. That seems obvious enough. But in other sports, like soccer and hockey, where there are competing leagues across the world, do you see multiple leagues surviving the century; leagues that are capable of commanding a considerable amount of fandom relative to the largest league in the world?

If I follow you correctly, no.

You wouldn’t have MLB/NBA/NHL stretching from Tokyo to London. Because the travel concerns would be crazy nuts.

And you probably won’t have a scenario where MLB or NHL accepts the NPL or KHL as their peer, and sets up a true World Championship.

Partnerships between leagues are probably likely, where rules and interaction policies are standardized/negotiated and both parties sell each others’ products.

For example, I could see MLB reaching a landmark deal with NBL (and their Commissioner Ichiro Suzuki, hahaha)
- NBL recognized as a “major league” under the same rules and procedures as NL or AL; however separate records will be kept.
- No universal drafts, there’d be “domestic rights” and “foreign rights” and players can decide on an offer.
- MLB Network launches a secondary channel in USA/Canada and incorporates coverage of the NBL, including live games in the middle of the night.
- MLB Network and MLBN2 launch in Japan, covering NBL and MLB. Those two networks share content.

But ONLY the NFL could have a “global league” because of travel concerns and scheduling.


(I do think CONCACAF and CONMEBOL will merge, though)

5. What do you consider will come to be the preferred size of leagues in the future? For a long time, I was a supporter of expansion. I used to think expansion was a necessity. Recently, I've come to believe that less really is more. Where once I wanted to see 40 team leagues, these days I'm fascinated by the idea of 16 team leagues. The reason for this is that I feel like this is the perfect size to come to learn a lot about each of the teams in the league. With 30+ teams, not only do you get a good number of bad teams every year, but you're less likely to be familiar with those teams in general. 16 just seems to strike a great balance between familiarity and quality on the ice/field. What do you see as the future optimal size of a league?

I think Leagues will grow well behind 32, but from a scheduling/management side, at some point it’s just easier to pretend you’re two separate leagues.

For example, in the 1950s baseball had two eight-team leagues, each in the upper right quadrant of the US. No teams in the South or West. The Pacific Coast was growing and it looked like the PCL might become a third major league.

Next time they expand, MLB will be DOUBLE their 1950s numbers. When they expand again, they are going to have a MASSIVE ARGUMENT over the alignment. Because business owners want TV start times and no one wants to switch leagues.

And that would probably be when someone like me brings up revisionist history:

Wait, what if the PCL had become a third major league, expanded just as the AL & NL did? You’d have northern NL and AL clubs saying “We’ve ALWAYS been a National League or American League club! We can’t have radical realignment!” and you’d have teams in the West, Central and South teams saying “We don’t have that tradition, we just want better TV start times!” Which is the exact same thing we have now.

So have those those two alternate histories converge:

National League (10) - Washington, Philadelphia, NY Mets, Montreal, Atlanta (E) | Chi Cubs, St. Louis, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati (W)
American League (10) - NY Yankees, Baltimore, Boston, Toronto, Cleveland (E) | Detroit, Chi White Sox, Minnesota, Kansas City, Texas (W)
Federal League (10) - Houston, San Antonio, Charlotte, El Paso, Oklahoma City (N) | Tampa, Miami, Orlando, Havana, Santa Domingo (S)
Pacific League (10) - San Francisco, LA Dodgers, Arizona, San Diego Las Vegas (N) | Seattle, Oakland/San Jose, LA Angels, Colorado, Portland (A)

- 16 vs your division, 12 vs the other division, and ONE three-game series against one of the other three leagues (rotating) = 156 games with 124 start times in your or an adjacent time zone, minimum, per year.

6. People say that globalization helps to increase our entertainment options. I'd argue that it limits them. Instead of having distinct sporting cultures, globalization promotes concentration. Do you feel sports of all sizes will continue to grow in the future? Or do you think it will be 4-6 team sports dominating the globe even more than they do today.

Everything is niche now. Even the most popular stuff that “EVERYONE KNOWS ABOUT” there’s tons of people who just miss that knowledge because it never entered their universe.
I’m in my late 30s and I work on a college campus with young people every day, so we discover these things daily. They’ve never seen the Simpsons, I thought EVERYONE knows who Mr. Burns is. They can’t believe I have zero clue who Taylor Swift’s boyfriend is because EVERYONE KNOWS THAT. But I only knew there WAS a “Taylor Swift” person who was incredibly popular with these kids today and in the tabloids, but I couldn’t pick her out of a police lineup or identify a single one of her songs until last September.


There is plenty of room for all sports. You’re not going to see a sports popularity dry up and it wither and die because people like other sports more.
EVERY SPORT WILL GROW, while oddly and conversely become LESS popular at the same time!

It’s an incredible paradox:
They will have more die-hard consumers world-wide because their league will become more and more available to more people via TV networks and the internet.
But they will all have fewer casual fans by virtue of moving from broadcast TV to more specific networks, and as newspapers die off.

It used to be one third of Americans watched the World Series because it was on one of the THREE TV channels. And most people knew of sports stars because they were on the front page of the sports page, which was one of four sections of the paper.

Now, ANYONE who wants to follow sports CAN on the internet and on the 70 sports networks and you’re no longer LIMITED to what’s on broadcast TV or covered in your newspaper.
But anyone who doesn’t CHASE sports by going to a sports websites or tuning to a sports network won’t overhear all the sports going on.

7. Lastly, what do you believe the global sports order will look like in 2030/2050/2100?

As irrelevant then as it is now, because there’s room for all sports.

 

[Bruins1233]

I'm interested in the Future of Lacrosse, particularly the NLL, indoor lacrosse played on the equivalent area of a hockey rink.
Buffalo's NLL team the Bandits draws about 15,000 to the Key Bank Center for their home games, the Rochester Knighthawks draw about 9,000. For stadia with AHL teams, or just one of NBA/NHL it may be a good way to fill a stadium and extra 9-10 nights a year.
Lacrosse is a growing sport and the NLLs business model is compatible with existing major sports.

 

[Rocko604]

I'm interested to see if there's going to be a big shift towards streaming platforms. In the end I think network tv will reign supreme, especially with playoffs and championship games. I'd also like to see more ppv options on online platforms. For example, living in Canada, I don't get much access to college football. Only what the networks and TSN graciously provide me. If I could pay a per-game or season fee to watch every Washington Huskies game, I would.

 

[alko]

The current world population of 7.3 billion is expected to reach 8.5 billion by 2030, 9.7 billion in 2050 and 11.2 billion in 2100, according to a new UN DESA report.

What does it mean? More money. Especially for soccer in Europe. Could see a transfer fees for stars about 500 milions €.

Also ice hockey will eat something from this pie. But not so many. Because most of the people growth will coming from Africa and Asia. And you know, every year we have warmer and warmer winter. Such things as skating on the pond will be unrealistics.

And i could see a World Leagues. In every sport. Transport between Europe, Asia and America will be much faster. 1-2 hours between London and New York (if the ocean will not eat this city).

 

[tony d]

I think we'll see more sports on phones and tablets instead of TV as more people cut the cord. I don't think any sports leagues will fold but as more people choose to watch at home they're going to have find new ways to raise money as they'd lose ticket revenue.