Farmers Field is essential


When the Los Angeles Raiders moved to Oakland in 1995, the majority of this year’s freshman class at USC had yet to reach the age of three. Now, after a 16-year absence, NFL football finally appears close to returning to the City of Angels.

Julia Vann | Daily Trojan

On Aug. 9, L.A. City Council voted 12-0 in favor of building a state-of-the-art football stadium next to the Staples Center. A month later, the California State Senate passed SB292, a bill designed to fend off any legal challenges the construction might face. That stadium, tentatively named Farmers Field, is set to open in 2016.

The stadium will lead to numerous benefits resonating throughout the city of Los Angeles, from creating jobs to finally giving Los Angeles residents the football team they have been clamoring for.

The benefits of potentially having an NFL team based in Los Angeles are innumerable. To start off, by locating the stadium at L.A. Live, students will be able to interact with Los Angeles in a unique way.

Moreover, USC has previously been dubbed Los Angeles’ pro team, but with recent sanctions against the Trojans and a downturn in success, this is no longer the case. With that said, having an NFL team in the city will give fans what they need. The economic benefits of having an Los Angeles-based team could potentially change the stagnant nature of California’s economy.

Regardless of which team ends up in Los Angeles, that professional football is nearly certain to return to one of the largest markets in the country is great news for the NFL and for pigskin-crazed Angelenos.

Contrary to what some might believe, Al Davis didn’t send the Raiders packing in 1995 because football in Los Angeles was lacking fan support — the decision had more to do with tougher television restrictions and issues with the Coliseum. Davis didn’t receive the renovations he was looking for, and with a 90,000-plus capacity, the Coliseum’s size led to some understandably empty seats.

The NFL didn’t make any exceptions for larger stadiums, though, meaning TV blackouts could occur whenever a game didn’t sell out. No NFL stadium currently seats more than 82,000, as other teams are careful to make sure their games will be broadcast across the nation. But make no mistake, a new football team in Los Angeles will bring fans out in droves because of their desire to watch pro football in Los Angeles again.

Despite the problems the Raiders faced in the ’90s, starting as soon as next season there could  very well be games on Saturdays and Sundays at the Coliseum.

USC appears close to acquiring the master lease on the stadium it has long called home, meaning the university could start making the repairs necessary for NFL games to take place. For USC students, that’s certainly an exciting prospect. And, if completed, Farmers Field promises to be one of the best stadiums around.

To avoid the seating capacity problems the Raiders faced, Farmers Field will fit a more realistic 68,000. Investors aren’t cutting any corners though — the project will cost upward of $1 billion. According to the official Farmers Field website, 30,000 jobs will be created as a result of its construction.

As for who might end up playing in the new stadium, look for the San Diego Chargers to emerge as the top candidate.

The Chargers have played in San Diego since 1961. They haven’t had a losing record since 2004, but in recent years, fan support appears to have taken a hit. Last season, the Chargers ranked 23rd out of 32 teams in attendance figures, and had multiple games blacked out, meaning the NFL wouldn’t broadcast their games on TV because the team couldn’t sell out Qualcomm Stadium.

They can get out of their lease as soon as 2012, and as ESPN reporter Arash Markazi recently pointed out, owner Alex Spanos is 88 years old and interested in selling a minority stake in the team. AEG, the group responsible for financing the construction of Farmers Field, wants to buy a minority stake in whoever comes to Los Angeles. It almost makes too much sense for the Chargers to make the move.

No matter which way you look at it, the future is bright for football in a city starving for another chance to cheer on an NFL franchise. And if you’re a betting sports fan, look for that NFL franchise to come from 120 miles down the road in San Diego.

 

Alex Shultz is a freshman majoring in print and digital journalism. 

10 replies
  1. Lou from Los Angeles
    Lou from Los Angeles says:

    Who said anything about sweetheart deals? Allowing an nfl stadium to be built by a private corporation is a sweetheart deal???

    The LA Coliseum is almost 100 years old. Yes it has a lot of history, and I hope it never gets torn down. But, come on. You can’t ask an nfl team to play in a relic. And I hope it never gets renovated. Its a part of city history, don’t tear it all up and remodel it because “its too old but we’re too cheap to build a new one.”

    You fondly remember the forum and regret its closing for sports use? You must be the only one. I mean great things happened there like the miracle on manchester but it was a piece of crap. Every time I have been to the staples center, it impresses me.

    El Torito???? Tustin???? Who the hell would drive all the way out there? And did you maybe forget there are southland fans in thousand oaks, ventura, santa barbara, SLO? Los angeles is the hub. Southern California is the wheel. LA is accessible to all.

    You “commute daily past downtown.” So you drive through it during weekday rush hour. Yes, it is congested then. At all other times the traffic is never a problem. And I don’t know if you knew this, but NFL games are on SUNDAY. There is hardly any traffic throughout L.A. on a Sunday, even at 9am/5pm.

    The NFL wants Los Angeles (not Cowtown, Southern CA) for tv money, and Los Angeles wants the NFL for jobs and entertainment.

    • William Buttrey
      William Buttrey says:

      I think Gov. Brown’s fast-tracking (if not outright bypassing) the environmental regulations *is* a sweetheart deal.

      And for the record, the nose-bleed seats in the Staples Center has cr4ppy acoustics. The Stones sounded like someone in the apartment above was having a really great party.

      As far as making the stadium more centrally located in a less dense part of So Cal, it is win-win all around as far as I can see.

      You think the whole region is centered on downtown LA? Are the NY Giants not the Giants because they play out of Jersey (or is that the Jets?)?

      Each time a state of the art venue is built, it eventually becomes dated. Teams use their willingness to bail on a particular city as leverage for future sweetheart deals.

      But I really don’t have much say on the matter as I just live and work here.

  2. William Buttrey
    William Buttrey says:

    I commute daily past the proposed Staples site. The congestion and density is already too heavy. In addition to the LA Convention Center and the Staples Arena, in and near the complex are theaters, concert clubs, highrise hotel with heliport. And now they want to drop a football stadium in the middle of it? Get real. The area has already suffered from endless construction. The LA City Council seems like the gang that couldn’t shoot straight. They chased the Rams out of the Coliseum, kept USC from rennovating the adjacent sports arena for college basketball which would have made the Coliseum location all SC sports, or working a deal with the Lakers (the Fabulous Forum in Inglewood is a mega church/white elephant now) , and now want giant giveaways to make this particular corridor ground zero for gridlock. Saddest thing is that the Coliseum is a very short trip down the street (but it’s next to a neighborhood that is not “upscale”). It has soooo much history, 1st Super Bowl, 2 Summer Olympics (only a few cities share that honor), and I’ve seen the rennovation plans for it in the LA Times that were really cool.

    An earlier design for a plan at the curve of the 405 fwy (Torrance?) was ugly as hell (looked like a giant Taco Bell – really!)

    City of Irwindale was an old Al Davis site (he got 12 mil from the city for nuttin) and that’s not bad, but if the team doesn’t come to LA proper, I think the City of Industry or the old El Toro airbase in Tustin are both better locations because they’re more central to a broader range of southland fans.

    And that’s from someone who couldn’t care less about professional spectator sports. I now root against the Lakers so I never have to deal with their workday championship party traffic nightmares, which gives local pols even more of our money to goof off with. I liked the Rams as a kid but I can like them if I want to wherever they play.

    And NO sweetheart deals!!The NFL needs LA/So Cal more than LA/So Cal needs the NFL. Freakin’ luxury box lovin’ elitist robber barons. The rich corporate crybabies can’t enjoy live sports unless you build a fancy suite on top of the stadium to keep from being contaminated by the hoi polloi and riff raff (who will end up footing the bill anyway).

  3. Lou from Los Angeles
    Lou from Los Angeles says:

    @flirlyburly What does Ed Roski’s status with USC have to do with what’s best for the city of LA?! This article isn’t titled “Let’s make USC’s donors richer to the detriment of Los Angeles” I mean, come on. At this point it should be obvious that Roski’s plan is practically a joke and has no chance of happening, despite all the unexplainable press it gets. Plans like Roski’s are the reason LA still doesn’t have an NFL team. Anschutz and Leiweke are the power hitters around here; see: STAPLES Center

  4. Lou from Los Angeles
    Lou from Los Angeles says:

    Alex,

    I love this article. Good research and great points. Pay no attention to the posters who are a bunch of chicken littles, trying to see a conspiracy in a legitimate effort to help them! LA needs Farmers Field. Our unemployment is over 12%. This would be great for the city of LA that USC is a part of. The poster who tried to attack you as a freshman, who clearly goes to USC, is one of those selfish students who makes the point “It’ll cause traffic for us USC students, no stadium!” That attitude is ridiculous.

    One quibble with the article. USC is LA’s most followed football team at the moment. But they are NOT a pro team as you printed in this article. The players are not paid , hence it is a volunteer, unpaid, amateur team, not a pro team. College football fans in LA love USC. But there are far more people here that are big NFL fans, not college fans. Just because an nfl team comes here doesn’t mean that USC’s popularity will drop. I appreciate that you realize that. I hope you continue to write on this subject. Feel free to email me at llhnickerson*dontspamme*@yahoo.com I am a very good copy editor and I can clean up whatever you want to publish.

  5. FlirlyBurly
    FlirlyBurly says:

    AEG’s downtown location would be bad for USC. It would make it less likely that the Coliseum would be renovated. It would tie up traffic near USC on the weekends, creating traffic gridlock from hell. Also consider that Ed Roski, who wants to build the competing stadium in Grand Crossing, is a major USC donor/leader. Alex I wonder if you are a real USC Trojan. Oh, you are a Freshman, that explains it!!

  6. Jon
    Jon says:

    LA isn’t paying for a stadium or a team. LA is paying for a new addition to the convention center, and issuing bonds to pay for a stadium, which bonds will be backed by private money — i.e., no downside for the city.

    And it’s not just a football stadium; it’s an events center. At least that’s what AEG is promising…

    • md wills
      md wills says:

      You simply need to follow the old cheesy crime drama statement: “follow the money.”. I will guarantee that the taxpayers are on the hook either with providing some sort of collateral to back the bonds or the developers are being given “sweet-heart” tax incentives (which puts the burden on the tax-payers). Hey, how about giving “sweet-heart” tax incentives for a “research park/R&D center”? The bottom line is that PRO teams DO NOT PROVIDE ANY LONG TERM FINANCIAL GAIN for the cities that have them. What the developers/team owners hide from you is the the increased crime rates (great crime magnet since law enforcement are only out in force during the 6 hours a week the stadium is used during the football season and then disappear after that, while their normal patrol areas they are supposed to be covering are uncovered); the increased pollution (you really don’t think the sports fans are going to ride the rail down town do you?); the decreased housing (you don’t really think the people in that neighbourhood can afford a $60.00 seat every other weekend do you?) Or in the situation I am familiar with in my own town: The removal of parking meters where you paid $1.00/hr for parking on the street. Once the team got to town, they were removed and a no-parking zones replaced them. You are now forced to pay $10.00/hr in parking structures owned by…. You guessed it … The TEAM OWNER OR HIS CORPORATION. The cars parked on the streets and the downtown merchants are gone now. So it is pretty much a waste area and a fire magnet for all of those empty insured buildings now.

      Finally, you need to ask yourself the following: If I graduate from ‘SC with a degree, will I be able to get a job at the stadium? The answer is “yes” if your willing to work minimum wage (ala UCLA grad) or your a multi-millionaire football player.

      How many ‘SC graduates could have worked at a “Research/R&D center” if it were built instead? I would hazard quite a few more and they could have a earned a wage would have allowed them to live in LA.

  7. md wills
    md wills says:

    This is just simple foolishness. It has already been PROVEN that pro-ball teams DO NOT RETURN AS MUCH AS THEY TAKE from the local economy. I currently live in a city where a pro-ball team was lured to it when the city promised to build them a new stadium. They came and the stadium was built. THAT TEAM LEFT 10 years later AND THE STADIUM IS STILL BEING PAID FOR BY THE TAX-PAYERS at the rate of $30,000/month on the bonds floated to pay for the construction. People don’t realise the cities make promises in TAX-CUTS/TAX-DEDUCTIONS/PROPERTY TAX CUTS in the 100’s of millions of TAX PAYER DOLLARS to bring these teams in. The teams in turn hire 100-200 HOURLY employees that work 5-8 hours a week just above minimum wage. WHERE ARE THE JOBS??? L.A. City and California (which is insolvent/bankrupt) are footing the bill by not taxing the stadium or the team and then underwriting hundreds of millions of dollars in tax cuts (probably even floating bonds with the rich bonds-brokers/bankers). WHEN WILL PEOPLE GET IT THAT THE TAXPAYERS CAN NO LONGER SUPPORT THIS WASTE??? The coliseum in an anomaly, there are no pro stadiums in this country that are more than 25 years old. Just look at how many stadiums that St. Louis has built over the last 30 years in order to keep the cardinals in the city (oops… don’t count the phoenix cardinals). The football owners are RICH because they know how to fleece the local governments and the tax-payers. People need to start voting with their pocketbooks and NOT WITH THE MISTAKEN BELIEF THAT PRO SPORTS WILL CREATE THE NEXT TAX BOOM for the tax payers. It doesn’t happen except in fairy-tales and big bankers dreams.

    • William Buttrey
      William Buttrey says:

      I heard the details you’ve provided confirmed from other sources as well. The economic benefit is neither as far-ranging or as substantial as it is presented by the promoters.

      There are give-aways on parking concessions, tax-breaks in various guises, the waving of environmental impact studies and regulations, and so on.

      I like the fact that LA can be a “world class city” with or without a pro football team. Not only that, if the desire is to provide live NFL action for the fans (and not just pamper corporate luxury box owners), then let Los Angeles be the anchor for an “America’s Team” franchise.

      The NFL can create an expansion team (or league even) and field teams that rotate the venues that they play in, but only existing stadiums and facilities. Any number of cities would welcome an opportunity to make use of these neglected sites. I’d love to be linked with Cleveland who lost the Browns to Baltimore (and now are the Ravens) or any number of cities (2 or more – some clubs might play each game in a different city for each game on the schedule). It can be any city with a field and a desire to link up and share the wealth of a pro-ball club.

      It would be like a “team timeshare”. Offer travel discounts for fans wanting to follow the club. Have inter-city competitions on favorite venues and award the winner priority for playoffs and big game scheduling match-ups. Only draft players from states that are linked in this manner – excluding those who already have one or more NFL teams in their state.

      Letting some mega-rich owner dictate terms to the city is embarassing. And city after city gets jilted or dumped by wandering franchises.

      Making better use of what we have seems a lot smarter than going through the same dog and pony show time and again.

      And I like the idea of working with other municipalities rather than stealing someone elses franchise. How is San Diego supposed to feel if we make off with the Chargers? What will they do with their stadium?

      Create more wealth, not reallocate it.

      Currently, the NFL is about as stale as the new team names that get picked.

      Done the right way, LA could use its creativity to really bring some new excitement to the league, not just try to recapture what they lost in the first place.

Comments are closed.