Michael Vick: What next? (part one)

Another week, another talented Quarterback who's status is up in the air to talk about.

Michael Vick, jailed for his part in a Dogfighting ring in December 2007, will be released from prison this week, and the media frenzy is already starting. Will Vick return to the NFL? The answer is out of his hands, but if Roger Goodell approves his reinstatement before the 2009 season begins, could Vick land on a roster? I believe that Vick has two problems, so I'll address them separately.

Should Mike Vick be reinstated to the NFL?

Vick's release is merely the first step on his path to redemption. Of course, he will first and foremost concentrate on getting his personal life in order, the time will come in the next few months where Vick appeals to commissioner Roger Goodell in an effort to seek employment in the National Football league once more.

There are those who believe that Vick is not deserving of reinstatement, that his callous cruelty to animals and premeditated approach to the execution of those dogs unfit to fight shows a character that is not capable of being reformed. As a dog owner, I can relate to that point of view, but I also think it shows rank hypocrisy. We all make mistakes. Some are worse than others, and some reveal parts of our character that people will not forget in a hurry. Michael Vick will live with the stigma of his actions for the rest of his life. There will likely not be a Ray Lewis-esque Superbowl victory that somehow erases people's feeling towards him. He is guilty, and there can be no argument that what Michael Vick did showed a worrying side to a player who was a role model to millions.

Unfortunately, there are many questions regarding the wider issue of giving a criminal a second chance that I really don't intend to delve into here. Every case is different, and there is no right answer that will somehow uniformly cover all eventualities.

But Michael Vick deserves his chance, and here's why: For starters, he has served his time. He committed a crime and was punished heavily for it. He has lost his entire fortune, his freedom, and ultimately it could have cost him the chance to maintain his way of life. Is that not ample punishment? Murderers have got away with less, and whilst I would never condone or justify Vick's actions, we need to put this into perspective and realise that Vick deserves contempt, but also he needs our help to overcome this.

The partisan nature of football means that many of us were quietly satisfied with Vick's fall from grace. Watching a sportsman lose his personal wealth is engrossing, but when the dust settles, there is another human being under the uniform. What good would it do society in general, to hang Vick out to dry and deny him the chance to earn a living? We're talking about a guy who doesn't have anything else to fall back on, and if anything, I'd say that treating him as a pariah is more likely to send him back toward the people who instigated his downfall. Far better, I think, to give him the chance to repay his creditors, to get his life back on track. He will never get another $130m contract, and indeed, as I'm about to point out, his problems off the field may not be his only issue as regards his personal income.

But that comes with the territory of playing in the NFL. Vick knows what he has done wrong. Even if he doesn't believe what he did was wrong (there is no way of quantifying remorse, you know), he is now fully aware that wider society will not tolerate dogfighting, and I'd class him as 'highly unlikely' to get involved in anything that will jeopardise his NFL career again.

So my appeal to Roger Goodell would be 'Give Mike Vick another chance'. If we turn our back on Vick, we will merely be doing it out of misplaced moral righteousness, and if he were then to go back to his old ways, it would be us who were to blame as much as Vick.

The NFL can succeed in Europe

This is part two of a two part series examining the NFL's attempt to expand into Europe. For part one, click here.

Whilst the tone of my earlier article was somewhat negative, it wasn't intended as such, and it doesn't mean I think the league can't succeed at all over here.

It can, but it needs a long-term strategy that starts at the bottom, rather than getting another short-term gain as we experienced in the 1980's. These gains will quickly be lost again if the league is arrogant enough to believe in the 'product' myth. There is already a British league system, the BAFL (See Right), but it needs significant help to compliment the live experience of NFL regular season games.

If I was Roger Goodell, here's what my plan would be to promote the sport in the UK:

Step One:

Step one is all about education. A lot of the kids we're trying to get into the sport won't have access to the laws of the game, so it's important that they learn at least the basic rules in order that they feel comfortable stepping onto a field. The most obvious solution is the way a lot of kids learn the game - with Computer games such as the Madden NFL series. These games are valuable aids to a sport that can be complex and frustrating to get to grips with if you have no prior knowledge of it.

It's not just the young people who need this knowledge though. If they're to be taught the game, they need teachers. There are already enough people in the UK who know the rules well enough that they could umpire games to a decent level, and to take advantage of that commodity, they should be fast-tracked where possible into refereeing courses around the country. For a lot of people, this will give them a chance to be involved in the sport even if they would usually be unable to take part as a player.

Step Two:

The most important foundation to lay, is that of a grass-roots American Football infrastructure that allows youngsters to experience the game on both recreational and competitive levels. There are already adult teams across the UK that struggle for funding and stadia. They deserve to benefit more than anyone from this new found interest, yet as it stands, the league seems intent on ignoring them.

To do this, the most important purchases are the equipment to allow kids to learn the game from a young age, and with minimal financial outlay. Obviously, pads, helmets, and balls are the items that aren't widely available to most parents in the UK. That needs to change, and to do so, it will take money.

It will also need a youth league system. Ideally, this would take place in schools, who should in many cases have Rugby goalposts that can easily substitute for the real thing with almost no noticeable difference. There also needs to be substantial investment in the organisational tools that are needed to make the game as easy to run as possible. Chains, some way of marking ground quickly, and referee equipment would all be essential, and ideally, rulebooks that allow both teachers and students to pick up the game quickly.

Step Three:

Invest in the University and Club sides that already exist in the UK. These clubs are generally poorly funded, and most competitors are forced to buy their own equipment just to have any chance of playing. There is little or no awareness of these teams in the outside world, which means that new recruits are hard to come by, and most teams are far from guaranteed a full quotient of players for each game. That needs to change, and the only way to do that is with 'proper' investment in the existing structures.

For starters, the University teams should be given free equipment to make it easy for them to practice and play games on a regular basis. This would, in many cases, lead to them becoming a popular alternative to soccer, especially as it caters to players of almost every size, and has large squads that require a multitude of different skill sets.

The amateur game suffers from the same maladies, but the BAFL's (British American Football League) primary problem is simply in a lack of infrastructure to play games. Unlike the university or school sides, they do not have ready access to grounds, officials, or players to allow for the league to function properly. Being without a major sponsor for some time now has compounded the problem, and a semi-farcical lack of financial stability makes it almost impossible for clubs, players, and staff to commit to the game for anything more than one season at a time.

To combat this, teams need assurances as far as stadium rental, transport, and equipment are concerned. These issues prevent the league from growing beyond it's current system, which currently is only able to financially support five teams in the top tier. Once there is a healthier level of competition, it will be much easier for the BAFL to attract sponsorship. In the short-medium term though, the league needs to be prepared to invest money without guarantee of renumeration if it is to help the game itself grow at grass roots level.

Step Four:

The final challenge is to get the game on TV for as many people as is humanly possible every Sunday.

Whilst I and many others subscribe to Sky, who currently hold the broadcasting rights to all Sunday afternoon games, there are millions who do not. These people are denied the chance to watch the game at a reasonable hour simply because of the current TV deals that neglect terrestrial viewers. Even Channel 5, the terrestrial home of the NFL for almost a decade, have announced that they can no longer support broadcasting Monday Night Football, because the game is concurrently live on Sky. What kind of system allows a broadcaster to monopolise and hinder the sport's growth in such a way?

The NFL needs to be back where it belongs: On Channel 4 or the BBC at 6pm on a Sunday evening. This would, I can guarantee, have a massive impact on viewing figures and levels of interest in the sport at every level. Remember that the 'glory days' of the NFL were on Channel Four in the 80's, a terrestrial broadcaster. Whilst it can be argued that Sky has enough subscribers to justify the contract, it can't tick the one box that should be essential to the league: 'Is it available for every person in the country?' While the answer is no, the league should look to at least take one game per weekend and put it on terrestrial Sunday evening TV in the UK.

In theory, the aim should be that within ten years, the league would have an infrastructure in place that allowed University and Pro teams in England to compete on a level that justified being on TV during the NFL off-season. Although this is a long way off, it has to be the aim of the NFL if it wants it's own professional game to be anything more than a passing fad every twenty years. Nothing will replace the NFL, but a thriving British College and Amateur game would be the best way of promoting the sport amongst young and old alike.

Now all we need is somebody to listen.

London Superbowl - PR Dream, Fan Nightmare

This is part one of a two-part series examining the NFL's attempted expansion into Europe. For part two, click here

It's May. Unfortunately for us NFL fans, May is not a good time. Sure, people talk about this time of year as the first time that rookies and veterans take the fields in 'Organised Team Activities', but let's be honest: That's actually not exciting. If the pre-season has taught us one thing, it's that the majority of NFL fans just don't care about non-competitive events - no matter what their ramifications for the regular season.

Another knock-on effect of the traditional NFL down period between May and June, is that all kinds of utterly ridiculous stories find their way into the mainstream news, and because of the lack of on-field activity, the analysts have a field day pondering completely hypothetical issues. One such issue is close to my own - and I suspect most people's - heart:

'Should the NFL take the Superbowl to London?'

You've likely heard plenty of opinion on the matter from countless columnists eager to make their voice heard on the matter, but one opinion has not been sought - that of the British people.

For my sins, I am British. To be more precise, I live approximately 300 miles away from London. What has that got to do with a London Superbowl? Well, considering that according to ESPN, we're all Londoners in Britain. It's this kind of misguided thinking which causes understandable annoyance with the way Brits are portrayed in the American media, but before I digress too far and get on my high horse about respect for others, let's get back to the issue in hand.

Do the British fans want a UK Superbowl?

Of all the questions, this is the one that will likely not be taken into account, yet on the basis of expansion into Europe, surely it is the most important? Fans in Britain have been taken for granted by the NFL in the sense that it is assumed that thousands of good-natured yet slightly camp Brits (think Hugh Grant) will descend on Wembley and deck themselves out in U.S flags, before eating a 'ham-burger' for the sheer novelty value, because it ain't arf fun!

This quaint view of English people is something we'd perhaps like to believe has run it's course, yet well intentioned people such as Yasinskas play on almost constantly. Sure there is a slight curiosity about the NFL amongst your average teenager here, but unfortunately, there has never been any attempt made by the NFL to interact with them on the most basic level, therefore the sport is deemed inaccessible, and any interest they do have is soon overwhelmed by the reality that they will never play the game at any level.

Is there demand for regular season games over here? Yes, amongst the many hardcore fans such as myself who pay somewhere in the region of $400 each to travel down to London and watch the games at Wembley. It's a brilliant opportunity for us to see the sport live in our own national stadium, and as last season's Chargers-Saints game showed, we really do appreciate that we have a chance to see genuine, meaningful football, and not pre-season or exhibition games.

On the other hand, there is perhaps a feeling that the NFL, as big as it is over here, will likely not branch out beyond it's current fanbase too much without grass-roots funding. As I've made clear before, there is no point in exporting a 'product' - as countless horrific columnists describe the game - with the notion that merely seeing it will somehow ensnare the local simpletons and have them snapping up anything with Peyton Manning's name on it.

The 'product' argument is one that I feel very passionately about. If I told you that I had a new sport, but you could only watch it, and never play it yourself, how would you feel? You may think the sport is great, but you'll never experience even a basic form of the game. Your children would potentially have a chance , but instead of me organising activities to promote the sport and encourage kids to take it up... I'm just not going to bother.

But hey, look at my shiny product! You can still watch from afar - just no touching!

This fundamental error has fallen by the wayside in pursuit of the television and jersey revenue that the league craves above all else. Rather than help the sport grow organically in Britain and Europe, they have tried to jump straight in with Soccer at the top of the table. This strategy is doomed to fail, but sadly it will take ten years before the NFL realises it's mistake, and by that time, we'll have been dismissed as pariahs by the average American NFL fan for stealing their showcase event.

So American fans don't want the Superbowl in London?

Correct there little Jimmy, and here's why: It's theirs.

Rightfully, most comments underneath these Anglo-centric stories seem to be firmly against the idea of taking a part of American heritage and culture abroad for the sake of a few extra dollars in the already burgeoning coffers. The Superbowl is a huge part of their cultural identity, and whilst there is a healthy audience for the event over here, we could not replicate the fanaticism of American fans - and if we did, it would be exactly that: A replica. Fake. A charade. Sure, you'd have dozens of hot local women wearing little more than a Reggie Bush jersey, but would that be what the Superbowl is about? Whilst the thing between my legs would say yes, the thing between my ears says no.

There is no way to generate the same enthusiasm as you get in the U.S during Superbowl week. It's a unique event in that it is a one-off final in American sports. There is no series of seven games, there is no 'Chase', and there definitely is not a Fedex Cup. This leads to an atmosphere unrivalled even within it's own heartland, so why is the NFL so eager to export the 'product', when it has millions of untapped potential fans at home?

Personally I don't blame the Americans who flood messageboards with anti-brit sentiment. I think they're idiots for not seeing the real culprits behind this cynical marketing ply, but I can understand the protectionism that underlies their feelings. How would Europe feel if we took the Champions League final , and just held it in New York? We'd feel betrayed by those at the top of the game, and forced to pay exorbitant charges just to see what could be a once in a lifetime event for our local team.

How many Arizona Cardinals fans would have been able to make the journey to London to see their team's first ever Superbowl? Not as many as made it to Tampa, I can guarantee. It's unfair to take this kind of event away from the people who appreciate it the most, and it genuinely makes me queasy when commentators neglect this point in favour of the 'more money is good for the league' argument. Which leads me on to the final point...

Would any of this really benefit the NFL?

The crux of the matter: What is the league going to get out of this sojourn? 'More money' would seem to be the obvious answer, but would it be that much more than the league currently gets from staging the game in the states? More importantly, would it justify the logistical nightmare of transplanting America's biggest sporting event thousands of miles from it's usual location?

There is an argument for the local economies of cities like Tampa and Miami that regularly hold the Superbowl, but that should be discounted in my opinion. For a start, most cities would not host the Superbowl more than once every four years or so, and there is certainly no 'divine right' to do so. Personally, I'd like to see the game moved around the country more, which would perhaps give slightly more variety to the kind of game that we see each year.

The teams would certainly not be in favour of moving between time zones in the run-up to what could be (for many players, coaches, and team members) their only opportunity to win a Superbowl. This fundamental issue has already reared it's head during the regular season, with coaches Sean payton and Norv Turner both openly criticising the league for their logistical operations during last season's game. If the mild-mannered Payton can be driven to make such comments, what chance Bill Belichick being enamoured with the efforts of the NFL to market the league abroad? The worst case scenario would be a team like New England playing Seattle in London for the Superbowl. Look at Seattle's road woes on the east coast, and you can see why they may feel unhappy at being asked to adjust even more for the biggest game of their lives.

Financially, it could be argued that there is little advantage in marketing a sport that has no chance of getting anywhere near the top of TV ratings, even with two games ostensibly within prime time slots on a Sunday. Remember, games kick off at 6pm and 9pm for viewers in the UK. American evening games are unwatchable unless you have a particularly unhealthy interest in the game, like some of us.

The league and those running it are taking for granted that this 'curiosity' will become a feature of daily life in the UK if it is given enough exposure, simply on the basis that America once fell in love with it. By that twisted logic, the U.S should now be full of hardcore soccer fans all aching to check how Manchester United, Arsenal, Chelsea and Everton are doing on a weekly basis.

In essence, this small gain in European viewing figures/merchandising opportunities is unsustainable on a long-term basis. Once the novelty of the International Series games has worn off, we will see a huge drop-off in enthusiasm for the game in Europe. The hardcore will snap up tickets to the games, but as with the first two years, there will be large sections of empty seats that go unseen to the TV viewer. It's not what I or any other NFL fan in Europe wants to see for the game which we love with just as much passion as many American fans do.

Favre to Minnesota: Why it shouldn't happen

After a real-life-issues hiatus, it's time to get this show back on the road. There's various issues to catch up on, so let's kick off with a bit of love for a guy who gave us a hand last summer, gaining us fans across America: Brett Favre.

Incredibly, according to ESPN, Favre will meet with Brad Childress to discuss the possibility of playing for the Vikings in 2009. This despite his latest claim of retirement just 4 months ago after a mediocre season with the New York Jets appeared to be the final nugget of crap atop Favre's otherwise fairly impressive cherry pie of a career.

I said that Favre shouldn't 'un-retire' last year, and unfortunately, Favre proved that ultimately that may have been a better choice. His legacy now will always be that of the guy who just wanted to play for literally anyone, rather than a player who busted a gut for the Packers over 17 long years.

So why is Favre pushing for a return? Well, for one thing, he obviously feels that he can still play, and perhaps, as ESPN reported, he does feel that he wants to pay Green Bay G.M. Ted Thompson back for the seemingly wise choice of moving forward without him once he announced that he would never play the game again. This dagger to Favre's heart is made all the more baffling as he was then offered $20m to become a marketing figurehead for the organisation, something that clearly was meant as a bribe, but in the end seemed a little desperate.

But what did we learn about #4 in 2008? Well, for one thing, he isn't the same Brett Favre who won a Superbowl, hell, he isn't the same Brett Favre from 2007. His shoulder is a problem, and his refusal to have surgery in the wake of his retirement may now be one of the deciding factors in him physically being able to return to the game. Assuming that the Vikings want him, they would not be guaranteed the same kind of player that dominated the NFC two seasons ago, in fact they would be getting an ageing, injured QB who has never been the player to keep a coach in his job with consistency. He'll turn the ball over, that you know, but what struck me about his performances in 2008 was simply the lack of power in his throws. Consider that Favre himself admitted as much, and I think we're looking at a recipe for disaster in Minnesota.

But the one thing that Brett Favre should consider is this: If he retired and never came back, would he regret it? You can understand his feelings last season, after a great 2007 season, and narrowly missing the Superbowl, about his desire to prove that he still had 'it', that there was still gas in the tank. When the Packers refused, it was obvious that he really, REALLY wanted that chance, and so it was hard not to feel some relief when the whole thing ended with the Jets.

The situation this year is different. Is there still mileage left? Realistically, the answer is no. His desire to prove to Green Bay fans that he could still have been their Quarterback last season may look a bit silly if Favre continues his decline. Not only that, but his legacy is now forever tainted by the knowledge that he wants to play against the team that he is synonymous with, the Packers. Make no mistake, the Vikings are the team that give Favre the opportunity to hurt Thompson more than any, even the Bears, who's fans would not accept him.

Will it backfire? I think so. I don't believe if you asked most Green Bay fans today that they would swap Aaron Rodgers for Brett Favre. I don't even think they'd swap him for Cutler or Stafford, such is their belief in him. Not only that, but Favre risks being humiliated twice by the team who's fans held a lot of respect for him until now. What then, will be Favre's legacy? A guy who just couldn't walk away? A 40yr old still thinking he's got the arm?

It'll be a tragic end, and come December, my money would be on Brett Favre admitting, as he did last season, that maybe, just maybe, he can't do it at the NFL level anymore.