NFL’s return to L.A. in 2016 has become inevitable

Getty Images

For 20 years, the NFL periodically flirted with a return to L.A., through multiple efforts that ultimately stalled in large part because it was a luxury not a necessity to return to the market that the Rams and Raiders vacated. With the NFL having the clout to wait for a really good deal (from business partners and/or state and local governments willing to do a really bad deal), the league never got very far down the road back to Los Angeles.

It’s now not a luxury but a necessity, with three teams having poor stadium situations and taxpayer money not as available as it used to be. And so what once was a situation in which the NFL could be aloof and patient has become a game of high-stakes musical chairs, with the Rams, Chargers, and Raiders trying to get into the two available seats the moment the NFL Films orchestra stops playing.

The owner of the only team located in California that isn’t linked to L.A. recently said that one or two teams will be (not might be, but will be) in Los Angeles in 2016.

“I think you’re going to see one — if not two — teams in L.A. next season,” 49ers CEO Jed York told Austin Karp of SportsBusiness Daily. “The teams will begin construction, but also play in a temporary venue, because it’s hard to say, ‘Hey, we’re moving to L.A. We’re building a new stadium. But we’re going to stay here for the next two seasons.’ That’s a very tough sell.”

For that same reason, the NFL will try to keep the specific identity of the team(s) moving to L.A. under wraps until the regular-season home schedule has concluded in each affected city. (Things will get interesting if the Rams, Chargers, or Raiders qualify for home playoff games.)

So which proposed site will win the race to host the NFL?

“You’ve got the Inglewood site that is shovel ready,” York said. “It’s much further ahead than any other site. … Carson is a viable site, but Inglewood is ahead because you could literally start tomorrow.”

The Rams would play in Inglewood, possibly with one other team. The Chargers and Raiders would play in Carson.

While York believes Inglewood currently is in the lead, Inglewood could be out of luck if the Rams stay in St. Louis. Some think owner Stan Kroenke, who has a well-earned reputation for saying nothing about his intentions, eventually could strike a deal to stay put — which would put Carson in play.

Unless, of course, the folks in Inglewood quickly pivot and persuade the Chargers and Raiders that Inglewood would be a superior location.

Either way, the NFL is returning to L.A. not amid fanfare and surprise but through a slowing-growing sense of inevitability.

45 responses to “NFL’s return to L.A. in 2016 has become inevitable

  1. Why not move the Patriots there? A fresh start might do them some good. Rebuild their reputation away from all the scandals.

  2. Worst drivers in the country

    dirty, smoggy, polluted city

    boring skyline, overcrowded

    the beaches are horrible, cold water and homeless people everywhere.

    Severe drought and restricting firearm laws

    LA is the worst choice to put an NFL team because it has already failed multiple times.

    The is no sports fan base in LA, don’t move a team to that dump.

  3. Doesn’t Kroenke actually own the land for the stadium in Inglewood?

    Tiki would be flabbergasted is the Rams aren’t moving to Inglewood.

    As far as the Raiders and Chargers go – i’d be interested to see how this plays out. I think the Chargers are at a point where they have to move – but i could see the Raiders stay….

  4. Please find someone else as a picture reference. Jed York’s ugly face ruins my Monday…or any day. Such a tool.

    -Niners fan

  5. I get Oakland moving – Al Davis raked them over the coals and the market has been soured. I can understand St. Louis – the Rams have bleed Missouri dry.

    I don’t get San Diego. It’s a Top Ten market, great weather, lots of history and appears that they’re ready to pay some NFL blackmail.

  6. floratiotime says:
    Jun 15, 2015 2:30 PM
    Why not move the Patriots there? A fresh start might do them some good. Rebuild their reputation away from all the scandals.

    —————

    You should lobby to move your team there. Maybe with a fresh start they might actually become competitive.

  7. The fans in St. Louis, Oakland, and San Diego care about this a great deal. The “fans” in Los Angeles seem to be invisible.

    LA is a TV market. Having a team there is a meaningless gesture almost as useless as the push for a team in London.

  8. The “LA Droughts”? But we’d need a team with a suitably long championship drought, plus a fan base so sluggish and dim witted they won’t notice the move until months after it happens. So yes, Vikings.

  9. I could be wrong, because there are always flukes in the NFL, but I don’t think any of the three teams linked with moving are in any real danger of a major playoff run. That’s part of the reason they couldn’t get stadium deals done where they are.

  10. If Goodell is overseeing this move, it will be an epic failure like every other.

  11. If I’m a 49ers fan, I’d be rooting that York leaves for LA and San Fran keeps the name 49ers and gets the Chargers to move to SF and change their name to 49ers. Almost like what happened to Cleveland.

  12. 1st of all…who really cares what Jed York thinks?…he was GIVEN the 49ers by his mommy…who just got the tem by default because Debarttalo chose to give it up to take over the family business. He was the best ownwr the NFL EVER had. As far as LA…..Jeb, every football fan ALREADY KNOWS the Rams are comming home….must be news to you.

  13. Raiders are probably the only team that will pretty much know for sure if their current home stadium deal is a go or not. By August, they will know if they are getting a new stadium in Oakland or not. If the deal does not get done with Floyd Kephart by the August deadline, the Raiders will be full steam ahead to LA. (they just need a partner, no way they can do it alone)

  14. randomcommenter says:
    Jun 15, 2015 2:55 PM
    If I’m a 49ers fan, I’d be rooting that York leaves for LA and San Fran keeps the name 49ers and gets the Chargers to move to SF and change their name to 49ers. Almost like what happened to Cleveland
    ————-
    Thank God you’re not a Niners fan, because what you said is ridiculous. The Niners just put a brand new stadium, they aren’t leaving. Plus, they just tore down the Stick. They aren’t moving another team back to San Fran, let alone the Chargers.

  15. Chargers ate gone already, they damaged their reputation in San Diego with the loyal fans they had, after a season of multiple black outs to come it will all be cemented by week 17 of this coming season. I guarantee it. Glad to see them go. TV Is The Best Venue anyways

  16. I see Jed has upgrading from just leaking 49er/Harbaugh news to the media to now leaking NFL news.
    Jed, you are the Wikileak, good bye.

  17. “NFL’s return to L.A. in 2016 has become inevitable”. And by 2021 that “said” team will move.

    LA is not a pro football town. Very few want to fight traffic to spend 200 or 300 to sit far away from the field, drink watered down beer, and watch a bunch of spoiled millionaires play for some Richie Rich owner.

  18. But if a team moves to LA, what city will all the other teams threaten to move too in order to extort money from their current city?

  19. The Raiders belong in Oakland (where they were born) and if they can’t stay (or go to nearby Sacramento) then San Antonio or Portland would be the best options. To move to Los Angeles for a 2nd time would be an example of Einstein’s definition of insanity — repeating the same mistake over again and expecting a different result.

    While I don’t think that Los Angeles would be a good market, if a team must move there it should be the Rams by themselves since they had a history of 49 years in the area before relocating to St. Louis.

    I also think that it would be a shameful desecration to the memory of the great AFL if the Raiders and Chargers (both original AFL teams) shared a stadium and one of the teams moved to the NFC to accommodate this.

  20. Whatever team decides to move to LA, have that team play its home games in London to see if a London team would work.

  21. araidersfan says:
    Jun 15, 2015 3:46 PM
    To move to Los Angeles for a 2nd time would be an example of Einstein’s definition of insanity — repeating the same mistake over again and expecting a different result.
    _______________________

    Uhhh.. they’ve been in Oakland twice now. Moving to L.A. for a 2nd time is insanity but moving back to Oakland for a second run was not?

  22. rojobirds says:
    Jun 15, 2015 3:24 PM

    LA is not a pro football town.
    ____________________

    Well that’s probably because we don’t have a pro football team. We probably wouldn’t be a basketball town either if we had no NBA.

    To be perfectly honest, you’re just wrong. Who says we’re not a pro football town? How would you know? Based on two owners who moved their teams back in the 90’s due to horrible stadium issues? Are you saying that the none of the NFL’s ratings during football season come from L.A.? We’re all just tuned out or doing something else on Sunday’s in fall? L.A. has more than enough fans and football lovers to support a team. Just give us an actual football stadium and don’t stick it in the worst ghetto in L.A. and the fans will be there.

  23. “We are really going to move a team to LA this time … not like the other 20 times we blackmailed other cities into paying, or helping to pay for a new stadium”

    “This time we are serious”

    “BUT, we still are open to listening to your BEST proposal”

    Never heard this before. Once a team does move to LA, the jig is up … London will be the next city of blackmail.

    “We are really going to move a team to London, we really are serious this time”

  24. I wouldn’t characterize the stadium in St. Louis as being in poor condition, that clause that was thrown in to the lease agreement is biting them in the butt now.

  25. returntoexcellence says:
    Jun 15, 2015 4:19 PM

    Uhhh.. they’ve been in Oakland twice now. Moving to L.A. for a 2nd time is insanity but moving back to Oakland for a second run was not?

    ==========================

    Anyone who knows the history of the Raiders is aware that the first 22 years in Oakland the team was mostly dominant on the field and played in front of sell-outs for 14 consecutive years. After they moved to Los Angeles in 1982, the team had 4 excellent years but became mediocre (after 1985) and they often played in front of a half-empty stadium when they weren’t playing a top-tier opponent.

    Those are the facts and the fact that the Raiders have suffered on the field in their 2nd stint in Oakland was due to bad management and a revolving door at HC and not the fault of Oakland.

    Given these facts, I don’t see how repeating the move to L.A. could do anything but make a bad situation even worse.

  26. For the slow minded folks who don’t think L.A. is a sports town, read carefully if your 6th grade Midwest education allows it: UCLA 70-80,000 every Saturday. USC 80-90,000 every Saturday. Dodgers 35-40,000 every night. Angels not L.A.! Kings/Clippers/Lakers 19,000 (sellout) every night! Everyone wants to be in L.A.!!

  27. calvinthegreat82 says:

    I’m pretty sure you’re a troll, but what the heck; I’ll bite today . . .

    Worst drivers in the country

    Clearly, you’ve never actually driven in Southern California. Our traffic volume may intimidate you, but our drivers here — on the whole — are quite good; we spend a lot of time in our cars. In my experience, the worst drivers I have encountered in this country reside in the MidWest. Not an attack — just an observation.

    dirty, smoggy, polluted city

    You can say that about any large city in America, of course, and quite a few smaller ones as well.

    boring skyline, overcrowded

    Seems like a bit of a non sequitur, but OK: we don’t have the most inspired skyline. If that’s your qualifier for having an NFL team, Green Bay, Minneapolis, Cleveland, Kansas City, Indianapolis and several others are going to have to give up their teams, I’m afraid. And yes, we’re overcrowded. Hate to break this to you, but a large population base is exactly what the NFL is looking for.

    the beaches are horrible, cold water and homeless people everywhere.

    Uh, oh. There goes Chicago and Detroit as NFL cities . . .

    Severe drought and restricting firearm laws

    ???!!!? Planning on bringing your guns to a football game?

    LA is the worst choice to put an NFL team because it has already failed multiple times.</blockquote?
    This again? I think we’ve covered this enough, don’t you? This is just willful ignorance at this point.

    The is no sports fan base in LA, don’t move a team to that dump.

    There is enough of a “sports fan base” here to support 2 NBA teams, 2 MLB teams, 2 NHL teams, at least 1 MLS team, and 2 major collegiate athletic programs.

    I’m genuinely sorry if you live in one of the cities that is likely to lose its team; I’ve had that experience. If you want to make a cogent, valid case for why the Rams, Raiders, or Chargers should remain where the are, by all means do so. But a venomous, inaccurate, and off-point screed like the one you just threw out there says more about you than it does about L.A.’s viability as an NFL city.

  28. araidersfan says:

    After they moved to Los Angeles in 1982, the team had 4 excellent years but became mediocre (after 1985) and they often played in front of a half-empty stadium when they weren’t playing a top-tier opponent.
    _________________________

    The Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum held over 100,000 people the way it was configured when the Raiders played there. Half empty means that at least 51,000 fans were still in attendance at those games. How many people are showing up in Oakland these days?

  29. 17 game season = a bunch of neutral site games in LA. Better for the fan base than a true home team.

  30. returntoexcellence says:
    Jun 15, 2015 8:26 PM

    The Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum held over 100,000 people the way it was configured when the Raiders played there. Half empty means that at least 51,000 fans were still in attendance at those games. How many people are showing up in Oakland these days?

    ========================

    I have box-scores of Raider home games in Los Angeles from the late 1980s (when the Raiders were in decline) that were in the high 30s/low 40s with one contest as low as 32,000. And the population of Los Angeles is over 35 times as large as Oakland’s. It’s no coincidence that no NFL team chose to relocate to L.A. for 20+ years.

    As for Oakland, if a suitable deal can’t be made for the Raiders to stay, then they should move. But to a sane venue like San Antonio where there is a ready stadium for sole occupancy and the state of Texas is wild about football.

    In either case, it’s viable organization and coaching that leads to success on the field and unfortunately the Raiders have lacked that for a very long time. Relocation alone won’t solve that problem.

  31. As frustrated as the threat of the Chargers moving makes me, it’s hard to be upset due to the humorous tone of the article…

    “or Raiders qualify for home playoff games.”

    LOL

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.