[5555624]

> Fans only want to watch the very best players. Without TV money, new leagues can’t match salaries, and cannot attract top talent.

Is there enough "top talent" to fund a new league? Take American football: there are more players in high school, than college, because the game gets faster and better; the same goes from college to the NFL. The game changes, too; so. success in college doe not mean success in the NFL. There have been 88 Heisman Trophy winners; but, only 10 have made the NFL Hall of Fame. (The only two-time Heisman Trpohy winner is not one of those ten.)

Did (DO) the XFL and AAF have "top talent"? These were players who were not good to get drafted by the NFL. Sure, some players have from the XFL to NFL; but, that makes the XFL more like a minor league or developmental league -- a notch lower.

[Balgair]

Top talent is also going to these lesser leagues. Mason Cox was a top NCAA basketball player and got recruited to play AFL in Australia. There's quite a pipeline now because that. Same goes for Australia to US football kickers and punters.

Most of these sports are so variable that they qualify as 'unkind' learning environments, per David Epstein's work. Meaning that a large variety of other education is preferable. Patrick Mahomes is a great example. His baseball training has made him a great quarterback.

Point is, if the sport is sufficiently 'unkind' then any player from other sports should be just fine transferring over