Which NFL teams will win over Roger Goodell in Los Angeles relocation derby?

With three NFL owners pushing two competing stadium plans in Los Angeles County, the NFL soon might face the difficult task of deciding which teams will move into which stadium.

The league has said it only will support one new stadium capable of housing two teams in Los Angeles — but not two new stadiums to be occupied by three franchises. It ultimately could come down to a league vote between the San Diego Chargers, Oakland Raiders and St. Louis Rams.

And that's where the decision could get tricky, possibly even leading to bare-knuckle politicking among the team owners.

"If it's a popularity contest, then (Chargers owner) Dean Spanos wins, hands down," said Marc Ganis, a consultant who has worked with many NFL owners. "I don't think that's what it will end up being, but if it came down to that, then Dean Spanos wins. More relevant is who would operate a more successful football franchise in Los Angeles. On that criteria, he also wins. The Rams and Raiders, unfortunately, have two of the worst records in the NFL in last five to 10 years."

Relocation requires approval from 24 of the league's 32 owners, with NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell possibly making a recommendation on the proposals if a negotiated solution isn't reached first. The league has said it could have a team in Los Angeles by the start of the 2016 season. Among the other factors to weigh:

THREE'S A CROWD

Ever since the Raiders and Rams left Los Angeles in 1995, only one NFL franchise has occupied Southern California — the Chargers in San Diego, whose nearest NFL neighbor is about 300 miles away in Arizona.

It's a hugely populous and lucrative market that easily could sustain two NFL teams, but probably not three, a person familiar with the league's views on the situation told USA TODAY Sports.

Having the Chargers in San Diego and two other teams in Los Angeles is a bigger business risk than makes sense, said the person, who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the situation.

That's because the Chargers currently draw about 25% of their local revenues from nearby Orange and Los Angeles counties — a stream that could run dry if even one NFL team moves into their backyard, not to mention two.

This could mean either two teams move to Los Angeles, including the Chargers. Or one team could move to Los Angeles, with the Chargers staying in San Diego. But the latter scenario appears to be in peril because any vote for a new stadium in San Diego probably won't come until next year, when it might be too late for the Chargers.

Team relocation requests for 2016 might be filed by the end of the year. The Chargers and Raiders also face an April 30 deadline in their joint pursuit of a $1.7 billion stadium in Carson, Calif., a suburb of Los Angeles. If no decision is made by then to move there, Carson would be free to pursue other plans for that property.

TAKING CARE OF CALIFORNIA

Rams owner Stan Kroenke is backing his own plan in Inglewood, a $1.86 billion stadium that would be part of a larger entertainment and retail complex near the L.A. airport.

But if Kroenke wants to move his team into that stadium, he could face resistance from those who believe that the league should find stadium solutions for its teams already in California before it allows another team to move from another state.

It's a serious issue, said the person familiar with the situation. Ganis agrees.

"That is something that I've heard," said Ganis, who helped the Raiders and Rams relocate to Oakland and St. Louis in 1995. "You've got two situations in California (with the Raiders and Chargers) that have been intractable on a long-term basis."

The L.A. stadium derby has gained increased urgency recently because each of the three teams is unhappy in its current stadium and would now be able to leave their leases without a prohibitive penalty.

With only two spots available in Los Angeles, fear has become a driving factor. Each team dreads being the one left out of Los Angeles while the other two strike it rich in a swanky new stadium. If that happened, the team that got left out of Los Angeles would have to return to its current market with little leverage to improve its stadium situation there.

HOME COOKING

Kroenke also has an image problem. Many believe he hasn't tried very hard to stay in St. Louis recently, even though officials there are proposing a $985 million stadium, with $250 million coming from state and city bonds, plus tax credits.

"Clubs are obligated to work diligently and in good faith to obtain and to maintain suitable stadium facilities in their home territories, and to operate in a manner that maximizes fan support in their current home communities," the league's relocation policy states.

Ganis said this could work against Kroenke because "it's well-known among the owners that he has not engaged in an active way with the St. Louis parties."

By contrast, Spanos and the Chargers have been trying to get a new stadium in San Diego for more than a decade.

"If St. Louis steps up and comes up with the funding, and the Carson project continues to add viability (for the Raiders and Chargers), it's hard to see the league approving a relocation of the Rams, pursuant to its own relocation rules," Ganis said.

Efforts are underway to keep all three teams in their current markets. If one or two are able to succeed, that could make the decision easy. Maybe one of the teams opts for the stadium proposal being offered in its current market, allowing the other two to move to Los Angeles without a fight. But what if Kroenke is determined to move into his stadium in Inglewood regardless of what he's offered in St. Louis?

Ganis does not believe Kroenke will try to move to Los Angeles without league approval because the league could make life miserable for him in retaliation. "It would be one of the few ways he could screw up an otherwise wonderful life," Ganis said.

THE GREATER GOOD

Kroenke's Inglewood project appears to be the most attractive of the two stadium proposals right now, partly because it's been in the works longer, Ganis and the person familiar with the situation said. The long-term attractiveness of the development will be a factor in this race, which leads to other considerations.

What if the league likes Kroenke's stadium proposal but doesn't want the Rams to leave St. Louis?

The person estimated it's about 90% certain the Rams would occupy Kroenke's stadium if it gets built.

The league also wants any L.A. stadium to be capable of hosting two NFL tenants. So which team would take the second spot in Kroenke's stadium if the Rams move there?

In this scenario, the person said, Kroenke has agreed to let the league decide which other team would occupy his stadium — a move that might not happen right away.

Kroenke still might be the easiest of the three owners to block in a vote among owners. All it takes is nine owners to reject a relocation proposal, and at least two teams can be counted on to vote against Kroenke right now — the Raiders and Chargers.

An alliance could form against him based on the relocation guidelines, the desire to favor the California teams first and Spanos' relative popularity.

But the person familiar with the situation said owners often form initial alliances only to later make decisions based on the league's — and their own — long-term best interests.

That's why Ganis believes Goodell will play the key role in this. Working for all the owners, Goodell would recommend what is best for the league and not just one or two teams.

"There's a lot more to this than just who can build the stadium," Ganis said. "That's been the focus, but what Roger Goodell has to focus on is: Who is going to operate the best in Los Angeles? And that's his responsibility, and that's why I'd say about half the owners will follow his lead, whatever he recommends."

Follow sports writer Brent Schrotenboer on Twitter @Schrotenboer. E-mail: bschrotenb@usatoday.com