DENVER — Friday’s announcement that the Broncos would play in front of no fans for their regular-season opener came as no surprise.

The Broncos joined 12 other teams in formally announcing that for at least one home game, fans will not be in attendance.

So, now what?

First, do not close the door on the Broncos playing at limited capacity in the weeks beyond. According to a report from Colorado Public Radio, positive tests this week are at their lowest rate in approximately two and a half months. If local and regional trends remain the same, Colorado will be in a better position than many other states to potentially host socially-distanced events — and do so safely.

The cancelled preseason also impacted the decision. When those games were wiped out, teams lost the chance to have a dry run with altered stadium procedures that will provide for proper social distancing. A home game without fans gives the Broncos’ game-day staff a chance to rehearse how to handle circumstances that no one walking the earth has ever experienced for a sporting event.

If it is only up to the Broncos and Colorado, bet on the team welcoming anywhere from 10,000 to 16,000 fans at some point in the season — perhaps starting with the massive Week 3 showdown with old nemesis Tom Brady and his Tampa Bay Buccaneers.

There isn’t a lot within the Broncos’ control, of course. Another local spike in COVID-19 cases could nip their hopes in the bud.

But there is another concept that could undermine the hopes of having fans at Empower Field at Mile High: the remote possibility that forces within the NFL could hit the pause button on fans gathering at some stadium in the name of “fairness.”

Making that argument Friday was Vikings coach Mike Zimmer.

“I think there are some unfair things going on around it as far as some teams can have fans and some teams can’t,” Zimmer told media from the Twin Cities during a video conference. “So I think there is a competitive disadvantage in some of those areas.”

To follow or work in the NFL or for one of its teams is to become familiar with the phrase “competitive balance.”

So much of the NFL’s foundation is built on that concept, from the structure of the draft to the dispersal of television and NFL Properties revenue to a scheduling formula that gives first-place teams two more games against fellow defending division champions than anyone else.

Allowing some teams to have fans while others cannot have them would seem to work against it.

And remember, not every team has the choice of having fans. The New York Jets and New York Giants announced a season without fans at hime games in the wake of New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy’s pronouncement that outdoor gatherings in his state would be limited.

The Chicago Bears, Buffalo Bills and Philadelphia Eagles all play in jurisdictions where large gatherings are limited or outright banned at either a city or state level. The Carolina Panthers play in Charlotte, N.C., which is under a statewide ban on outdoor gatherings of more than 25 people until at least Sept. 11.

Some clubs, like the Las Vegas Raiders and Washington Football Team, will play without fans at home games by choice. But if some teams don’t have the option. Others, like the three California clubs and the Arizona Cardinals, might find themselves in the same predicament where they cannot host fans, even if they desired.

If only the NFL’s historical commitment to competitive balance mattered, you’d see nothing but closed stadiums.

But commerce and the NFL’s desire to stanch the massive financial hemorrhaging as much as possible will likely supersede that. This year is the one in which all the rules, all the norms and all that we thought was certain has been thrown in the garbage. For this year, competitive balance could meet the same fate.

And that means if Colorado’s fortunes in containing COVID-19 spread continue to improve, you can have confidence that even a few fans will be able to bring some Mile High Thunder to Broncos home games at some point this fall.