Super Bowl in London?

[spleen1015]

I heard this morning on Dan Patrick's show that the NFL was in negotiations to have the Super Bowl played in London.

What do you guys think about this? I personally don't like it. You're taking one of, if not the largest sporting event of this country and taking it some where else.

The NFL is the best sport in this country. I don't see a need to globalize the game.

I may not know what I am talking about, but I think the lack of success of NFL Europe tells me that Europe isn't interested in American football.

[Icy]

Superbowl outside USA? No way they could even think about it.

I think it must be a mistake and they were talking about a preseason or regular season game there like past year with the Dolphins.

[molson]

It makes sense of the NFL, the only way they can really continue expanding is globally.

But it would suck for the U.S, to send all that economic activity somewhere else.

[Lathum]

In our current economy the NFL would take a huge loss in the court of public opinion.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by molson

But it would suck for the U.S, to send all that economic activity somewhere else.

This is my thought, as well. It would piss me off, pretty badly actually, to "give" that business to another country.

[lordscarlet]

I don't think you need to move the Super Bowl around to spread it. There are regular season games, and you could also do the Pro Bowl. Leave the Super Bowl at home until there are countries in the league from abroad (which I don't really see happening unless it becomes a non inter-conference games style setup).

[flere-imsaho]

London, an uncovered stadium, in February/March?

Well, at least Chicago would finally have a good argument for hosting the Super Bowl.

[Galaxy]

Don't worry, we'll pay hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars for taxpayer-funded stadiums to see even more NFL (which are only used for 8-10 games a year by the teams) games go international. At what point do we say no?

It wouldn't bother so much except for that fact.

[Ksyrup]

This has been in the works or at least talked about for awhile. I understand wanting to globalize US professional sports for money reasons, but the tension these leagues are running into is that we just don't care about whether these games appeal to people anywhere else. At all. You're good enough to play professionally? Then come here. Taking these games outside of the US and doing stupid stuff like the WBC has absolutely no positive affect on a US fan.

Personally, I don't care if they play the Super Bowl outside of the US since I'm sitting on my couch watching it either way, but it would be fun to watch the league justify increasing its revenues at the expense of the short-term economic gain it would provide a US city.

[Mustang]

Start it at 6 PM London time and the West coast sees it at 10:00 AM?

What a fucking stupid idea. While we are at it, let's just have them pick up Liverpool vs Manchester U and play it in Miami.

[Big Fo]

I'll make the trade if we can have the Champions League final played in the US. Since that won't happen this is a dumb idea.

And why London? I'm pretty sure the NFL is more popular in Germany than it is in England.

[Noop]

That is so stupid. The Super Bowl is an American tradition and should be played on American soil.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Don't worry, we'll pay hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars for taxpayer-funded stadiums to see even more NFL (which are only used for 8-10 games a year by the teams) games go international. At what point do we say no?

It wouldn't bother so much except for that fact.

Yup. We bitch and bitch about pro sports taking fans for granted and selling us out for another few $$ of profit, but until we start voting with our wallets and eyeballs, they don't give a shit.

[Philliesfan980]

Guys do you really think this will happen? I could see it happening maybe 10 years down the line, but not now. I think everyone is jumping the gun a little.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Philliesfan980

Guys do you really think this will happen? I could see it happening maybe 10 years down the line, but not now. I think everyone is jumping the gun a little.

Will it be a better idea 10 years from now?

[DanGarion]

Someone must be looking for ratings for them to even suggest this. Probably a bunch of BS.

[PurdueBrad]

Originally Posted by Lathum

In our current economy the NFL would take a huge loss in the court of public opinion.

I agree with this completely.

However, IF we weren't having such a bad go of it financially, I actually think it is the best game to put over there simply because no team is meant to have a home field advantage like when they screw over two regular season teams.

[stevew]

This is a horrible idea. I hope that the senate gets involved if they try to do something this stupid.

[JediKooter]

Look, England lost the war, deal with it. If they want to see a Super Bowl, come to America or get better, less self centered generals next time.

[gstelmack]

They've priced most fans out of attending games anyway. Why should I care where it's actually played?

[Lathum]

Another problem I have with it is they are going to move the superbowl to another country yet they wont give it to any city in America that doesn't have a dome or play in warm weather.

Total BS.

I realize because of the planning logistics they need to announce the location months in advance, but how sweet would a superbowl in Green Bay or Kansas City be? Elements be damned, they are part of the game.

[DaddyTorgo]

Superbowl in London = EPIC FAIL

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Big Fo

I'll make the trade if we can have the Champions League final played in the US. Since that won't happen this is a dumb idea.

And why London? I'm pretty sure the NFL is more popular in Germany than it is in England.

OOooohh!!! The CL Final in the US would be TO DIE FOR. I bet if they put it in say Giant's Stadium it'd fill up. Somewhere with a significant enough population. Shit, I'd go!

[A-Husker-4-Life]

This is a horrible idea, the NFL is trying to over expand the sport and only bad things can come from it.

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by A-Husker-4-Life

This is a horrible idea, the NFL is trying to over expand the sport and only bad things can come from it.

Unless I'm missing sarcasm, it's worked quite well for the NBA.

[Surtt]

This is about the worst idea I have heard in a long time.
For a lot of teams and fans, going to the Superbowl might be a once in a life time event. Actually going to the game might be expensive, but doable. Now you are taking the game away from the people who have supported their team for years and are giving it to another country that sees it as a novelty.
Talk about shitting all over the fans.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mustang

Start it at 6 PM London time and the West coast sees it at 10:00 AM?

What a fucking stupid idea. While we are at it, let's just have them pick up Liverpool vs Manchester U and play it in Miami.

I don't know how they'd do the time thing. The television deal is worth way more than anything else on the table. There is no way a network pays top dollar for a 12-3pm start time. You'd have to start the game at midnight there. That alone makes this idea really tough to pull off.

I think the move would be a huge slap in the face to football fans. I can understand a regular season game or something to get fans to notice the league. But giving them our biggest sporting event is ridiculous.

My suggestion is to play the Pro Bowl overseas.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Surtt

This is about the worst idea I have heard in a long time.
For a lot of teams and fans, going to the Superbowl might be a once in a life time event. Actually going to the game might be expensive, but doable. Now you are taking the game away from the people who have supported their team for years and are giving it to another country that sees it as a novelty.
Talk about shitting all over the fans.

Yep, Roger G is taking a crap on everyone's face right here.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Surtt

This is about the worst idea I have heard in a long time.
For a lot of teams and fans, going to the Superbowl might be a once in a life time event. Actually going to the game might be expensive, but doable. Now you are taking the game away from the people who have supported their team for years and are giving it to another country that sees it as a novelty.
Talk about shitting all over the fans.

Adding the cost of a trans-atlantic flight to the tickets is really going to kill what's already a multi-thousand-dollar trip?

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't know how they'd do the time thing. The television deal is worth way more than anything else on the table. There is no way a network pays top dollar for a 12-3pm start time. You'd have to start the game at midnight there. That alone makes this idea really tough to pull off.

I agree. The 6:20 EST start time is the time that makes the game worth the most to US networks, has nothing to do with local time - the game starts at 6:20 EST whether played in Miami, New Orleans or Pasadena.

The NFL might be able to dictate a different start time, but they'd just have to take less from the US network. Could they make it up?

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Adding the cost of a trans-atlantic flight to the tickets is really going to kill what's already a multi-thousand-dollar trip?

Not as simple as that, although that would impact it. You've got additional time off work needed because of the extended travel, and you've got the fact that it takes around $1.50 to buy £1. So anything you would've had to spend money on - food, fuel, hotel rooms, etc, potentially costs you 50% more.

Then you've got the cost of fuel over there relative to what one would spend in Tampa or Dallas or whatever given current fuel prices here.

The cost of the ticket is a consideration, but the cost of virtually everything else would also go up for anybody who undertook to go to London for the Super Bowl versus going to any domestic location for the same event. It moves the financial goalposts for the fan who has been dreaming of making the pilgrimage.

[Passacaglia]

It wouldn't be held trans-atlantically every year, I assume. Just don't go that year.

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Adding the cost of a trans-atlantic flight to the tickets is really going to kill what's already a multi-thousand-dollar trip?

For a lot of people I think it would.

If you are planning to go to the supper bowl just to go, it probably wouldn't matter as much. But for fans that want to go to see their team play it would. You can't even get a passport in the 2 weeks between the conference championships and the super bowl.

[Hammer755]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

This is my thought, as well. It would piss me off, pretty badly actually, to "give" that business to another country.

How does a Super Bowl held in Miami benefit a city, say San Diego, any more than holding it in London?

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Hammer755

How does a Super Bowl held in Miami benefit a city, say San Diego, any more than holding it in London?

It's all trickle down.

Lets take the money spent in Miami for, say, big flip foam fingers.

Those fingers may be made by a company in, say, Illinois. Then have to be trucked to Miami. So even though the game is in Miami, other US industries are helped out.

Then the guy who drove the truck decides to spend his earnings to take his family on a vacation to San Diego to see the zoo.

[Logan]

What's with the assumption that it costs multi-thousands to go to the Super Bowl?

[AlexB]

Never ever gonna happen - would be great if it did, but not a chance. TV, economics and politics all dictate that this is a pipe dream. I count myself lucky that I can watch one, maybe two in the future if the reports are true, regular season games a year that mean something.

If the Pro Bowl or a pre-season game came to England I wouldn't go, but my name is one the list every time a regular season game is here, even if it's between two of the other three AFC East teams to the Dolphins. As it goes, the first game was perfect for me: I got to see Maimi play for the 2nd time!

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by Logan

What's with the assumption that it costs multi-thousands to go to the Super Bowl?

Just off the top of my head....

If the Vikings go to the Super Bowl this year. (HA!)

I can fly to Atlanta from Minneapolis for under $250 (cheapest place that is close and assuming all the flights closer are booked)
rent a car and drive the rest of the way (25 hours or so)
The whole trip would be about $1000.
Get 4 people to go and you could do it for under $500 each.
(plus cost of ticket)

It would not be the most pleasant trip, but it would be cheep and you would not need to try and find a room, etc...
(I am sure you could find a better plan within a few minuets looking)

[OldGiants]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

OOooohh!!! The CL Final in the US would be TO DIE FOR. I bet if they put it in say Giant's Stadium it'd fill up. Somewhere with a significant enough population. Shit, I'd go!

There was a proposal last year that the Premier league teams each add a 39th game to be played in the US.
That got rejected very quickly.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Logan

What's with the assumption that it costs multi-thousands to go to the Super Bowl?

When did Super Bowl tickets get cheap all of a suddent?

I just don't see the cost of a plane to London adding all that high a percentage onto the cost of the trip, given that most folks would already have to pay for travel within the US.

[Logan]

I completely underestimated ticket prices. You're right.

[Honolulu Blue]

Originally Posted by Mustang

Start it at 6 PM London time and the West coast sees it at 10:00 AM?

A 1 PM start in the East would be about the only benefit from this idea, IMO. Not that either the Londoners or TV networks would go for it.

I think we'll see a NFL team in Los Angeles before this happens. And I'm not holding my breath for that.

[gstelmack]

Goodell denies the rumor:

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell outlines possible lengthened season - ESPN

(bottom of the article)

[QuikSand]

Don't stop this thread. UIC factor here is off the charts.

[Super Ugly]

I'll be surprised if this amounts to anything, for logistical reasons and for the fact that it'd be a PR disaster for the league. Not so much for the fact that American fans would be outraged, but because the majority of Europeans simply wouldn't give a shit about "the biggest sporting event in the world."

If the NFL were really serious about expanding the game on a global level - and I believe they should - then there are many European domestic leagues that could really use the support of the NFL marketing machine. From what I gather, the NBA has a sense of the bigger picture. The NFL, unfortunately, seems to be more concerned with exporting the odd regular season game with the long-term aim of selling more jerseys.

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by Super Ugly

Not so much for the fact that American fans would be outraged, but because the majority of Europeans simply wouldn't give a shit about "the biggest sporting event in the world."

You see, that's where it gets interesting. Either it's the biggest sporting event in the world and it can be played everywhere, or it's the biggest sporting event in the United States and it can played in any stadium in the USA.

I'm part of that minority of Europeans and I don't care where it's held. I do think it doesn't make sense to have the United States' american football championships played abroad, it just doesn't belong. The whole regular season game in London aspect doesn't make sense to me either.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Super Ugly

From what I gather, the NBA has a sense of the bigger picture.

The NBA has the advantage of the olympics and international competition (true world championships). The NFL has neither, and is unlikely to get either.

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

The NBA has the advantage of the olympics and international competition (true world championships). The NFL has neither, and is unlikely to get either.

I don't think it's that, per se. I think it simply requires air time to get fans. Taking myself as an example, I got into following american football by accidentally catching football broadcast 10 years ago after midnight, in one of very few years where a Dutch tv channel had right to broadcast games. It's hard to support the next I'll say, but I've got reason to believe the existence of the Amsterdam Admirals in NFL Europe had some influence.

This might turn into a chicken-egg situation, but baseball and basketball are somewhat popular overhere in the Netherlands. Football not at all, ditto ice hockey. You have to start somewhere getting people interested in the game. I don't think interest in a particular sports is geographically rooted, so it must be based on seeing the fun of football. I don't think it starts at Wembley stadium, it start at the local park, sports club or at prime time television hours.

Edit: Re-reading my reply, maybe I agree afterall.