Skip to content

Super Bowl Heading To London?

Well, it looks like the ’68 VW bus might eventually have to float.
Our friends in England have pointed out to us a report suggesting that talks are underway to send the Super Bowl to London.
“We’ve spoken on what it would take to host and for us to bring it over,” NFL events vice-president Frank Supovitz said Thursday.   “The city has all the facilities needed, and in great quantity.”
It’s something that has been mentioned in the past, perhaps as a trial balloon.  For the first time, it now looks and feels like something that could possibly happen. 
“We have had very substantive conversations with the city of London,” Supovitz said.  “We’ve got to the point of exploring the bid document.”
So when would it occur?
“It won’t happen in the next three or four years because we know where the Super Bowls will be, but these are exciting opportunities for us,” Supovitz said.
In our view, it won’t happen for several more years beyond that, at the earliest.  The U.S. audience is still getting comfortable with the notion of regular-season games being exported to London and other countries.  The Super Bowl is a very different issue. 
It’s part of our collective American experience and identity.  Put simply, it’s ours.  And many will believe it belongs here.
That said, we’re not opposed to it.  For purely selfish purposes, we fully support the globalization of the sport.  And a Super Bowl in London could be critical to the expansion of the sport beyond our borders  — perhaps as signficant as the ’58 championship game was to moving the NFL from a click above pro wrestling into full and complete legitimacy on the pro sports landscape.
So count us in for a London Super Bowl.  And don’t be shocked if it becomes one of the most-hyped sporting events of all time.

Permalink 137 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Top Stories
137 Responses to “Super Bowl Heading To London?”
  1. brianforster says: Apr 24, 2009 8:49 AM

    Hey whatever, not like I will be able to afford Super Bowl tickets anyway, as long as its still on TV, I’m set.

  2. GreenAndGold says: Apr 24, 2009 8:50 AM

    The beginning of the end…

  3. bigstretch says: Apr 24, 2009 8:52 AM

    It’s bad enough already that the superbowl is too expensive for most average fans to attend, now the NFL want to make it impossible by playing in London. I like Goodell’s approach to player accountability with fines and suspensions, but this idea is horrible. Football is America’s past time and meant to be played in America. You don’t see the european soccor league trying to play their championship at Lambeau Field do you?

  4. HAILSKINS says: Apr 24, 2009 8:53 AM

    That would be crap. Its already nearly impossible for people who have season tickets to see thier team in the Super Bowl here. It would be impossible if it were played across the pond.

  5. bridude68 says: Apr 24, 2009 8:53 AM

    So, with the Time difference, in order to show the game in prime time on network television in the USA, kick off wouold have to be at 11 pm at night in London!!!! Yeah, that’s gonna work…..

  6. Corkscrew says: Apr 24, 2009 8:55 AM

    I hate this idea. Absolutely hate it. First of all, the Super Bowl is a prime-time event. The latest it could start EST is 3:00, and with the extended halftime and bloated pre-game, that might be too late. Secondly, do you think Manchester United or Chelsea would send their biggest “football” match of the year to the states? No way.
    Why does the sport need to grow more than it has? If it gets too big, it just might eat itself.

  7. bored_of_seinfeld_jokes says: Apr 24, 2009 8:56 AM

    I don’t get it. NFL Europe failed because europeans just aren’t interested in this sport. So what if they can sell out one or two games abroad a season? I can’t believe they would even consider moving the marquee game overseas.

  8. Shine says: Apr 24, 2009 8:56 AM

    this would suck, with this tiem difference the Super Bowl would be starting at about 1 or 2 o’clock. Lets take our sport and give it to people who don’t give a crap. Oh wait I forgot I’m a Jets fan, Woody Johnson is already doing that with my team.

  9. stini777 says: Apr 24, 2009 8:57 AM

    No way. Not gonna’ happen. How do you rob a U.S. city of that kind of revenue?

  10. FireAndyReid21 says: Apr 24, 2009 8:57 AM

    If the Super Bowl is ever played outside this country, i’ll never watch the NFL again.

  11. Ulysses says: Apr 24, 2009 8:57 AM

    While we’re at it, how about we move the Washington Monument to someplace in France or Germany?

  12. killwithme says: Apr 24, 2009 8:58 AM

    the globalization of the sport did not work. We had NFL Europe and it’s gone.
    That’s our game…and yeah, I am selfish. Go kick a soccer ball.

  13. Section731 says: Apr 24, 2009 8:59 AM

    While it sounds like a fun idea. I’m not up for sending the millions of dollars that the Super Bowl generates for an American city to another country. In this economic climate it is down right ri-damn-diculous.

  14. I Aint No Tatum Bell says: Apr 24, 2009 8:59 AM

    Maybe the following November they can elect our next president for us too.

  15. tv says: Apr 24, 2009 9:00 AM

    Yeah, this will make the NFL better. Further pushing the games from the majority fan base is always a great idea!

  16. bigstretch says: Apr 24, 2009 9:01 AM

    P.S. — what is the next move starting NFL teams based in eurupe?
    with the possiblity of a 18 game season ( I disagree with) and now Goodell’s desire to make the NFL the world’s sports it could take 11 months to play 1 season, as much as i love football what i really love is good football and i hope this desire to expand the NFL doesn’t end up watering it down to something on par with what the NFL europe used to be.

  17. ledtear says: Apr 24, 2009 9:01 AM

    This would suck! The Super Bowl belongs in the U.S. – not overseas…

  18. Timberpups says: Apr 24, 2009 9:01 AM


  19. twobags95 says: Apr 24, 2009 9:01 AM

    This is BS! If you won’t play the Super Bowl in places like D.C. or NYC why in the world would we want it played in London?

  20. stallan54 says: Apr 24, 2009 9:02 AM

    I will boycot the NFL if they do something this stupid. I can’t believe we even waste one game out there. Keep it where it belongs. What a freakin joke. USA!! USA!! USA!! USA!! USA!!

  21. kravon says: Apr 24, 2009 9:02 AM

    Fish and Chips for all. I love it!!!!

  22. BirdMan says: Apr 24, 2009 9:02 AM

    I support the globalization of the sport too. This is different. There’s no way they will be able to appreciate the importance of that one game, even if we try to compare it to their English Premier League championships.

  23. mike hunt says: Apr 24, 2009 9:02 AM

    I don’t feel like being eloquent this morning. I am tired and hungover and hating life right now until I go to bed..So, on that note, fuk that. And fuk london..However, how many REAL fans go to the superbowl even when it is in the States anyhow. Nothing but rich business douchers that don’t know a first down from a touchdown. There’d be a lot more of a problem if the championship games get shipped. There might literally be hostage crisis situations going down at NFL headquarters if that if that happened.

  24. -DG says: Apr 24, 2009 9:02 AM

    Maybe consider a pro bowl there first.

  25. Orangello_Jones says: Apr 24, 2009 9:02 AM

    “It’s part of our collective American experience and identity. Put simply, it’s ours. And many will believe it belongs here.”
    Count me as one of em.
    I’m amazed that as much as you push Pro Football as being the National past time that you’d be down with it going elsewhere for SB time -i.e. where zero NFL fans can see it locally and 100% have to travel overseas, get passports and take a hit in the Dollar to pound exchange rate to do it. Plus they are doing zero to “stimulate” economic health in the US. They’d be doing a nice job hurting it actually (let alone the hit our tourism industry would take from that weekend alone). I’m further amazed that you’re cool with exporting what is literally an 8-9 figure weekend for whichever city gets the bid to an off continent city especially one with so many citizens who show open contempt for all things American. Talk about exporting jobs and income.
    Screw them, if there’s one thing thing the world can’t hijack, it’s the freakin’ Super Bowl, not without some serious backlash.

  26. ringsoft says: Apr 24, 2009 9:03 AM

    Bearing in mind the Superbowl is the only NFL non-exhibition game played at a neutral venue, and is very much aimed at pulling in corporate cash through sponsorship and schmoozing, this makes a lot of sense.
    If you get over here Florio, I might even buy you a pint.

  27. scratchdaddy says: Apr 24, 2009 9:04 AM

    Really smart strategy NFL! Let’s stimulate the UK’s economy because ours is doing so well…

  28. herse182 says: Apr 24, 2009 9:04 AM

    What time would this game be played at? There is a seven hour time difference between the East Coast. So would the game be played in the middle of the night in London? Or would the kickoff be around noon on the east and 9 am on the west?

  29. DC_Bengals_Fan says: Apr 24, 2009 9:04 AM

    Screw that. With rapidly increasing ticket prices, gradual elimination of tailgating, and putting stadiums out in the middle of nowhere making gameday a pain in the ass, the NFL is risking alienating its core fans – you know, those in the US.
    Before they start trying to develop fans in countries that don’t give a shit about football, they should start worrying about the fact that they risk losing fans here who aren’t rich and willing to kill their entire Sunday getting to/from a 3 hour game.

  30. bucco bruce says: Apr 24, 2009 9:05 AM

    The US audience is not getting used to games played in the regular season in other countries. And the Super Bowl in London? HELL NO!

  31. bhooks80 says: Apr 24, 2009 9:06 AM

    Our Commissioner is a Cyborg…
    Hey thanks NFL, we have made you the most financially set sport in the word, and you screw over the revenues from an American city. Great Job!!!
    These sons of beeches…

  32. dolfan565 says: Apr 24, 2009 9:07 AM

    Does this mean the game will start at midnight (local time), or that they’ll move the game up and we’ll only get 2 hours of pre-game instead of 6?

  33. buffobeel42 says: Apr 24, 2009 9:08 AM

    Send the Pro Bowl there first. With the star-crazed London crowd and there lack of knowledge about good quality football, they might actually fill the stadium for the Pro Bowl. Keep the Super Bowl on U.S. soil!!!

  34. I C light pounder says: Apr 24, 2009 9:08 AM

    F-That! screw england, i think before they send the SB overseas they need to start having them in cold weather cities instead of having them in the south or west.

  35. Mitnavnmark says: Apr 24, 2009 9:08 AM

    I can completely see why americans would be aposed to this…but personaly I’m all for it, but of course that can’t surprise anyone since I myself is from Denmark, Europe, so I hope it happens…. But again I can totaly see why americans would want it to stay in america, culture and all. I would like to see this happening, before I actually believe there is anything to this though…

  36. kvnjksn says: Apr 24, 2009 9:09 AM

    I agree with you 100% – well make that 99% of the time now. This would be crazy. How many fans would/could actually make that trip? The game played in London now isn’t that big of a deal – it’s a glorified exhibition for the people in London BUT the Super Bowl!?!?! That belongs to the fans of the teams involved more than anyone. How could you ever support making that game inaccessible to those fans??
    I completely do not agree with this at all!!! Sorry

  37. ShockAndAweD-LineNYG says: Apr 24, 2009 9:09 AM

    i’ll freakin boycott!!until the game starts because you cant miss the superbowl lol but seriously whats wrong with goodell!!

  38. kessdaman says: Apr 24, 2009 9:10 AM

    London in Feb.
    Cold, windy, and rainy.

  39. dawk20db says: Apr 24, 2009 9:10 AM

    I’m torn.

  40. savsr says: Apr 24, 2009 9:11 AM

    that would be sweeeeet.
    would definitely cough up a lot of pounds to go to that

  41. mgoldfinga says: Apr 24, 2009 9:12 AM

    Does that mean that we’d all be settling in to watch the Superbowl at around midnight? Stoopid. It’s the N FL, not the I FL.

  42. 4thFloor says: Apr 24, 2009 9:12 AM

    And this would happen in the only year my team is going. That would suck badly….
    No to London

  43. JaxBuccaneer says: Apr 24, 2009 9:13 AM

    Yeah it could even be as big as the NFLE!!!

  44. watson111505 says: Apr 24, 2009 9:13 AM

    London , Overseas anywhere but here in the U.S.A. I don’t think so. Qoute, ,,,,,,It’s part of our collective American experience and identity. Put simply, it’s ours. And many will believe it belongs here…..
    … Nuff Said.

  45. psj3809 says: Apr 24, 2009 9:13 AM

    Sounds a great idea but just cant see it happening. The time difference wouldnt work as the game finishes about 4am in England. The weather could be a factor in late Jan/early Feb.
    I live in the UK but dont think its fair, there would be uproar here if the FA Cup final was held in NY etc. Nice idea but the Superbowl should be in the US

  46. bhooks80 says: Apr 24, 2009 9:14 AM

    Where is your Patriotic duty Florio? and I am not talking about your love for the Pats’…
    Why in the hell would anyone want to see a huge revenue stream like the Super Bowl go to another country.
    This is actually a bigger piece of crap than that website.
    (And Damn that site sucks, the whole thing.)
    But in all seriousness, this is Crap. And I cannot believe you are backing this.
    I would hope you come to your senses.
    “For purely selfish purposes, we fully support the globalization of the sport.”
    So are the Suitable Nodes, going on a world tour?
    Thanks Florio, you have sunken to an all time low for supporting this.

  47. bobbyjohn44 says: Apr 24, 2009 9:14 AM

    I think thats a dumb idea. Why send the biggest game of the year where the sport at the most will become a novelty? The sport will never be fully appreciated by a nation who never has had any significant players to call there own.
    It’s just the smug NFL trying to make a bit of extra cash at the expence of their loyal fans. I should just say I’m from Australia but I know I wouldn’t want the Superbowl to come here knowing that people wouldn’t really appreciate how significant an event it is that they would be witnessing. People would just be like “Thats the big game those bloody yanks are trying to bring over” (No offense intended to anyone).
    Oh yea, and I’m not trying to win a copy of QBF.

  48. PackAttack says: Apr 24, 2009 9:15 AM

    This foreign involvement doesnt seem to be helping the NBA. Guys with no vowels in there names youve never heard of playing center. I dont think everything is necessarily global.

  49. taxlaw26 says: Apr 24, 2009 9:15 AM

    I hear Matt Millen already has a handshake deal for the stewed meats concession.

  50. Bill.Polian says: Apr 24, 2009 9:16 AM

    Horrible idea

  51. EverybodyGotAIDS says: Apr 24, 2009 9:16 AM

    I could get behind it. Honestly, I’m going to be watching the thing on TV anyway, so who cares where it’s actually held? As long as they don’t have British announcers or anything, or try to announce it like a soccer game (i.e. “TOOOOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUUUUCHHHHHHHHHHDOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWWNNNNNNNNNN”) then it’ll be fine. They already have enough leadup to the game covering the crappy city it’s being played in (be it Jacksonville, Tampa, New Orleans, Arlington or Indianapolis, or wherever else), so why not London?

  52. scurry says: Apr 24, 2009 9:16 AM

    Im from England and dont like the idea of the Super Bowl being played in London one bit. London in February? No thanks – we dont have any stadiums with roofs. Assuming it would have to be played at Wembley – the current pitch (field) would not take a game of American Football in the middle of winter. Chances this actually happens – 5%.

  53. sept69 says: Apr 24, 2009 9:16 AM

    The Super Bowl was made by USA for the USA. Move it out and I won’t watch it. Why take it away from the people that made it what it is……….

  54. djdro34 says: Apr 24, 2009 9:17 AM


  55. scurry says: Apr 24, 2009 9:18 AM

    A follow-up on my previous comment – the game would also have to be taken out of primetime as the Super Bowl doesnt start till 11.30pm here – thats not going to go down too well with the TV networks/advertisers.

  56. ncpeters says: Apr 24, 2009 9:18 AM

    The NFL needs to realize it stands for the NATIONAL football league, not international. People may be more comfortable with a game or two a year going international but not the Super Bowl. No regular fans would be able to afford to fly to London on 2 weeks notice if their team made the Super Bowl. Also, if the Super Bowl were in London what time would it start? London is 5 hours ahead of the east coast so you would think it’d have to start at 3:30 eastern at the latest, which would be 12:30 on the west coast. The NFL already tried to go global with NFL Europe and failed, so stick to North America.

  57. jcw000 says: Apr 24, 2009 9:18 AM

    Wow that’s great because London is so beautiful in February. Hopefully we play outdoors at Wembley – awesome turf

  58. jl6556 says: Apr 24, 2009 9:18 AM

    I LIVE in the UK, and even I don’t want this. It would be awesome to go see, but it should be kept in the US. Thanks anyway Roger

  59. darth_vincent says: Apr 24, 2009 9:19 AM

    sounds lovely… what time would that game start in London – 11pm??? Especially if the NFL wants the game broadcast in primetime here in the USA or is the NFL planning on tape-delaying the game back to America???
    Actually, what network would want to host the Super Bowl over seas???? Across the board of everything involved, sounds like twice the work and expense and a sure money loser to me…

  60. oigetit says: Apr 24, 2009 9:20 AM

    Awesome…I always new the NFL didn’t care about it fans.

  61. rockhead says: Apr 24, 2009 9:21 AM

    People would watch the Super bowl if it were played in a Hollywood TV studio. The biggest problem I see with London is the game time. Assuming a 6:30-ish Eastern U.S. kickoff, that puts the game at 11:30 P.M. London time. I’ve watched live boxing from Europe where the main event didn’t start until 2 A.M. locally to accomodate U.S. television but I can’t imagine anyone affiliated with either team would enjoy that start time.

  62. Fef says: Apr 24, 2009 9:21 AM

    Why always London? Come on, we have a 80k seats stadium in Paris we could easily host a SB or a NFL game

  63. dc9 says: Apr 24, 2009 9:23 AM

    I went to the Chargers – Saints game last October. I can say that the facilities that London has to offer are fantastic, but I’d be really coincerned about the playing field. There would have to be field-turf laid down and the roof of Wembley finally finished so that it could be closed. The British weather in January wouldn’t make for a great air-it-out spectacle, although the game may be Ravens-Bears so it could make little difference.

  64. RamRodge says: Apr 24, 2009 9:23 AM

    It’s probably been suggested before, but: why not send the Pro Bowl over to London instead?!? It would be America’s equivalent of sending them a whole buttload of Beckham’s in one shot.
    They get maximum star power, while we get to keep the Super Bowl here in the states.

  65. EdMcGon says: Apr 24, 2009 9:27 AM

    It’s actually not a bad idea. If you think about it, how many of us actually get to attend a Super Bowl in person? Does it really matter whether the game is played here or overseas?
    That said, if the NFL has the Super Bowl in London, and does nothing to follow up on the opportunity, such as true overseas expansion, then it’s really just a waste.

  66. east96st says: Apr 24, 2009 9:27 AM

    I lived in London for a year and I have family all around the UK. February is the worse month in London. Cold and rainy nearly every day. Even if a domed stadium is in place, it’s not the kind of weather you want be sightseeing in. I loved London and would definitely try to get tickets. Perfect excuse for me to go visit family. But for a first time visitor, February is not the month to be there. I think the NFL will live to regret it. Every time the NFL has placed the Super Bowl in a cold climate, people have hated it. You would think someone in charge would look at a map and be able to figure out that London is NOT warm and sunny in the dead of winter.

  67. DailyRich says: Apr 24, 2009 9:29 AM

    Why does the NFL need to move beyond the US? It’s lasted for almost 90 years and become the most popular sport in the country without expanding overseas. Market the existing product to overseas markets, but don’t move the product there.
    And a London Super Bowl? A 6:30pm kickoff on the East Coast would be 11:30pm in London, so that’s not happening. You can’t angle for a 1:00pm East Coast kickoff, because nobody wants the Super Bowl airing at 10:00am in California. So what, you do a 9:00pm local kickoff so we get 4:00pm/1:00pm here? I just don’t see the time logistics working.
    If anything, put a Super Bowl in Canada or Mexico City before you send one to London.

  68. Moe Lester says: Apr 24, 2009 9:30 AM

    They have their own football there. Leave us ours!

  69. nebakanezer says: Apr 24, 2009 9:31 AM

    Why not? No one here in the States can afford to go to the game anyway so who cares where it is played.

  70. TitanTaco says: Apr 24, 2009 9:32 AM

    Keep it here, they only care about the other “football” and they would just get confused…

  71. jimicos says: Apr 24, 2009 9:33 AM

    Two things:
    – I hope the NFL never plays a Super Bowl abroad. It’s an American fixture and should remain so.
    – Mike, please get rid of those Wynonna weight loss ads. She’s a whale. What makes anyone think she’s an effective endorsement for weight loss?

  72. tgoods says: Apr 24, 2009 9:33 AM

    Hell with globalizing the sport. Cant we keep something to ourselves?

  73. Stoogie says: Apr 24, 2009 9:33 AM

    Is the United Kingdom going to export what ever their equivalent of the Super Bowl is for their so-called sport “futbol”? If so, it could probably be held in the stadium at Topeka Community College. And still not sell out.
    This is a completely stupid idea.

  74. footballnut says: Apr 24, 2009 9:35 AM

    A F&*king shame if this happens…the excuse has always been that the NFL cities of the north are too cold. London has a very similar climate as NE in the winter.
    Absolute BS and there is no veil at all that it’s about money. Every last NFL city should host the Game before this happens. At least give an opportunity to the cities that have used tax payer money to help support these teams to have a windfall before letting London reap the benefits of this.

  75. stiller43 says: Apr 24, 2009 9:36 AM


  76. LiveNBreath Football says: Apr 24, 2009 9:37 AM

    It’s the NATIONAL Football League, not the International (Americn )football league. The game belongs here.
    Patriotism, Nationalism, whatever aside, what about the freaking time difference? To play the game for prime time on the East Coast, it would have to be the middle of the night in London. Yeah, all those corporate fat cats want to go to the stadium at that hour — in the cold, as has been pointed out.

  77. mdel1120 says: Apr 24, 2009 9:37 AM

    Godell is a money hungry jerk. What the hell? Why take the biggest game of the year someplace we most likley won’t be able to attend. What a slap in the face to the fans in America who have helped make the NFL what it is. What a total freaking jerk.

  78. mdel1120 says: Apr 24, 2009 9:38 AM

    What about the money a city generates by hosting the Super Bowl?Damn that Godell. What a selfish bast@@@

  79. Tundrastruck says: Apr 24, 2009 9:40 AM

    Where have you gone, Pete Rozelle?

  80. WetHog says: Apr 24, 2009 9:42 AM

    No big deal to me. Its not like average fans can afford, or obtain, tickets to the Super Bowl anyway so as long as the game is played at a time of day that is accetible to those of us in North American time zones I say go for it.

  81. EverybodyGotAIDS says: Apr 24, 2009 9:47 AM

    Everybody is talking about not being able to go to the game….who the hell ARE you people and how do you manage to get Superbowl tickets???? Can you hook me up with one? I don’t even need a pair, just one.
    If you’re just talking about going to the city that it’s being held in and watching it in a bar or something…get over it. Now, I’ve been to London and besides “Big Ben” not being particularly big (I call it “moderate ben”, it was a nice place. Not somewhere I’d want to live, but a nice place to visit. If you have enough money and connections to get a Superbowl ticket, you can damn sure afford the flight to London.

  82. clintdogg says: Apr 24, 2009 9:47 AM

    god awful idea

  83. Benny0326 says: Apr 24, 2009 9:53 AM

    Listen i’m from the UK and as a business idea this is pointless in times, etc.
    But there’s no need to complain saying other sports don’t try to globalise, and whilst it seems you guys hate “soccer” (i’m not a fan either) you have to accept that it is a globally popular sport and a big game i the U.S. say Man U v. Chelsea would sell out FedEx Field!!
    As a fan in the UK don’t bring it over because it will pain me more knowing its only a 2 hour drive away but i still can’t affords to go lol!!!
    I’m happy with the 1 game a year – going to see Bucs Pats in October :))

  84. zygi milf says: Apr 24, 2009 9:54 AM

    Time for a “tea” party if this happens. Everyone dump your NFL gear into your nearest body of water.
    Maybe they should move the game to India? That’s where our jobs are going.
    Why not have the game in Saudi Arabia? If our Supreme Savior can bow to the Amir, maybe Goodell can do that too.
    One last idea – have the game in Caracas. Since Chavez will be controlling our Leader soon, why not our national game?

  85. savsr says: Apr 24, 2009 10:02 AM

    you lot need to swallow your pride and your patriotism
    you need to get used to the fact that people outside of the US do like the sport and that THERE is a market for it. everyone is not just star-crazed and there are many knowledgable fans, its not like most of you go to superbowls anyway. america loves being the worlds leader so whats the problem with trying to develop a sport to befit your status
    the problems i see are the time difference, maybe a 9.00 pm gmt kick-off can satisfy all concerned to an extent, and the weather. even i will admit that feburary’s in london are gash.
    i wonder what the outcry would be if it ever got to a point where there could be a franchise in london…LOL

  86. ProFootballTalker says: Apr 24, 2009 10:05 AM

    If the NFL thinks playing games in Europe is going to globalize the sport, they are sadly mistaken. The fold of NFLE is the first sign. American football is something that Europeans will have to fall in love with on their own. Shoving it down their throats will not help.
    Look at it this way. MLB and NBA are becoming hugely global. Did you see MLB playing marquee games in Asia and Central America? Nope. Did the NBA have to play marquee games in Europe and South America? No again.

  87. halo masta says: Apr 24, 2009 10:07 AM

    I wish it was in Philladelphia!!! Whis gonna go to london.

  88. houskat says: Apr 24, 2009 10:08 AM

    I miss Duece !!!!!! 😦

  89. RagnarHater2424 says: Apr 24, 2009 10:10 AM

    This would be a crime. It’s not gonna happen. It would be an outrage to deprive a US city the dollars genrated by a SB. Not to mention the added logistical costs for anyone involved. This is an American game that Americans built and supported. Not to mention those tea sippers had their shot at football. Let them enjoy their grass growing soccer games.
    Mr. Goodell, if this is more than just rumor and you are actually considering this an option, you have just assumed the title of dumbest person on the planet!

  90. alebrewer says: Apr 24, 2009 10:11 AM

    I heard Mike Tice was really upset about this. By moving the SB to another country, he’s afraid he won’t be able to sell tickets because he doesn’t speak the language!

  91. Aether says: Apr 24, 2009 10:17 AM

    Wow… Xenophobic and prejudiced much?
    As a British fan, I have to say that most Americans I have met and talked to (while often surprised) are pretty cool about me being a fan. The idea that none of us know anything about “your sport” is ridiculous (although I will concede that there are few of us – enough to sell out a game).
    Originally I thought this idea was good, but reading some of the arguments, I can see why it wouldn’t. The weather here would most likely be pretty dreadful, and Wembley isn’t the best stadium for football, due to it being open-air, and the turf doesn’t cope too well.
    It’s not like it will increase my chances of going to the SB in London – but for the majority of Americans, it won’t decrease it for them significantly, either.
    And as far as you taking whatever Soccer final you think of… you can have it as far as I’m concerned. Football is much better, anyway.

  92. rdrdrs58 says: Apr 24, 2009 10:24 AM

    F that… the day this happens, i’m done with the NFL…. another big business sending jobs overseas to line their own greedy ass pockets… forget about the jobs that the US CITIZENS would lose and local/small US BUSINESSES that would lose money. It’s bad enough that the greedy basturds send 1 game a year over there.

  93. Vox Veritas says: Apr 24, 2009 10:32 AM

    If this happens, Congress should shitcan the anti-trust exemption. They also should make it against the law to spend a nickel of taxpayer money on NFL stadiums in the future. Seriously, if the NFL does this they can all kiss my ass forever.

  94. AlexCuse says: Apr 24, 2009 10:32 AM

    I agree with mike hunt (couldn’t resist saying it) – the super bowl isn’t for real fans anyways.
    However, it makes me angry that they won’t play the super bowl in any northern US City without a dome, and would even consider this. The hell with the rich business folks, give me a real game played in real weather!

  95. patsfan1776 says: Apr 24, 2009 10:34 AM

    The NFL Owners and Commissioner are insane and they are surrounded by lackies that tell them every stupid idea is a great one. Look at all the comments from the fans of various teams complaining about ownership decisions. Just up the road from here, the once great Bob Kraft decided it would be a good idea to build a shopping plaza in the parking lot next to the brand new stadium and have the stadium parking lot a mile away. Fans love the walk and the shoppers don’t mind the traffic on game day Bob. I think it was a great decision and by the way your pink ties look great on camera. This is a bad idea because the revenue is shipped out of the USA, the weather is terrible in the UK at that time of year, and the time difference is in the wrong direction. But of course the NFL brain trusts just slap each other on the back and continue to make bad business decisions and player/personnel decisions and we watch.

  96. FumbleNuts says: Apr 24, 2009 11:14 AM

    I can see the halftime show now…………. some boring speech by that cartoon looking dude Prince Charles!

  97. Humpty Dumpt says: Apr 24, 2009 11:24 AM

    “And don’t be shocked if it becomes one of the most-hyped sporting events of all time.”
    …then ends in a tie, and the team that wins the overtime toss marches down the field and kicks a field goal.

  98. dylan says: Apr 24, 2009 11:38 AM

    No way its an American tradition. The Super Bowl wont have the same atmosphere without true fans attending the game. I guess it wont make a huge difference though, as only celebrities can afford to go anyway.

  99. CaptainFantastik says: Apr 24, 2009 11:39 AM

    I’m already this close to walking away from the NFL as it is what with Goodell running full steam ahead at ruining the game in his first two years. This move would surely seal the deal. I’d never watch another NFL game again if they moved the SB overseas.

  100. patsfan1776 says: Apr 24, 2009 11:44 AM

    Tie breakers in London would be settled by a field goal shoot-out just like they do in soccer. You need to have 5 different players kick the field goal so maybe it will be “thrilling” to watch.

  101. workhorse says: Apr 24, 2009 11:49 AM

    F#%@ that! It’s hard enough to go to a Super Bowl in this country. The Brits don’t care if it’s a Super Bowl or a preseason game, it’s not even football to them.

  102. arzcardinals says: Apr 24, 2009 12:00 PM

    How do you punish a set of countries that failed to support you? Hand them the greatest event you have.
    If that’s not a slap in the face to every American who supports the NFL I don’t know what is.
    This is insulting…and I’m not ‘joe the redneck.’
    It’s bad as a season ticket holder that they pull one of our home games to toss it somewhere else…now this.
    You may gain a few fans that will never ever come and watch a game in the states, but you risk losing a bunch of core fans that have other options than watching football on Sundays.
    In this economy…it’s insulting to even consider this.

  103. daaa birds says: Apr 24, 2009 12:18 PM

    if this happened i would join/help any cause that boycotted this game. namely, not watching it. i would hope that americans would make this a rating disaster in the US and just watch the highlights on sportscenter

  104. chaz13 says: Apr 24, 2009 12:56 PM

    First of all this is something that would be 5-10 years away so it has nothing to do with the economy being bad. If the economy isn’t better by then then we have more important things to worry about. Secondly the purpose of sending games overseas at all is to gain interest in other countries and eventually put “real” NFL teams in other countries, not second rate Eurpoean league teams. One of the reasons soccer will never take off here, besides being boring as hell, is that all the best players are in other countries. That being said the NFL is our biggest sport and to put the biggest game in another country would be criminal. Regular season games already take an already limited number of NFL games away from US cities. I don’t see the SB ever going to another country.

  105. al8085 says: Apr 24, 2009 1:02 PM

    Why not test the waters with a runner up bowl? Say the 2nd teams in the AFC and NFC Conference Championships could play in the Sub-Super Bowl! This will allow the losing team in each Conference to play in a post season game and still keeps the Super Bowl here in the States. Sure would be better then the Pro Bowl.

  106. Bob S. says: Apr 24, 2009 1:08 PM

    Drug testing DAILY should be compulsory for all NFL owners and suits working for them in their head office!

  107. Cornelius Cruys says: Apr 24, 2009 1:32 PM

    Personally, as a London native, I’d be thrilled to see the Superbowl in London and it would be brilliant to go to. However, I fully appreciate that, really, it should be in America. The weather, the state of the pitch and difficulties with the kickoff time suggest a bit of a nightmare.
    What’s annoying, however, is the ignorance of most of the comments here that say the UK doesn’t care/doesn’t appreciate it/doesn’t know enough about football. The first two London games I went to, and the attendance was around 83,000, up two thousand from the previous year. The seven thousand difference between actual and potential capacity was due to corporate seats not taken – both times the tickets available to the general public have been snapped up, so much so that I couldn’t get tickets for this year’s game. It’s more than a ‘glorified exhibition’, bearing in mind the attendances dwarf every other game played in the regular season.
    People are lambasting Goodell for not thinking about the fans…he’s thinking of the global fans. ‘America’s Game’ or not, why is it such a kick in the teeth? 800 million people or something crazy watch the superbowl, why shouldn’t Goodell think of ways to keep appealing to the non-US fans? I sincerely doubt people would never watch the NFL again just because one Superbowl out of what would be the 50+ Superbowls was somewhere other than the US.
    The comparisons with football/soccer isn’t really fair, because whereas the British interest in the NFL continues to grow, the can’t be said of the American interest in soccer. That said, being a very dedicated soccer fan, I wouldn’t object to the English FA Cup final being played in the US, if I thought it would help promote the game. In my opinion, a Superbowl in the UK would promote the game and gather great interest. Heck, it was a Superbowl that got me hooked eight years ago.
    Summary: I’d love it but realistically it’s very difficult to do. UK fans know more than you think.

  108. oneniner says: Apr 24, 2009 1:49 PM

    never ever gonna happen…….

  109. jamesct1971 says: Apr 24, 2009 1:59 PM

    Hey, if you are so into keeping things “american” in the US, why don’t you start with keeping this lot:
    Fast Food – don’t want your fat saturated, chemical laden garbage on our plates. Keep it all
    Music – Rap sucks, Country Music really sucks and what the hell is that Lady Gaga shite. Keep it all!!
    Your soldiers who truly are awful at this whole “war thing” and can’t fight for shite. Keep them all
    Crap TV and movies – trust us, we don’t watch it. Keep ’em
    Paris Hilton, Nicole Ritchie, Lindsay Lohan – actually feel sorry for you lot on that one. Neuter them and put an end to the misery for us all
    Fat yankee tourists in stupid shorts who talk too loud – ban them from ever travelling, ever, ever (and ban them from McDonald’s too – it’s for your own good!!)
    War on Terror – WTF is a war on terror? In case you hadn’t noticed, we have been dealing with terrorists for years. Keep your stupid war. It’s all yours..
    When you start sending all that crap over here, we’ll leave your other stuff alone.
    Superbowl in London – Groovy baby!!! – Yeah, baby, yeah!!!

  110. WhoDatinLA says: Apr 24, 2009 2:21 PM

    Hello from Hollywood!
    I can’t believe Roger Goodell and the NFL are seriously considering taking our premiere event and EXPORTING it to a foreign company. This is like so many other American companies–charge its citizens crazy prices and export the jobs overseas! This is no different.
    My native New Orleans can use an economic burst after Katrina and losing a game to London last season. That was dumb also, considering there’s no NFL city in more need than N.O., and what does the NFL do? Rob them of a game which robs vendors and businesses in the area.
    Finally, I agree with others who say Europe would NEVER send their premiere sporting event to another country, especially America! So, why is it even a conversation to flirt with taking the most dynamic sporting event in the world–to a foreign country.
    The NFL won’t even stage an exhibition game here in LA, yet they want us to support taking regular season games out of the country–and now, possibly the Big Enchilada! I’d rather see the game in DC, NY, LA or other cities in “OUR COUNTRY,” rather than exporting more revenue out of the country.
    Rather than taking pre-season games abroad, how about taking them to states like NM, Montana, Iowa, North or South Dakota, Oregon, etc. How about giving those people a chance to experience NFL football in person. The NBA does a great job of taking pre-season games to non-NBA towns where the events take on a regular season-like vibe. Who’s looking out for America?
    If the Super Bowl goes abroad, the NFL SHOULD DEFINITELY LOSE THEIR ANTI-TRUST status, which they should have lost long ago anyhow.
    NFL: Give us a break! Put down the bong and get off the crack! You’re starting to outsmart yourselves and at the same time alienating the people who finance your league. For the first time sine 2000, I have decided to NOT RENEW my NFL Ticket. I’d rather be at church and catch the highlights on TV later.
    Just say no to shipping the Super Bowl outside this country. Pray for the USA!

  111. moonbeam says: Apr 24, 2009 2:36 PM

    let’s be real here,the super bowl as we know it at present is a corporate event.
    with the present climate in washington,the administration and the
    congress are going to take a jaundiced view of corporations paying the way for clients to attend a football game in london.can you imagine the stink if one of the big three was a sponsor of the super bowl?
    the whole idea is stupidity carried to an obsurd level.

  112. joemorgan says: Apr 24, 2009 2:41 PM

    absolutely ludicrous. mike, you have sold out to goodell. goodell’s pet project has been bringing the nfl to london and it’s going to destroy the league. NOBODY, i mean NOBODY, in the UK gives an f u c k about the games the last two years that were played there. instead you stole home games from the dolphins and saints, and now you’re going to steal a super bowl? mike, as long as you continue to sell out to goodell, i and many others will continue to SKIP over

  113. spyboots says: Apr 24, 2009 3:02 PM

    NFL is getting to be like Wal-Mart — too much off-shoring. Keep the $ here.

  114. kms31668 says: Apr 24, 2009 3:52 PM

    hey while were at it why not have the President bow to a foreign king…….oh wait he did that already………….this is bull how bout we stand up and be americans and demand that the super bowl never be played on foreign soil!!!!!

  115. Cornelius Cruys says: Apr 24, 2009 4:06 PM

    Joemorgan, 81,000 in 2007, 83,000 and potentially more this year say you’re wrong about people not caring.

  116. soloman747 says: Apr 24, 2009 4:12 PM

    I’m for it only AFTER they bring the World Cup to the United States.

  117. Brewster says: Apr 24, 2009 4:15 PM

    Florio, are you sniffing coal dust?
    Yeah right the Super Bowl in London. Perhaps it will be the same year the World Cup is held in Clarksburg.

  118. doom161 says: Apr 24, 2009 4:45 PM

    That is one of the most asinine ideas I’ve ever heard. Is the UK going to give us Wimbledon?

  119. sandpro says: Apr 24, 2009 5:15 PM

    I am good with it on one condition. All tickets are offered to the American service members serving throughout Europe, free of charge. Once they get a shot, all remaining tickets can be sold to the general public. Otherwise, HELL NO!!

  120. arbyemcee says: Apr 24, 2009 7:14 PM

    If Godell takes the Super Bowl to London which American city is not getting the economic stimulus that comes with hosting the Super Bowl? I read that in Atlanta they estimated the local economic impact of hosting the Super Bowl as 400 million dollars into their economy. In these times of recession and economic hardship through out America it takes a lot of nerve to suggest this. Perhaps the NFL can make a little more money overseas but it is a betrayal of the every week fans who essential finance this league.

  121. gchris84 says: Apr 24, 2009 7:21 PM

    Florio, no comment about the prime time issues with a game in London?

  122. voyager6 says: Apr 24, 2009 7:46 PM

    I can’t wait to hear how many seats the Royal Family gets! Does the Queen get to throw out the first ball?
    Paul McCartney won’t have to travel far for the half time show.
    As per the time… Well there is always tape delay. Who cares that we’ll know who the winner is before the game starts! Bet advertisers don’t get a break! Can a network refuse to televise the tape-delayed Super Bowl?
    Thank God that Madden retired. How would he get his Madden-Cruiser to the UK? Trans-Atlantic ferry boat?
    Why not Peking, China instead? How about the moon? The first intergalatic super bowl?
    Can’t wait for Congress to threaten the NFL’s anti-trust exemption cause of this move.

  123. dallas1966 says: Apr 24, 2009 9:07 PM

    hi i agree, let goodell send the pro bowl to london, that would but back the excitement of a meanless game, instead of the showcase game of all professional sports.
    i think the pro bowl game would work because that would give players incentive to go across the pond to play before an international audience.

  124. covercorner says: Apr 24, 2009 9:38 PM

    British women are hot. I love their accent.

  125. dfins says: Apr 24, 2009 9:57 PM

    are they nuts? how about nfl showing some loyalty to those fans who buy season tixs with the hope that they get a chance to go see their team play in the SB, instead of trying to make money for a league that is already making too much money. also, what would happen to the potential loss of revenue that our local cities will lose if the SB is played oversee? I mean we’re talking about millions and millions of dollars going to Europe, and what do we get? to watch our annual football championship being enjoyed by a bunch of greedy people..
    shame on you NFL!

  126. Vox Veritas says: Apr 25, 2009 12:35 AM

    “Hey, if you are so into keeping things “american” in the US, why don’t you start with keeping this lot:”
    Better idea. Stop importing it.

  127. hannibal says: Apr 25, 2009 1:12 AM

    Is it fish and chips time — the slime of lime???
    NFL is all AMERICAN!!!!

  128. hannibal says: Apr 25, 2009 1:14 AM

    NO WAY!!!!

  129. nfldeathbecomesreality says: Apr 25, 2009 6:57 AM

    My days as a football fan and watcher would then be over . Can we not keep one sport to ourselves without getting Europe involved . They have soccer are they not content with that . Football is an american pastime seeing as how they”re no more americans players in baseball as they are all from Japan or South america .

  130. praveen says: Apr 25, 2009 7:20 AM

    This whole international push is fine if you do it in moderation. But can the NFL spare us the desperation? Do you think we will have a cricket world cup finals or one of those finals for the Euro soccer leagues in NYC? Or move F1 to Indy?
    Seriously, how much more money does the NFL want? And if NYC is supposedly not good enough for a SB, why is London which has worse weather?
    Let us put an end to dome SBs by the way. I think the TB SB showed how much more aesthetically pleasing an outdoor SB can be to TV audiences. No freaking fireworks smoke trapped in the stadium and more elaborate shows are possible in outdoor stadium. Not to mention the atmosphere aspect. Blimp shots, etc.

  131. xie_58 says: Apr 25, 2009 9:20 AM

    I don’t agree with it but I watch college football more than I do the NFL. Seems like all professional sports have lost their heart for the game. Its not like it used to be in the days when players played for the love of the game and not for the love of the almighty dollar. There’s no more heart.

  132. mother says: Apr 25, 2009 4:58 PM

    It is all over MONEY i bet. We support our teams. What do you think gets alot of us through this eceonomy crap? SPORTS. I remember when i was little, setting on my dads lap. Watching football, then after that was over with. We would wath THE Wonderful World of Disney. Why can’t you leave a good thing alone. I would not be able to go out of the counrty to watch a game. More than likely i would have to pay extra to watch it on T.V. Grow up and leave well enough alone

  133. nObama2012 says: Apr 25, 2009 8:04 PM

    Nice. So we’re outsourcing football now? Never gonna happen.
    I want to see the Lymies over there come play soccer on Lambeau in January.

  134. Aether says: Apr 26, 2009 9:54 AM

    soloman747 says:
    April 24th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
    I’m for it only AFTER they bring the World Cup to the United States.

    Oh, so you’d be for it any time after 1994, then?

  135. soloman747 says: Apr 26, 2009 10:02 AM

    Aether says:
    April 26th, 2009 at 9:54 am

    soloman747 says:
    April 24th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
    I’m for it only AFTER they bring the World Cup to the United States.

    Oh, so you’d be for it any time after 1994, then?
    No. I’d be after it any time after 2018.

  136. mother says: Apr 26, 2009 2:50 PM

    The economy is not good any way. So what you are just going to follow other high up people. Take away jobs just so office suits an sit on there asses and make money. And not give a shit about us labor working people.
    By the way what do the players think of all of the travel time waisted. Spending less time with there families. Football is a family ordeal. Expecially when it coomes to the players and there parents. Leave well enough alone. Football is a USA sport. No football over seas at all.

  137. colep944 says: May 6, 2009 5:30 PM

    Okay so you have heard of viewing parties? I would be promoting BOYCOTT parties. And I do mean promoting. It is the National Football League and it is the American Nation!

Leave a Reply

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