Skip to content

London Super Bowl In 2017?

Recently, stray reports regarding a possible London Super Bowl have emerged, and the league has promptly shot them down.
But the topic won’t go away.
It’s easy for us to brush off items from the tabloid-style publications in England, but when one of the respected media outlets from the good ol’ U.S. of A. chimes in on the matter, we probably should pay closer attention.
Alex Marvez of FOXSports.com recently buried an intriguing nugget regarding a potential London Super Bowl at the bottom of a column focusing primarily on the Duke of Hattiesburg. 
Per Marvez, a source said to “expect” the NFL to consider sending the 2017 Super Bowl to London.
The game would be played one year after the 50th Super Bowl, which likely will be held in Los Angeles with or without a team being housed there.  And it would represent a great start to the second half of the first 100 Super Bowl games.
Writes Marvez:  “Though the league has denied any plans for a London Super Bowl publicly, by targeting a London Super Bowl for February 2017 the NFL would have ample time for more test runs with international regular-season games.  Remedying on-going turf issues at Wembley Stadium also is a must.”
We realize that many NFL fans will balk at a London Super Bowl.  And we also realize that ensuring an East Coast prime-time start to the game would entail an opening kickoff coming after Big Ben strikes midnight. 
But we like the idea of a once-in-a-generation Super Bowl being played on foreign soil.  It’s still the Super Bowl.  Most of us will still watch the thing on television, which in eight years might feature an immersing HD/3-D experience far superior to four seats in the fireworks-debris section.
And it likely would be one of the most-hyped sporting events of all time, putting the league potentially on par with the “other” football.
So have an open mind.  It could be a really good thing for the sport, and it really won’t change the Super Bowl viewing experience for 99.9999999 percent of the current NFL fans.    

Permalink 62 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Top Stories
62 Responses to “London Super Bowl In 2017?”
  1. ricostl says: May 6, 2009 12:13 PM

    Just think of the all the money being spent in the UK instead of the USA. I don’t care if the game is played in Laramie Wyoming as long as the game is played in the United States. Lets ask the Europeans if they want to trade a Super Bowl for the European Cup finals. I imagine it would be a definite NO.

  2. vikes02 says: May 6, 2009 12:13 PM

    That will be the year the Vikes make it and I won’t beable to go because I won’t ba able to afford it!! Keep it in the USA!!!

  3. smiley says: May 6, 2009 12:15 PM

    “Other” football……teehee. You mean soccer?

  4. killwithme says: May 6, 2009 12:20 PM

    media row will shrink significantly…Jason Whitlock will have to buy 2 seats on an airplane to get his fat ass across the ocean, so maybe the world would benefit from him having to stay home.

  5. sheffield says: May 6, 2009 12:20 PM

    “It’s easy for us to brush off items from the tabloid-style publications in England”
    The Telegraph is not a tabloid paper. It’s an old school broadsheet. They won’t put something in their paper if they can’t back it up. If the rumour had been in The Sun, The Daily Mirror The News Of The World or The Daily Sport, then yeah, they’re tabloids that more often than not make up dirt about the latest c-list star. But The Telegrpah is one of those self-apointed high-brow papers.

  6. TCLARK says: May 6, 2009 12:22 PM

    Because the weather and playing field have been great so far?

  7. dolphin fan says: May 6, 2009 12:22 PM

    No.

  8. Cambodia says: May 6, 2009 12:23 PM

    It’s already bad enough that the average fan can’t afford to attend the Super Bowl if his or her team would happen to make it. Throw in traveling to London on top of that, and it’s outrageous. It’s not fair to the fans that built this sport to move the game.
    Also, are sponsors going to be willing to throw out that million bucks per thirty-seconds if they aren’t sure the American people will be viewing it in certain time zones?

  9. Scout says: May 6, 2009 12:27 PM

    Ummm…hosting a Super Bowl pumps how many tens of millions of dollars into a city’s economy? Goodell proposes to send all that cash to a foreign country when there’s awfully lot of U.S. cities that could really use the shot in the arm? And for what?
    With every day that passes in the Goodell reign, the more I’m convinced that he’s the wrong man for the job.

  10. Kyutek says: May 6, 2009 12:27 PM

    Its complete bullshit. How can the league honestly say that you can’t have a superbowl in a place like Philly or NY because of weather conditions yet will play it in London which has a worse climate in Feb.

  11. MarkB says: May 6, 2009 12:31 PM

    How is this a really good thing for the sports. Sports fans in Europe think even less of American football than we think of soccer. Did putting World Cup games here in the United States change anyone’s mind about soccer? A guy in England just hung himself because his team lost a game – do you really want to compete with that? The NHL ruined their league by expanding to the American south. If the NFL is trying to do something similar with football, they’re crazy.

  12. adamsilver says: May 6, 2009 12:31 PM

    Exactly, ricostl. I don’t care where the game is played – but every year the Super Bowl provides a big economic boost to the host city. We need to keep that at home, not give it away abroad.

  13. slizz says: May 6, 2009 12:36 PM

    How would this affect the players performance?
    Adjusting to a “night owl” type schedule in 2 weeks isn’t healthy. Why would you even want to risk that on the biggest. game. ever?!?!

  14. Spyder Monkey says: May 6, 2009 12:40 PM

    i’m soory, but this idea is totally rediculous. i understand they want to generate worlwide interest in the league, but to take the most important game of the season out of the country? Especially when, like the previous commenters said, they care far more about thier kind of football anyway, is absurd. If they have to bring more football over there, why not take half the preseason schedule? those games are far less important over here, and they could take more that one game, like maybe 6-10 of them.

  15. topcide says: May 6, 2009 12:41 PM

    So the host city should lose out out millions in revenue for local buisness,and the fans should be shafted of the local super bowl hooplah that takes place in the host city?
    If they want to do something cool for the superbowl, how bout once every 5 or 10 years the let a cold weather city host it with an open stadium. hold super bowl 50 at lambeau.

  16. hayward giablommi says: May 6, 2009 12:44 PM

    “And it likely would be one of the most-hyped sporting events of all time, putting the league potentially on par with the “other” football.”
    ———-
    You keep stating this, but have yet to give a single reason why anybody should hype it up, or have any positive feelings about this move.
    Please explain
    A while your at it, Florio, stop shilling for this HORRENDOUS debacle of an idea, and explain why London, a rainy, cold city should get a Super Bowl before NY, Chicago, Seattle, Denver, Green Bay, New England, Philly, Washington, Pittsburgh, every other cold weather city and every city that hasn’t had a Super Bowl previously, etc, etc, etc..
    I resent the very idea and I’m beginning to resent you for promoting it as a great idea.

  17. GoodellMustGo says: May 6, 2009 12:45 PM

    The year the Super Bowl is played anywhere other than America is the year I boycott it (unless my team makes it)…for all the good that will do haha.
    Goodell must go. He’s ruining the game that belongs to Americans with a never ending lust for more money.
    Football to Europeans is like soccer to us. No one gives a rats ass.

  18. VaBthang4 says: May 6, 2009 12:47 PM

    No

  19. orangecrushd says: May 6, 2009 12:48 PM

    This is a slap in the face to all red-blooded American football fans, which is about 99.98% of all NFL fans.

  20. Deadpool says: May 6, 2009 12:48 PM

    hasn’t the NFL already attempted to get into the European market? The World League/NFL Europe was a failure in most places except Germany and Scotland. I don’t see this being any better.

  21. festusmonroe says: May 6, 2009 12:48 PM

    “Lets ask the Europeans if they want to trade a Super Bowl for the European Cup finals. I imagine it would be a definite NO.”
    Let’s remember that the biggest sporting event in the world, the World Cup, is played in a different country every time, including the US in the 90s.
    Soccer doesn’t need the PR boost like football does. It’s already the most popular sport in the world. The NFL wants a Super Bowl in London because it wants the worldwide acclaim that soccer has.

  22. BigDogSolec says: May 6, 2009 12:49 PM

    The SUPER BOWL is a USA GAME , if LONDON . Canada, Mexico want part of it they can get there own NFL team and compete with us , then the winner of the Super Bowl s can play and be called THE WORLD BOWL for the right to be called THE BEST IN THE WORLD

  23. Scout says: May 6, 2009 12:51 PM

    Lambeau would be awesome. Of course, with all the NFL employees, various suits and bigwigs, captains of industry, celebrities, and what have you, there won’t be any seats available for actual fans.

  24. justjto says: May 6, 2009 12:51 PM

    I am glad that everyone so far has bashed this idea. I know the NFL (No Fan Lovers) doesn’t care about the fans, but it is still a stupid idea. How many people can afford to fly to London to see the game? Not counting the fans of the two teams, thousands of people go to the Super Bowl annually just because of the extravaganza of it.
    Goodell may think this is a revolutionary idea, but it is one whose stupidity knows no magnitude. Why should we give the Brits our marquee event, even for a season? That’s bull shit. Leave the game in the U.S. like it always has been.

  25. BSK says: May 6, 2009 12:53 PM

    Stop writing in favor of this. The NFL has already been trying to grow revenues at the expense of the average fan for far too long. PSL’s, club seats, more suites, ever increasing prices on merchandise, etc. Those of us at this site are probably all locked in as NFL fans, but that certainly doesn’t mean the next generation will be. Remember, there was a time when boxing, horse racing, and baseball were America’s passions and they all somehow managed to fall down the list of popular sports in America. Just look at what’s happening to MLB, NBA, & NHLright now – only the elite teams have a chance at getting a stadium more than half filled due to costs being way out of wack with regular people. Not to mention the fact that Europeans simply do not care about the NFL. I’ve been to Europe a dozen times, have friends there, work with people from there, and also have friends from there living here now. Every avg. guy sportsfan in/from Europe that I’ve come into contact with doesn’t care about the NFL at all. Just because they can sell out a regular season game at regular season prices doesn’t mean the people there care. There’s easily enough expats in the UK to fill a stadium once a year for regular season prices.

  26. ThreeIfByAir says: May 6, 2009 12:53 PM

    “Its complete bullshit. How can the league honestly say that you can’t have a superbowl in a place like Philly or NY because of weather conditions yet will play it in London which has a worse climate in Feb.”
    Um… no. London has a climate a lot like Portland/Seattle: February temperatures are in the forties and it’s often gray and wet, but snow is rare.
    Nevertheless, I can’t see the Perfidious Albino (the mayor), or the police, or the Tube, organizing things to enable a major event that begins at 11:30pm and ends around 3am. And I can’t see the NFL adjusting their schedule and the tradition of the timings of Super Bowl parties around the country. You’d have to move the whole thing forward at least three hours, and then you’re talking a noon start on the West Coast.
    Not going to happen IMHO (and I’m a Londoner living in Patriots country, so I’d love to see it happen)

  27. bigstretch says: May 6, 2009 12:54 PM

    perhaps the nfl is counting on global warming to heat up london from it’s average february temp of 35 degrees not to mention that it rains 50% of the time during february. oh yeah and i don’t think there is a covered stadium in london that could house the game either. if the NFL isn’t concerned about that in London then perhaps they should also consider Green Bay, New England, New York, Washington, Philly, Buffalo, Cleveland etc…..for the big game as well. after all these cities have teams in the league and die hard fans who would love the chance to see a superbowl in their home towns.

  28. HaveYouQuitYourDayJob says: May 6, 2009 12:55 PM

    Screw you Flouride!
    Its AMERICA’s Game!
    I agree with ricostl, lets’ ask the EU if we can host the European Cup Finals, see how that goes over. Seems with all your recent success you’ve turned into another greed monger like the boys on 5th ave. or some agent from CAA. Your true lawyer colors always show through.
    Get this idea off the table, go back to what you do best, trying to find which private jet Lord Farve is on now. Maybe you need to get your old day job back, your starting to become a bit of a tool. Its the offseason, take a vacay, get in your stupid VW bus and take a drive down to Hattiesburg fer crying out loud.

  29. I C light pounder says: May 6, 2009 12:55 PM

    this is just BS, i want to see Super Bowls in cold weather cities before they even think of sending it over seas. Can some on please impeach this commish he is just runing this game into the ground and it needs stopped now!
    Can you imagine what the crowd would look like, it would be a sea of mix and match jerseys of teams that are not even going to be playing that game

  30. Bill In DC says: May 6, 2009 12:55 PM

    since London is 5 hours ahead of New York the game would have to be played REALLY late wouldn’t it?
    Like an 11pm London start to have KO at 6pm in NY

  31. Busch1724 says: May 6, 2009 12:56 PM

    Saying Goodell must go because of the lust for money isn’t the reason he should go, if you agree with that or not. Tagliabue would be doing the same thing right now.

  32. festusmonroe says: May 6, 2009 12:57 PM

    “hasn’t the NFL already attempted to get into the European market? The World League/NFL Europe was a failure in most places except Germany and Scotland. I don’t see this being any better.”
    I’m not at all shocked that Europe didn’t go crazy for the second-rate product we sent them. Can you name a single World League player?
    Personally, I think if we really wanted to get other countries excited about football, the college game would work better. There’s a lot more variety–spread offenses, pro-style, west-coast, the option–and a lot more points. Hey, offense sells tickets. Also, you’d have some star power, though to a lesser degree than the NFL. Tim Tebow probably won’t make it in the NFL, but he’s a household name.

  33. G-man says: May 6, 2009 1:00 PM

    There better damn well be a London NFL franchise before they even CONSIDER sending the championship game overseas. If not, no sale. It makes absolutely no sense.

  34. sportfreak1996 says: May 6, 2009 1:00 PM

    I like the idea of a 17th game a lot more than a Super Bowl half way around the world. With the 17th game, where all teams play 1 “neutral” field matchup, you can put games in London, Madrid, Berlin, Rome, Moscow, Tokyo, Sydney, Mexico City, etc, etc, etc, every year and spread the game that way for a few years. If that works out and a market for the American game builds in certain foreign regions, then you could maybe consider a Super Bowl overseas. But after having 2 mildly successful games in London, that isn’t the time to decide to give them the biggest single annual game on the planet.

  35. Grouper Sandwich says: May 6, 2009 1:01 PM

    The 2017 Super Bowl will be just 2 weeks after President Tom Brady is inaugurated, so the timing will be perfect.

  36. blargh says: May 6, 2009 1:02 PM

    since when did my favorite team play in the International Football League? This is an AMERICAN sport and the Super Bowl is the biggest sporting event in this country. Goodell should be locked up for trying to whore-off an American tradition to Europe just to get some international exposure. What a douche.

  37. GZ says: May 6, 2009 1:03 PM

    They took our jobs!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFG2P-toC6k

  38. booboo2280 says: May 6, 2009 1:05 PM

    Personally, If this happens, I am writing my congressman to review their anti- trust exemption. If they want to take the Super Bowl, the mecca of the NFL to another country, then let them pay for the stadiums, and all the other crap the American’s pay to support the NFL.
    If any of the major sports take there quote “Super Bowls” to a foriegn contry that does not belong to the leauge(this excludes canada from the NHL, MLB since they have teams in those leagues) then the league looses the right to ask for any tax dollars to support there league. This is flat out about money and I don’t like it, I don’t think its right that American’s are asked to give so much money to these owners for them to turn around and take there title games to places that are not asked to support the league like the tax payers do in the NFL cities.

  39. tomskiffington says: May 6, 2009 1:05 PM

    that’s right roger. screw over existing fans in a lame attempt to make new ones. dick.

  40. hayward giablommi says: May 6, 2009 1:16 PM

    MarkB says:
    The NHL ruined their league by expanding to the American south.
    ———–
    Thats an excellent point. I remember the NHL being a solid league back in the 80′s and early 90′swhen it had teams where people actually gave a damn about the league.
    Then it ruined itself by ripping teams from Winnipeg, Quebec City, Hartford, Minnesota, places where people were passionate about the sport and moving teams to Phoenix, Carolina, Dallas and expanding to Nashville, Atlanta, Miami, Anaheim, places that had no interest and NO BUSINESS having teams.
    A very good cautionary tale- which Fuhrer Goodell will completely ignore and proceed with his plans to destroy the NFL as we know it.

  41. emricha2 says: May 6, 2009 1:16 PM

    i was at a bar in NYC last week watching the Derby talking with this guy on vacation from Ireland. he is a huge Jets fan, we talked American football for at least 20 minutes and he knew alot. opening up different markets is good in the long-run for the NFL, and for individual teams, and the UK market could be prime for it.

  42. ShootahCowboy says: May 6, 2009 1:23 PM

    Yeah, the World League of American Football/NFL Europe did so well over in Europe. Now we send a Super Bowl their way?
    What event England ever given us for us to repay them with a billion dollar event? Is their security as strong as ours?
    Bad Move Roger, bad move….

  43. hayward giablommi says: May 6, 2009 1:29 PM

    BigDogSolec says:
    The SUPER BOWL is a USA GAME , if LONDON . Canada, Mexico want part of it they can get there own NFL team and compete with us , then the winner of the Super Bowl s can play and be called THE WORLD BOWL for the right to be called THE BEST IN THE WORLD
    ————–
    sssshhhhhhhh. Don’t give Goodell the NFL destroyer any more horrendous ideas!!!
    Actually, I would be ok with giving Canada a team if there would be sufficient interest. Of course the CFL would probably implode though, and who knows if they could sustain long term interest (see the Blue Jays decline in attendence and the defunct Expos).
    But expansion to Mexico should NEVER happen (not enough space to list all the reasons why) and London should be a non starter for obvious logistical reasons.
    Haven’t we scene enough of globalization to have learned its not beneficial in any way to the U.S.A.? America first, second and third, everybody else get to the back of the line.

  44. watchthisjack says: May 6, 2009 1:32 PM

    F this idea right in the neck. Then deny that it ever happened to the idea’s friends.
    I’d rather spend the day watching a tivo’d copy of “A very Dookie Christmas” while Michael Irvin cuts my hair.

  45. SayitaintsoJoe says: May 6, 2009 1:36 PM

    I am English, I live near London and I love football, so I should like this idea, but I don’t, I hate it.
    The name of the league is a bit of a give away, it’s a national league, and it’s biggest game should remain at home. There are thousands of passionate fans in Europe, but that still means we’re a tiny minority. We’re used to following the NFL on TV you don’t need to ship the teams over here, you just need to expand the amount of coverage available in Europe.
    Get it on the free to air channels. Sell the rights at discount rates on the condition that it gets shown in prime time. Make more video content available over the internet, at more reasonable prices. That’s the way to expand the fan base. The NFL is never going to compete with football (association football/soccer) in terms of popularity, at least not in this century.
    Sending the Super Bowl to London just looks like a publicity stunt and European sports fans will recognise it for what it is, a governing body screwing over the traditional fan base in favour of new money. We get enough of that over here already.

  46. fidster says: May 6, 2009 1:40 PM

    Will they play the game at 12:30 am local time so that the people who are watching it on TV (that’s us in the U.S.) can still see the game on Sunday evening?
    I’m sure the companies that are paying millions for the commercial spots won’t want to pay as much for a Sunday afternoon game as they are willing to pay for a Sunday evening game.

  47. Vox Veritas says: May 6, 2009 1:42 PM

    Way to screw over loyal fans for potential new ones that will go back to their cricket and bad food as soon as the new wears off.

  48. Vox Veritas says: May 6, 2009 1:53 PM

    “Um… no. London has a climate a lot like Portland/Seattle: February temperatures are in the forties and it’s often gray and wet, but snow is rare.”
    I would hope so. London got 8 inches of snow Feb. 2 of this year and the city was virtually paralyzed. All five airports closed down, 800+ cancelled flights, thousands stranded. The bus network closed down, most trains shut down, the streets were gridlocked. Never been to Philly, but betcha their infrastructure could handle 8 inches of snow better than that.
    If they give a Super Bowl to London, I’ll be praying for more snow.

  49. Monkster1 says: May 6, 2009 1:57 PM

    Its insane to have it in London. Tell them to play Wimbledon over here.

  50. jbwbubba says: May 6, 2009 1:59 PM

    Its just a silly idea. I can’t believe owners of teams in DC, NY, Boston, and the other colder weather teams would be happy at all. They were told for years that weather meant they couldn’t host a super bowl. You think Dan Snyder would be happy about a London game when he can’t get one in DC? I would see a Super Bowl in Canada or Mexico before London.
    Also what if a player listens to Michael Savage, they might be told they can’t come in the country. Not to mention the problems if Washington gets to the Superbowl and start talking about the ‘Hogs’ and given London’s large, radical and growing Muslim population. That doesn’t even include the problems with the “pigskin”.

  51. The Bion says: May 6, 2009 2:08 PM

    “Yeah, the World League of American Football/NFL Europe did so well over in Europe. Now we send a Super Bowl their way?”
    How many times are people going to try and make this as a serious point? Honestly? NFL Europe was a DEVELOPMENTAL LEAGUE. You can’t compare it to the real thing. And those outside of America are not so damn stupid as to not recognise the difference.
    “What event England ever given us for us to repay them with a billion dollar event? Is their security as strong as ours?”
    We’re not as paranoid, so our security probably isn’t. Having said that our police deal with hundreds of football (sorry, soccer) games on a weekly basis and are better at crowd control then probably most other countries, certainly in Europe.
    However if some of you want to fly over and protest I’m sure we can get some tear gas for you.

  52. steelerfan9598 says: May 6, 2009 2:17 PM

    They should try a cold weather site here FIRST. Plus, the time difference would make it a nightmare.Starting a game at midnight local time would be dumb as hell. They are going to stay at the game until 4 in the morning?

  53. bandit says: May 6, 2009 2:18 PM

    Hopefully the 2017 Super Bowl will pit an 8-8 Wild Card Bengals against the 8-8 Wild Card Lions who play to a 3-0 OT thriller. Humbug.

  54. r8derfan33 says: May 6, 2009 2:21 PM

    This is an asinine idea! Since when did the National Football League change to IFL (International Football League)? Don’t the Europeans hate the fact that we call their football, soccer? Keep it in the States so that at least one AMERICAN city can reap the economical rewards. Besides, why take the number 1 sporting event in AMERICA and transfer it overseas! Don’t we get on companies that ship labor overseas?

  55. KILLER FINS FAN says: May 6, 2009 2:23 PM

    keep the game here!!! this is our (American) sport, it needs to stay here so our American fans can enjoy the game here, not have to worry about traveling & the big expense!!!

  56. Shamrock says: May 6, 2009 2:37 PM

    “London has a climate a lot like Portland/Seattle: February temperatures are in the forties and it’s often gray and wet, but snow is rare. ”
    I lived in London from Jan to July 85, and it was either snowy, rainy or foggy for all of February. Cold as can be.
    This is a disaster waiting to happen.

  57. Rhodium Heart says: May 6, 2009 2:43 PM

    A Super Bowl in London would be the worst mistake on television since Rhoda’s wedding.

  58. HowBoutThemTexans says: May 6, 2009 4:41 PM

    HORRIBLE idea.
    Think of the financial boon the Super Bowl is to the city in which its played. In these times, you want to give THAT to a FOREIGN city?
    Are you insane, Roger Goodell? Are you out of your damn mind?
    Then again, as much as we’d all complain, stop acting like you’d “boycott” the game or something. We’d bitch and moan, but then we’d still watch the games and we’d still buy the jerseys. You’re lying to yourself if you say you wouldn’t.

  59. KILLER FINS FAN says: May 6, 2009 6:54 PM

    there are 32 team cities & any of them would love the revenue!!! Goodell is going to ruin the NFL & run it into the ground!!! All for trying to intoduce the leauge to the world!!! Guess what… 3/4 of the world don’t care about the U.S. let alone the NFL!!! wake up, Goodell, you stupid idiot!!!

  60. Vox Veritas says: May 6, 2009 7:39 PM

    “We’re not as paranoid, so our security probably isn’t. Having said that our police deal with hundreds of football (sorry, soccer) games on a weekly basis and are better at crowd control then probably most other countries, certainly in Europe.”
    Yeah those crowds look really controlled everytime I look at a game.

  61. eagles3309 says: May 6, 2009 8:31 PM

    listen, Europeans don’t care about American football. next month the uefa champions league final (europes best club soccer competition) will be held in Rome…last year it was in moscow…before that athens…and paris..anyway the point is that Europeans wouldn’t want their top soccer game that is the most important for all of the good soccer countries like England, Spain, Italy to be held in Philadelphia, Chicago, New York, LA, etc. why should we take our game that is so beloved in our country and send it where it wouldn’t even be cared about?

  62. The Bion says: May 7, 2009 7:25 AM

    “We’re not as paranoid, so our security probably isn’t. Having said that our police deal with hundreds of football (sorry, soccer) games on a weekly basis and are better at crowd control then probably most other countries, certainly in Europe.”
    “Yeah those crowds look really controlled everytime I look at a game. ”
    Really. When was the last time you looked at a game? Who was playing? What country was it in? Back yourself up or shut up.

Leave a Reply

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