Skip to content

London won't get Super Bowl without NFL team

A lot of stateside NFL fans (ie the vast majority of NFL fans) don’t like the idea of a Super Bowl in London.  Or a team in London. 

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell confirmed Friday that there won’t be one without the other. 

According to the Twitter account of NFL spokesman Greg Aiello, Goodell said in London Friday that he is not considering a London Super Bowl “until at least there’s an NFL franchise there.”

Patriots owner Robert Kraft, also in London for the Patriots-Bucs game Sunday, predicted it could happen relatively soon.  “I really believe it’s the right thing to do in the next decade,” Kraft said.

Speaking at the Global Sport Summit, Goodell agreed that he could see a franchise in the UK.  Asked whether Goodell would prefer London or Los Angeles, the Commish had answer that could make fans nervous in some NFL cities.

“Both,” Goodell said.

Permalink 71 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Jacksonville Jaguars, New England Patriots, Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Tampa Bay Buccaneers, Top Stories
71 Responses to “London won't get Super Bowl without NFL team”
  1. Emoney says: Oct 23, 2009 10:28 AM

    I can see it now…
    The London Vikings!

  2. TheDPR says: Oct 23, 2009 10:29 AM

    London? Really?
    That’s insane. Playing a game per year there is stupid enough, but a Super Bowl or a franchise there? Completely idiotic.

  3. chapnasty says: Oct 23, 2009 10:31 AM

    Here is an intelligent argument to oppose this. First whos says we need more teams in the league? I mean the profits are perfect where they are, the fan bases are loyal, why mess with it? Second, do we want more teams like the rams, chiefs, raiders, lions and browns? I mean the talent pool is so thin now why streatch it out over more teams and have cities that may face balckouts. None of this makes any sense. Just leave things the way they are. Go play the one crap game in London now and leave it at that. There is a problem with being too greedy…

  4. tv says: Oct 23, 2009 10:33 AM

    This idea is ludicrous!
    Just the logistical problems associated with having west coast teams having to fly to London for any weekly game (much less a Mon night game), or vise versa, are vast.

  5. prophet of the light says: Oct 23, 2009 10:35 AM

    Yea, because having an NFL team gets you the Super Bowl… Green Bay, New England, Pittsburgh, Chicago, Buffalo, New York Giants/Jets, etc are still waiting for their chance to host…
    Give me a break Goddell, you were out picking the teams fabric with the Brits for the teams “Rugby” uniforms. Do British people even know what American Football is?
    By 2015, they will have a Super Bowl, book it.

  6. SmackMyVickUp says: Oct 23, 2009 10:36 AM

    As was mentioned here before the logistics alone would make it difficult.
    Goodypoo is merely hyping up Londoners for the upcoming game, after the game the hype will die down until the next game.

  7. DonTerrelli says: Oct 23, 2009 10:40 AM

    or the London Raiders…

  8. purpleloki says: Oct 23, 2009 10:40 AM

    It is becoming clearer everyday what needs to happen. Goodell has to go! Why would you want a franchise in Europe? It almost as if he is trying to come up with new ways to ruin the continuity of an NFL season and aggravate the people that pay for the product. Just go away and get a competent commissioner i.e. Tagliabue to preserve the integrity of the NFL!!!

  9. Satanic Hell Creature says: Oct 23, 2009 10:41 AM

    Great, send another team to the non football supporting city of LA, only to fail again. Then put a team in a city half a world away, in a country that really doesn’t care enough about American Football to support it (selling out 1 game a year doesn’t count, it’s not Futbol or Soccer or whatever, they will not support it long term. Goodell is an egotistical idiot.

  10. CT Pats Fan says: Oct 23, 2009 10:44 AM

    London won’t get a Superbowl until they can guarantee good weather in February. It’s mostly cool and wet that time of year, with SuperBowl type weather being the exception, not the rule.
    Of course, the alternative would be to hold the actual event at the Millennium stadium in Wales, but that’s not London! (Not even England)

  11. eddiegriffinlives says: Oct 23, 2009 10:44 AM

    Could we possibly see an expansion of 2 teams? LA & London to get back to 34 teams which, as an even #, would get the league back to a balanced schedule…

  12. chino0411 says: Oct 23, 2009 10:48 AM

    i love the idea of a team in london there are a few franchises that are wasting away in their present cities Jacksonville being the most obvious. though it is a sad reality the pound is up on the dollar and the games do draw well across the pond, if london or any other city attached themselves to a nfl team the way they do with their soccer teams it would be a cash cow and within 2 to 3 years of a team relocating to england it would just be business as usual no one would even think twice when talking about a non north american team. finally it makes more sense to have a club there as opposed to L.A., it has failed there already with the rams and raiders why believe it will work now.

  13. Scrip Club Lover says: Oct 23, 2009 10:49 AM

    I’ll believe it when I see it. This rhetoric rears its ugly head every time they take a game over the pond.
    Once the hype for this game dies down, you won’t hear a peep about taking a game to a country that doesn’t know or care about ‘American’ football.

  14. MostNutsEver says: Oct 23, 2009 10:49 AM

    Canada should get an NFL team before the UK, if the UK ever should get an NFL team. Toronto Bills, I’m looking at you.
    And as others have mentioned, the logistics of sending that much football across the pond are crazy. Why not just bring back NFL Europe?

  15. Fike Mlorio says: Oct 23, 2009 10:51 AM

    goodell’s really trying to run fans away isnt he?

  16. Richm2256 says: Oct 23, 2009 10:51 AM

    Does Roger Goodell even give a damn what his fan base wants? I can’t think of anyone who has come out in favor of this concept. I thought it was a stupid idea just to play one game a year there – after all, you are depriving one city a year from enjoying a game in their locale for the sake of a bunch of people who have no concept of what American football actually is. They come out for the spectacle, not for the love of the game.
    And the concept of actually having a team there? What’s the point? As has been pointed out already, the league seriously doesn’t need expansion, and if they did, there are several American cities deserving of a franchise. Logistically, this is a nightmare. At what time of day could a game be played where it makes sense for the British home team as well as the visiting U.S. team’s fan base back home? It’s what, a five hour difference from London to the eastern U.S.? Tack on another 3 hours for a west coast franchise and you’ve got am=n 8 hour time zone difference.
    And to even remotely consider holding a Super Bowl – the NFL’s crown jewel – outside of the country is total lunacy.
    What is the big fricking deal with international play? No one outside of the U.S. gives a tinker’s damn about the NFL, and U.S. fans don’t give a tinker’s damn about watching a team in London.
    You’ve got a perfect product here in this country Mr. Gooddell, why do you insist on messing with it?

  17. Scrip Club Lover says: Oct 23, 2009 10:52 AM

    Let me add. The more Goodell opens his mouth, the more he reminds me of that greedy SOB, Danny Snyder.

  18. footballrulz says: Oct 23, 2009 10:52 AM

    Oh well. Guess they won’t be able to call it the NFL anymore. Hello International Football League (IBL). Wonder what division they’ll be in? Would have to be the NFC or AFC East I suppose.
    What a ridiculous idea. Would someone please spray some bleach on Goodell. I’m afraid he’s going to spread.

  19. hayward giablommi says: Oct 23, 2009 10:52 AM

    ^ Patriots fan who is extremely disappointed, disturbed and offended by Robert Kraft’s globalist agenda.
    America first, Bob. Not London. Or Israel. Or anywhere else. America first.

  20. pfinfl says: Oct 23, 2009 10:53 AM

    The NFL is forcing the Bucs to fly in the AM to test for the best way to commute to London for a game. The Pats, who have one of the shortest commute in the league, get to go at night.
    I have traveled to London many times and arriving at 6AM is far better than 6PM feeling like its noon. Is the NFL that naive?

  21. slipkid says: Oct 23, 2009 10:56 AM

    no, ’twill be the london jaguars, and the logo will become a car…

  22. DMurph says: Oct 23, 2009 10:57 AM

    Why the hate?

  23. mike says: Oct 23, 2009 10:58 AM

    This is, without a doubt, the worst thing the NFL can do.
    The NFL stays in AMERICA!
    I will NEVER support the NFL going outside of the US. I will not watch ANY games outside of the US.

  24. Carl Gerbschmidt says: Oct 23, 2009 10:59 AM

    Football in Europe makes as much sense as Hockey south of the Mason Dixon, the people do not understand the sport.

  25. albialbi says: Oct 23, 2009 10:59 AM

    football has always been the American sport and now you wana send the biggest game in Europe? How about considering first the home fans who pay thousands of $$ to watch the games at home….you dont see europe sending here all the big soccer games do you?…wat a joke this country has become

  26. leatherneck says: Oct 23, 2009 11:00 AM

    Well, the Vikings conquered London in 1066. I suppose they will be playing there in a few years.

  27. Resolution says: Oct 23, 2009 11:00 AM

    London Jaguars. Of the few teams who are trying to price themselves out of their own home, they are most aggresive about it. If its not London, the L.A. Jags.

  28. Andy says: Oct 23, 2009 11:02 AM

    The problem I have with this is that I’m a born & bred Brit and I live in the UK, but I’ve been a die-hard Broncos fan for the last 26 years.
    And having an NFL team in London won’t change that. I’d still go and watch them though.
    As for a team name, heck, let’s bring back the London Monarchs from the old World League days!!

  29. Kevin from Philly says: Oct 23, 2009 11:07 AM

    And then they can expand in Europe: The Paris Hiltons, the Spanish Inquisitions, etc.

  30. kbtegp says: Oct 23, 2009 11:09 AM

    Doesn’t England block people with criminal records from entering the country?
    Some teams may have to forfeit…

  31. crazyanime says: Oct 23, 2009 11:19 AM

    Exactly which nation would be home to the National Football League then? Idiotic idea…is not anything sacred?

  32. kravon says: Oct 23, 2009 11:27 AM

    Get real. Imagine the backlash from fans of teams who would have to shell out an extra 1000 bucks to fly over there. C’mon man.
    Plus think about the time you would have to air it in the US. Are they really dumb enough to have the Super Bowl start at noon pacific coast time?

  33. BoudreauxnThibideaux says: Oct 23, 2009 11:27 AM

    The NFL should expand to London – especially if the Euro keeps value over the dollar and the NFL keeps a revenue sharing plan (sorry jerry jones – it works). If the league makes more money that should lower ticket prices.
    I hope that the London Franchise gets their bums beat…
    Florio when you read this please make the following suggestion to NFL brass:
    1. Take the Dolphins out of the AFC East and stick the London team in their place.
    2. Put the Dolphins in the AFC South where they geographically belong. (A couple of Jacksonville-Miami games a year would likely make for a good in-state rivalry, and the Fla. economy.)
    I agree with Andy on the team name…monarchs would be a good throwback name.

  34. bigfog says: Oct 23, 2009 11:35 AM

    Ideas like this will bankrupt the NFL. Did Goodell not learn from NFL Europe?
    Any team that’s installed in London is at a huge competitive disadvantage. Traveling to and from different NFL towns, dealing with time differences, trying to practice while traveling. There are so many problems with this idea.
    Not to mention that the unlucky London team will end up being the most hated team in the NFL.

  35. SATAN567 says: Oct 23, 2009 11:41 AM

    Leave it to the Pats owner to support a shitty idea like a Super Bowl in Europe. What an asshold. Screw Kraft and screw Goodell.

  36. I♥Patriots says: Oct 23, 2009 11:41 AM

    I am quite disappointed in Bob Kraft for this comment. It is a horrible idea. The London team would have to travel overseas eight times a year, their opponents would have to travel. It would suck for all parties involved. The NFL Europe did not work out for a reason…Europeans don’t really like our football. They cheer for kickoffs and punts, they have no idea about our football. Sure there are some who enjoy it, and the Wembly game sells out really fast because it’s something new and exciting to them. This is just Godell’s being greedy.
    Football is am AMERICAN sport. Keep it here. If there was a SB there it would be such a slap in the face to Americans.

  37. Setobakura says: Oct 23, 2009 11:50 AM

    Why dont they put the London franchise in the UFL??

  38. KILLER FIN says: Oct 23, 2009 11:51 AM

    GOOD!!! Keep american football here in America!!! STOP shipping teams & equipment to countries that don’t care aboutAmerican fooball it cost way too much & is a big waste of time!!! Goodell YOU SUCK!!! These changes are not worth while & PUT THE PRO BOWL BACK IN HAWAII TOO!!! It is not woth watching anymore!!!

  39. scomibord says: Oct 23, 2009 11:52 AM

    o.k. They already had the World League of American Football that**********FAILED. L.A. already had a couples of teams that *******FAILED. Gooddell needs to realize that not all cities are able to support a team. An extreme amount of money is already lost on a region that couldn’t supportit. The entire league folded.

  40. LATRELL843 says: Oct 23, 2009 11:52 AM

    who would really want to see the NFL waste their time traveling to London every week for a game????? that would throw the scheduleing off so bad!!

  41. cliffcla says: Oct 23, 2009 11:53 AM

    The NFL is a business, as a business profits are based on growth. The NFL has essentially hit a saturation point in the U.S. It Cannot get much bigger (without adding more days to the season). But if they truly are thinking about creating a London team, they should consider an additional 4-8 teams in Europe . That way you would create a whole new conference.. The Extreme eastern conference. Upon reflection I think there would be a lot of problems if one of the Euro teams made the Superbowl. The Superbowl is considered by most Americans as being ours alone. A tradition that many generations of fans have embraced. Taking that into consideration,you would almost have to create a whole new European league. Then instead of playing a Probowl replace it with a WORLD Championship. And for sake of continuity you should also create a Asian league.. 4 leagues could have a playoff. The NFL, CFL, EUFL, and the AFL…With multiple countries embracing Football the next step would be to get it included in the summer Olympics. This would be fine, until you reach a Global saturation point. Then with no more possibility of growth, the NFL would have to turn to cheap gimmicks to lure increased viewership. Like Extreme NFL, with exploding footballs, Naked cheerleaders, Played on a concrete surface while wearing roller skates. All players would be required to wear shock collars, Anytime a player drops a ball or commits a neutral zone infraction…Zappo…. It would be broadcast in HD3D….
    Whatever happened with GOOD ENOUGH. Be happy with what you have. If you want to increase profits, keep the Salary cap in place. Create a rookie wage scale. It is ridiculous what rookies are asking for without even taking a pro snap, and add an additional two games to the season. Increase ratings by spreading games out over more days. Say Football on Friday, Saturday, Sunday, And Monday prime times. More days will bring in more add revenue.

  42. muchmaligned says: Oct 23, 2009 11:55 AM

    Uh, what would be the “logistical nightmare” for those of you watching the game sitting on the couch you found in the trailer park “grab pile”?

  43. Pdono1985 says: Oct 23, 2009 11:58 AM

    Well without question, we are going to see a Los Angeles franchise and a London franchise somewhere down the road. Everyone seems to think the L.A. team is going to be the Jags, but I think without question, it is going to be one of the teams that are already on the West Coast. I would not be shocked to see the Chargers end up in L.A. at all.
    The Jaguars, I think would be the most likely candidate for a move to London. And as a person supposed above – it would have to be either in the NFC East or AFC East – which would probably lead to a realignment for one of 4 teams – Washington, Dallas, Buffalo/Toronto, Miami.
    I think they would elect to move Miami to the AFC South specifically if they move to Toronto to the AFC North. Miami to the AFC South is another possibility. I can’t see them touching the NFC East, although Dallas is certainly geographically out of place.
    As for scheduling I would think the London team would play a slate of 4 home/4 away and then 4 home/4 away.
    The problem with this is that a team playing in London would almost certainly have to have their bye week following the London game, which puts the bye weeks into Week 12/13, which may or may not be a bad thing, considering, having Week 4 bye weeks, is a little ridiculous. Or this will possibly lead to two bye weeks a season, which may help get the season to 17 or 18 games.
    Maybe that’s Goodell’s intention – having all of these moves intertwine – the London team necessitates expansion of the season.
    Roger Goodell, you think you know me

  44. MikeMcDPhilly says: Oct 23, 2009 12:08 PM

    It’s bad enough when east coast teams have to play west coast games at 10AM EST. If the London team played the day game against the Niners in San Fran, that’s 4AM London time. Way too much jet lag. No league can span nine hours in time zones. It’s an idiotic idea that should not even be discussed. I’d give more merit to the debate on whether or not the NFL should replace the endzones with four feet deep swimming pools… which would be sweet.

  45. Pdono1985 says: Oct 23, 2009 12:12 PM

    Messed up above – Miami to the AFC South – then thought it could be the Toronto/Buffalo Bills to the AFC North, but realized that would be a complete mess.

  46. db3300 says: Oct 23, 2009 12:18 PM

    … because NFL Europe worked out so well.

  47. Fan_Of_ Four says: Oct 23, 2009 12:21 PM

    Might as well see if we can get a game in Iran as well. Goodell needs to go before he totally fks up the NFL.

  48. leatherneck says: Oct 23, 2009 12:26 PM

    Global expansion should be done differently.
    First, the NFL should buy the UFL and keep it as “minor league football.” Let each UFL owner keep the team, but make them junior partners to the NFL partners.
    Second, the NFL should create “UFL Europe” and keep it limited to four teams. There should be European owners for each of the teams. If there is a team in London, that team should be owned by an Englishman living in or near London. You need a local owner to establish local identity. Don’t worry about the nationality of the players, as that will just happen eventually.
    Each year, there should be a “UFL Ultra Bowl” between the best American and European UFL teams.
    It will slowly take off. The long-term plan can be to merge the whole thing together, or to do a “World Cup”-like world championship every four years.

  49. GoBrowns19 says: Oct 23, 2009 12:30 PM

    Wow. There is only one thing that could EVER ruin the NFL. And that would be moving a team out of the United States. It would set a tragic precedent. There are alot of rich countries in the world. Alot wealthier than most U.S. cities. Half the teams in the league would be in Europe and Asia in ten years.
    The Tokyo Browns vs. Rome Chiefs on Tuesday Morning Football!
    Yeah, when the Browns play the Monarchs, what time will the game be? Do I have to call in sick to work to catch the game that starts Monday morning at 5:00 a.m.?

  50. Nard100 says: Oct 23, 2009 1:28 PM

    This is all very interesting speculation from a league that is continually crying about its mendicant status. Apparently is does have money to throw away on risky ventures after all.

  51. crex43 says: Oct 23, 2009 1:29 PM

    Why don’t they just move the Oakland Raiders to LA? It’s close enough, the San Fran area doesn’t need two football teams in close proximity, and we can finally disband the entire organization when LA doesn’t support its own team.

  52. maxinquaye says: Oct 23, 2009 1:41 PM

    PFT reacts…just substitute ‘teams’ for ‘jobs’:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brj2UkUPjCI

  53. CKL says: Oct 23, 2009 1:48 PM

    I feel they purposely got RID of NFLE in order to advance this cockamamie idea of having NFL franchises play overseas. I loved NFLE and it provided a much needed (IMO) “farm team” type league for the NFL.
    This idea of having overseas NFL franchises and a SB over there is so horrible it’s hard to come up with where to start criticizing it. Part of being a good business is keeping your profitable customer base (and employees like coaches and players) happy and knowing which customers are more and less valuable to pursue. To alienate the majority of fans to pursue the minority of fans in Europe does not seem to be a good business strategy, along with reeking of arrogance (“Oh NFL fans in America will never get so mad they will withhold their $$$ support”).
    How about trying to gauge if there’s any real interest overseas by giving them more TV access to the NFL first? But no, that might make sense.

  54. tk444 says: Oct 23, 2009 1:56 PM

    As a Giant fan I went to the first game in London. Fans from all around Europe come to see this one game. I saw jerseys for every team and spoke to many of them asking where they were from..Germany, Netherlands, Scotland, etc. This game was considered an event in itself which is why it attracted so many. I was actually surprised how knowledgable the fans were at the game. On one hand a team franchise may work because there is large fan base across Europe who may be hungry for more NFL games. On the other hand a full slate of games may dilute the importance of games. I don’t believe the London fan base could support a franchise by itself.

  55. Free_Tramopoline says: Oct 23, 2009 2:05 PM

    So, once again, my idea for a Hawaii team doesn’t seem so dumb anymore by comparison…

  56. Deb says: Oct 23, 2009 2:05 PM

    Is London springing for a domed stadium to accommodate a Super Bowl once every five to seven years? If not, Roger & Bob K., you might want to spend time in the UK in February before scheduling a Super Bowl there.
    And how are you going to handle the television issues? How will London fans follow U.S. games each week? By the time our Sunday night games are played, they’ll be asleep. They can’t watch the next day because they’ll be at work. They can’t watch a tape delay the next night because that will interfere with MNF. And with the Internet, they’ll already know who won.
    Then there’s the injury issue. I don’t want my Steelers traveling to London for regular season games. I don’t want them tiring themselves, risking injury, and jeopardizing their performance for that week and the week after. And you expect the London players to make that trip 8 times a year? What about playoffs? And what if an American player is seriously injured in London. Will he have to stay there–away from family and teammates–to be treated long-term?
    Has anyone thought this stuff out? Do the views of your bread-and-butter fans count for anything???

  57. Patsfan1776 says: Oct 23, 2009 2:32 PM

    Goodell can’t put a team in the US let alone the UK. It is the owners’ decision and they will decide what they want to decide.
    I would think the biggest problem would be to get players to play. If there is a salary cap and all the teams can only pay $X, a London team may be at a disadvantage trying to get players to relocate. The UK is more expensive to live, weather sucks, and taxes may be a bit crazy too.

  58. WashingtonRedstorms says: Oct 23, 2009 2:33 PM

    The Buccaneers will be the team to either L.A. or London.
    This franchise is being run into the ground for a reason. Glazers own a soccer franchise in the UK.
    The Bucs would be welcomed in London.

  59. finsbooyah says: Oct 23, 2009 2:40 PM

    BoudreauxnThibideaux says:
    October 23, 2009 11:27 AM
    The NFL should expand to London – especially if the Euro keeps value over the dollar and the NFL keeps a revenue sharing plan (sorry jerry jones – it works). If the league makes more money that should lower ticket prices.
    ==================================
    Hahaha, yea right. If you actually believe owners will lower ticket/parking/concession prices because they are making more money you are as niave as a 5 year old girl.
    A London team is the ABSOLUTE WORST IDEA I’ve ever heard concerning the NFL. There are about 1,000 reasons why but I’m only going to mention one…
    Competitive advantage. The London team will have a comeptitive advantage over any team flying out there to play (as will the opponent of said road team the following week). And the London team will be at a tremendous disadvantage for the 8 games they have when they travel to the U.S. This is just pure common sense.

  60. Kevin from Philly says: Oct 23, 2009 2:48 PM

    I was just reading an NFL page on the BBC website. One of the Scots who’ll be watching the game, posted his drinking game rules for the afternoon:
    “Official Football Drinking Games Rules
    1) Two teams
    2) Two team captains
    3) Team captains flip a coin for who’s pats/bucs
    4) Half time event is the beer Olympic 100m, downing a beer whilst running 100m
    5) Losing team has to go out with a Harry Potter scar drawn on their foreheads
    6) Trash talk is encouraged!
    Rules
    1) 1st down means opposing team takes a shot of beer each
    2) Touchdown means opposing team players take a shot of liquor
    3) Interception means opposing team has to funnel one beer
    4) Penalty means team captain nominates a member of their team to take a shot of liquor
    5) Time out means a relay of flip cup
    6) Sacked quarterback means body shot out of the team captains belly button
    7) Field goal is a shot of beer 8) Fumble is each player of your team is head stand down a beer through a straw
    9) Any 30 yard play opposing team does a strawpeedo or Smirnoff each
    10) Blocked punt is a shot of liquor
    11) Two point conversion is a shot a liquor for defending team
    12) Can only go to the toilet at designated breaks (time outs or quarter breaks) otherwise a shot of liquor penalty
    13) Anyone who throws up subjects the whole team to a shot, including themselves!
    14) If you literally cannot take anymore alcohol, you are a total girl and must wear a female bikini for the remainder of the game. Includes sitting outside the apartment for around 10 mins”
    No idea what a “strawpeedo” is, and I probably don’t want to know. No WONDER they have riots at soccer games!

  61. BoudreauxnThibideaux says: Oct 23, 2009 2:51 PM

    FYI, NFL Europe was very popular in Germany and London even after many of the other teams folded. People only stopped going b/c none of the top flight talent was coming over. Still the success of the German and London teams merits the NFL considering planting franchises over there. It would be wise though, if they do put teams in Germany, that the Euro teams get their own 4 team division.
    While they’re at it, the NFL should develop a stronger relationship with AFL2 and use it as a farm league. LEAVE the UFL alone! Here’s my last proposal for the day – trade the Raiders for the Tuskers….

  62. MAMALO says: Oct 23, 2009 2:59 PM

    HEY THIS IS FOOTBALL AMERICA….. I MEAN “NORTH AMERICA, USA”, SO…GIVE A BREAK………………………

  63. FrankGreg says: Oct 23, 2009 3:34 PM

    Wow, i don’t think that the idea is a no brainer or even a good idea but some of you are just dumb. First thing, West coast games are shown at 1pm EST not 10Am. Stupid.
    Also the timing of the games in London would be fine. The games would be played at home games at 6pm or 9pm London time.
    That would be 1Pm EST and the usual 10am PST for 6pm games.
    Then 4pm EST and 1pm PST for 9pm games.
    That is not any different.
    When the League scedules games in London they would make sure to have any west coast team have their bye week the week after and east coast teams would not be any different then having to fly to seatle or out west. It just a plane ride.
    Also as far as destroying your fan base? What the hell are you all talking about. I am a Giants fan and having a team in London would only affect me because its another team that i will want my team to beat.
    Do that many of you travel to see your teams in other stadiums? Probably not. I have Giants season tickets and have only been to 2 other stadiums in my life. No big deal about fan base.
    You would be creating a fan base there and not diluting American fan base at all. Jacksonville doesn’t have a fan base that supports the team so what the big deal.
    Super Bowl in London now thats different. Unless they have a Dome or have a Franchise there they need to think about other stadiums first, The last time i checked London is not a tropical location for an outdoor Superbowl.
    London Team would be intresting, think about laughing at them when they talk about the calls on the field with the accents.
    DFS

  64. DuluthFan says: Oct 23, 2009 4:38 PM

    Nickname: London RedCoats
    There jerseys would be, you guessed it, red.

  65. JRPatsFan says: Oct 23, 2009 4:39 PM

    A first I just thought this was a kind of lame idea, but figured I would get used to it if it happened.
    Then I realized that the other teams in whatever division the London team would be in would be absolutely screwed. The other teams in the division would have to make that trip every year, while other NFL teams would only have to make the trip every four years or so.
    And as a Patriots fan I think that would suck. After all it would either be the AFC East or the NFC East the London team would end up in, right?
    I agree with some of the other posts….leave it alone, or at worst move a team or two to Canada.

  66. hayward giablommi says: Oct 23, 2009 4:45 PM

    Do that many of you travel to see your teams in other stadiums? Probably not. I have Giants season tickets and have only been to 2 other stadiums in my life. No big deal about fan base.
    ^^^^^^^^^
    I travel to at least 2 or 3 road games a year and have been to games in 17 different cities. As a Pats fan who has been to 5 neutral games in Tampa for the last 4 years, I have been looking forward for years to heading down to Tampa to finally see the Pats play there (which last happened in 1997).
    Not the case now, obviously, that won’t happen for another 8 years. I refuse to use my passport to see the game of American football played overseas. It’s appalling.

  67. texasPHINSfan says: Oct 23, 2009 5:00 PM

    i think many of you are shortsighted.
    expansion to Europe can only grow the sport, and games like “tokyo samurais versus the rome emperors” won’t be happening in your lifetime, so let’s be serious here.
    the NFL moves slowly, they’re talking about adding ONE team to london, and it probably won’t be for awhile.
    you guys are acting like the NFL is america’s right, and no one else deserves to watch it. enjoy the fact that the rest of the world is asking to see it, and help spread its successes.

  68. NoHomeTeam says: Oct 23, 2009 6:33 PM

    Guess this is what I get for actually working when I’m at work — I miss out on the chance to comment on an interesting topic. I’m this will be buried so far down on the page no-one will see it, but I just had to address a couple of the comments made above.
    purpleloki says: It is becoming clearer everyday what needs to happen. Goodell has to go . . . Just go away and get a competent commissioner i.e. Tagliabue to preserve the integrity of the NFL
    Really? Tagliabue? That’s your idea of a competent Commissioner? Let’s see . . . under his watch, St. Louis, which supported the Cardinals for far longer than they deserved, is passed over for an expansion franchise — in favor of the sprawling metropolis of Jacksonville; not one, but two teams disappear from the second largest market in the country; the Cleveland Browns pack up and move to the other former NFL city passed over for Expansion, a pooch-screw so epic the League had to go to the extraordinary extent of promising to replace the team. Still with me, here? Let’s add to that the fact that it was under his administration that the game saw a tremendous upsurge in thugism, substance abuse, and prima donna “stars”. The Commissioner’s office is the final authority on discipline in the League, is it not? How about the approval of a Labor contract so poisonous to the League that it may lead to a complete work stoppage and possibly the end of revenue-sharing as we know it. Competence? Integrity?
    eddiegriffinlives says: Could we possibly see an expansion of 2 teams? LA & London to get back to 34 teams which, as an even #, would get the league back to a balanced schedule…
    Two wouldn’t really do it. 34 teams ÷ 2 Conferences = 17 teams / Conference. No way to divide that up evenly into either 3 or 4 teams per Division. You’d need to go to 36 teams; 18 teams per Conference divided into 3 Divisions of 6. London, Los Angeles, Toronto (sorry, Ralph), Mexico City, and . . . I dunno, Berlin, maybe?
    crex43 says: Why don’t they just move the Oakland Raiders to LA?
    Do. Not. Want.
    Seriously.
    Most of here would rather have no team.

  69. Deb says: Oct 23, 2009 8:11 PM

    Heaven help us.
    @BoudreauxnThibideaux … You want the world to enjoy American football? Buy the world a satellite dish. I lived in the UK for years. They find American football an entertaining novelty but it won’t replace soccer in their hearts and minds. If the NFL wants to bring our style of football to them, let them start another European league. As CKL said, it made for a nice farm system. And don’t hold your breath waiting for those lower ticket prices.
    @FrankGreg … You’ve given me a headache. When our Sunday night game kicks off at 8:15 p.m. est, it will be 1:15 a.m. London time. Think a lot of London fans will be watching those Sunday, Monday, and Thursday night games? It’s going to be hard for them to keep up, don’t you think? Here’s a thought: Why don’t you commute from London to the U.S. to play a knock-down-drag-out pro football game eight times in 17 weeks, then tell me how easy it’s going to be for the chumps lucky enough to be drafted to the Brits?
    @Kevin from Philly … That says it all :-)
    @NoHomeTeam … Saw it. Read it. Loved it. Gotta run!

  70. Mr. Green says: Oct 24, 2009 12:31 AM

    First off, I think putting a team in London is a rotten idea.
    But for a moment I will pretend that I think that it’s an idea worth exploring. So IF the NFL were to seriously consider putting an NFL franchise in London, it would have to be under these conditions:
    1) A London NFL franchise could not be an expansion team. It would have to be a currently existing franchise that is relocated (the London Jaguars anyone?).
    The NFL is watered down enough as is with 32 teams, and it’s not as if American football has foreign hot beds of talent (like baseball, hockey and basketball) to draw from. Expanding any further will begin to have dire effects on the quality of the product on the field.
    2) If the NFL places a franchise in London, I believe it needs to put a franchise in one other European city in order to provide some geographic balance. The London franchise having a fellow European rival that it played twice a year would generate more regional interest for both franchises. The Frankfurt Vikings anyone? Or, perhaps, the Amsterdam Dikings?
    3) There must be a guarantee of selling 70,000 season tickets sold at Wembley Stadium for ten years before the NFL commits a team to London. My guess is that the novelty of NFL football will fade quickly, so the NFL needs to ensure that season ticket sales and revenues are concrete for the foreseeable future.
    Now I’m done pretending that I’m even entertaining this idea. Roger Goodell and Robert Kraft have big ideas for the NFL, which I like. But in this case, they may need surgery to remove their world sized heads from their narrow sphincters.
    I don’t believe the NFL can commit to London without an even greater commitment to the European market as a whole. I don’t believe the NFL can flourish in London without some regional rivalry. And I don’t believe that it’s possible to establish that without expanding to 34 teams. I’m entrenched in my belief that the NFL should not expand beyond 32 teams, otherwise we’re going to see a serious dropoff in the quality of the game.

  71. Nevasleep says: Oct 25, 2009 10:23 AM

    Having a conference, or division in Europe wouldn’t work. The interest is with the American teams and players. London vs Patriots or dolphins, jets etc would be far more popular than London vs Munich.
    If it could be possible, I think a trial of a franchise in London for a season would be great idea. If it doesn’t work, then it doesn’t work!, give the franchise to another city in the US/Canada.
    Having the Superbowl in the UK anytime soon?, terrible idea, it would be an insult to the american nfl fans.

Leave a Reply

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