Skip to content

British government wants full-time NFL team

75557930JD022_New_York_Gian Getty Images

I don’t pay much attention to American politics, and I definitely pay zero attention to British politics.  So I can’t really figure out the significance of the British government creating an “All-Party Parliamentary Group” for American football in conjunction with the league’s annual visit to Wembley Stadium.

But I found these comments from Richard Fuller, the Member of Parliament from Bedford, to be somewhat significant:  “There is strong support for American football within Westminster and a group of us felt that we should get more involved in developing the sport here at both the amateur and professional levels. . . .  We will be working closely with [the British American Football Association], the NFL and other organisations to promote and increase official recognition of American football within the UK sporting landscape.  We hope to be able to develop participation in the sport at grassroots level, create opportunities for British players to reach their full potential in the sport and support the pathway to having eventually a UK-based NFL team.”

Of course, plenty of things have to happen before the NFL would put a team in London.  One of the key factors, however, will be the willingness of folks in London to welcome an NFL team.

The NFL also needs to be willing to do it.  49ers owner John York, chairman of the league’s International Committee, has an opinion.  “It’s ambitious and we can’t talk about timescales yet but I think it will happen,” York said.

For now, the Buccaneers are the team that seems to be on track to visit England on an annual basis, making them the team most likely to relocate to London at some point down the road.  It otherwise would make no sense to build a fan base for one team in London — and then move another team.

The Buccaneers “host” the Bears on Sunday.  Albert Breer of NFL Network currently is in London, and he’ll join PFT Live at noon ET to talk about the league’s long-term prospects in England.

Permalink 193 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Chicago Bears, Rumor Mill, Tampa Bay Buccaneers, Top Stories
193 Responses to “British government wants full-time NFL team”
  1. seneca1ss says: Oct 20, 2011 9:37 AM

    they need to worry about providing citizens with a dental plan first.

  2. woodg8 says: Oct 20, 2011 9:38 AM

    god no

  3. hendawg21 says: Oct 20, 2011 9:38 AM

    Get in line and stay at the back of it…it’s bad enough we have stadiums here that can’t fill seats and it’s a much shorter trip why in the world would anyone think it would work traveling overseas….don’t let greed ruin a good thing…

  4. waxthat says: Oct 20, 2011 9:38 AM

    cool

  5. ukdude7 says: Oct 20, 2011 9:39 AM

    Government PR talk blah blah blah yes in a time of fiscal cuts and deficits they’ll definitely be pumping money into helping a niche sport in the UK grow (this is sarcasm) .

    How about the NFL fill out the stadium first before starting the aggressive marketing campaign.

    They’re blaming the lockout this year for the empty seats.
    Prediction – next year – ‘it’s the Olympic’s fault we didn’t sell out’.

  6. bunchesofone says: Oct 20, 2011 9:39 AM

    This British Buccaneers game brought to you by Wembley Toyota!

  7. jessieboom says: Oct 20, 2011 9:40 AM

    their best bet is to organize a league of their own, and maybe ask the NFL for help in setting it up. It would be a huge disadvantage for any team to have to travel across the pond 8 weeks of the season.

  8. polarbear71 says: Oct 20, 2011 9:40 AM

    NO !

  9. thridandlong says: Oct 20, 2011 9:41 AM

    I agree….send them the Green Bay Packers !

  10. polarbear71 says: Oct 20, 2011 9:43 AM

    North America first…Brits are already all over our TV’s we don’t need anymore !

  11. keirster says: Oct 20, 2011 9:43 AM

    As a life-long Bucs fan, it would be a tragedy to see the team move to another country. If the Glazers have that in their plans, Hillsborough county should sue them for all the money WE paid to build the most unique stadium in the league, as well as all the profits from non-football events that have been made.

    It is very apparent that Malcolm Glazer was the only person who cared about Tampa, since his strokes, his sons are making a joke of this city with their lack of spending and all in attitude toward Manchester United. I wish they would just sell the team to someone who actually cared about American football, not European!

  12. abninf says: Oct 20, 2011 9:44 AM

    Wouldn’t want to be a player on a team in Britain. Most of their money will be taken by the government.

  13. kriswd40 says: Oct 20, 2011 9:45 AM

    Please no. Football is immensely popular in the US, don’t send our teams away.

  14. rmiller517 says: Oct 20, 2011 9:45 AM

    The Westminster Jaguars?

  15. davemeisner says: Oct 20, 2011 9:45 AM

    Dear Goodell, keep the NFL out of England. I they want they can make their own cfl type league.
    Sincerely
    -America

  16. hoobsher says: Oct 20, 2011 9:45 AM

    next time some redcoat tells me how soccer is amazing and football is stupid, i’ll just be like “hmm…let’s ask the government, shall we?”

  17. jcstoddard says: Oct 20, 2011 9:45 AM

    Why not, NFL Europe was amazingly successful.

  18. stanmackley says: Oct 20, 2011 9:46 AM

    I guess the Bears and Bucs are going to be moving there right? since they play there this year that MUST mean they are going to move there right??? @tedmurph.

    lol

  19. mattsffrd says: Oct 20, 2011 9:46 AM

    nobody is going to want to play for them…who wants to fly across the Atlantic for 8 away games every year?

  20. midniterambler7 says: Oct 20, 2011 9:47 AM

    Wouldn’t it be the IFL then?

  21. steviemo says: Oct 20, 2011 9:48 AM

    Regular season games played in London feel like some weird kind of exhibition, and are immediately forgotten if not ignored altogether. Working around an entire season of that? Ridiculous.

    West Coast teams traveling 13 hours to play in London would be affected detrimentally, and an increase in injuries would likely occur. And the poor saps on the London team flying all over the planet to fulfill their schedule? God rest their souls.

    It’s just a further money grab (aka “greed”) by the NFL at the expense of player risk. If London is so damn enamored with American football, tell them to start their own league. Hands off our NFL.

  22. toledoohoh says: Oct 20, 2011 9:49 AM

    It’s all lip service. Football is growing all the time in Britain, but the majority of fans do not want a team brought here full-time.

    I highly doubt the Buccs’ fanbase in Britain has changed significantly since they came to London. There is certainly no feeling that they are Britain’s team. The idea of current NFL fans in Britain swapping their support to a London based team is ludicrous.

  23. truthserum4u says: Oct 20, 2011 9:49 AM

    Travel issues makes a team in London prohibitive. Think of the disadvantage for teams traveling there to play and then facing a big game the following week. Not to mention how it would affect the London based team traveling back and forth from Europe to the US.

    There’s already complaining when a team has to travel too many times to the opposite coast or has to travel after a short week. Logistical nightmare in my opinion.

  24. johnnybuc says: Oct 20, 2011 9:49 AM

    All I can say is If and when this happens I’m DONE with professional sports! I’ve attended almost every home game since 1976 and have had season tickets ever since day 1. If this is how I’ll be repaid for my loyalty, I’ll just start watching our USF Bulls. Move the BUCS to London? This is about the most absurd thing I’ve ever heard of!

  25. sadskinsfan89 says: Oct 20, 2011 9:51 AM

    Football would never be the same. The nfl and it’s fans are so competitive because its my city against your city and its about tradition. Please don’t ruin the nfl by doing this. Next thing you know every country will have a team and Americas greatest sport will be ruined. What a rivalry it will be when the packers play the Russian rockets, can’t wait for that…..

  26. harleyrider1973 says: Oct 20, 2011 9:52 AM

    this is the worst idea since appointing RG as commish!

  27. dickroy says: Oct 20, 2011 9:53 AM

    An NFL team in England is the most STUPID idea Ive ever heard of, next to keeping Goodell as commish.
    What a trip to the west coast when the London Bucs play the 49ers! I believe that greed will eventually hurt the NFL.
    This is just Dumb, Dumb, Dumb!

  28. curtainclosed says: Oct 20, 2011 9:53 AM

    Great the New England Patriots vs. the London Silly Nannys.

  29. willyalistentothis says: Oct 20, 2011 9:53 AM

    Cure Rex Ryan fatigue, send the Jets.

  30. h0c2000 says: Oct 20, 2011 9:54 AM

    “I don’t pay much attention to American politics,…”

    Yet you write numerous articles about HGH and Congress. Liar!

  31. raiderluv says: Oct 20, 2011 9:54 AM

    First off, learn how to spell organi Z ation. Second, I don’t think they would be cheering if the U.S. had a premeir league SOCCER team.

  32. r8derfan33 says: Oct 20, 2011 9:56 AM

    I hate the fact that we play 1 game over there. This is the NATIONAL Football League, not the International Football League. Say I’m a season ticket holder and one of my “home games” is in London. Now I only get the chance for 7 home games and not 8. It’s BS! If you have a team that is full time in London, you can have up to a 8 hour time difference for the visiting team. Then the UK home team has to travel 8 times a year to the US. It’s not fair to the players and unfair to the fans.

  33. scudbot says: Oct 20, 2011 9:56 AM

    Fine. Let them field their own team, put up their own stadium, negotiate their own TV contracts. They can play in the Euro Conference.

  34. shackdelrio says: Oct 20, 2011 9:57 AM

    Free agents are not to going to sign to play in London. The team would be awful and nobody would go to the games.

  35. sirmixalotalotalot says: Oct 20, 2011 9:57 AM

    Worst idea the NFL could have right now.

    Imagine growing up and dreaming of playing in the NFL your entire childhood. You get drafted and can’t wait to finally be able to put your family on a plane to watch you play. They are not exactly well off so they need your assistance to cover the flight.

    Now that same story requires your family to all wait in line to fill out passport information. They get the passports several months later and now you have to shell out 20k+ every single time your parents, brothers, sisters, and maybe grandparents want to watch you play a “home” game.

    The NFL is the number 1 sport in the USA and the NFL will never be anything other than a red-headed step child to soccer and other European sports in London.

  36. toledoohoh says: Oct 20, 2011 9:57 AM

    jcstoddard,

    NFLEurope isn’t exactly a fair comparison. Rosters that changed every year meant no attachment to teams. Good for developing kickers and linemen, terrible for entertainment value.

  37. santolonius says: Oct 20, 2011 9:58 AM

    i am against all international expansion with the possible exception of canada. but if it has to happen it should only happen when there are enough cities for a complete 4 team european division to put in one conference and a complete 4 team americas division to put in the other conference (with the necessary adjustments to the number of playoff teams at the end of the year). a distracting, gradual drip drip of one team in london then 6 years later a team in mexico city or something like that is going to really make the game much less fun for fans.

  38. billygoat says: Oct 20, 2011 9:58 AM

    ello gov-na!
    Would ye like to watch some bloody pig skin today.

  39. mdpickles says: Oct 20, 2011 9:59 AM

    Imagine if the US had a soccer team in the Barclays Premier League? Yeah, I can’t imagine that either. Wrong ideas coming from the NFL.

  40. psj3809 says: Oct 20, 2011 10:00 AM

    seneca1ss says “they need to worry about providing citizens with a dental plan first.”

    We’ll sort out dental plans if you promise to stop eating so much ? (America has the largest number of obese people).

    Anyway back to the subject….

    Most NFL fans in the UK already have a team and have followed them for years, i’ve been a Raiders fan for 25 years, would rather watch them play live on the internet on a sunday night then trek all the way to London to see the ‘London Jags/Bucs’ etc

  41. richm2256 says: Oct 20, 2011 10:00 AM

    London HAD a professional football team, or does no one remember the World League of Football> NFL Europe? London couldn’t support THAT team, and the London Monarchs were disbanded well before the league itself folded.

    London MIGHT attract a few more fans by playing NFL teams instead of NFL Lite, but chances are they won’t. These people talk about interest in football, but this is soccer country, plain and simple.

    London won’t support American football, and Americans don’t want to see the NFL outside the U.S., yet Roger Goodell is hell-bent on this anyway.

    Without a doubt, no Commissioner has ever tried to ram so many things down the throats of people who don’t want what he’s selling.

    Worst. Commissioner. Ever.

  42. philyeagles5 says: Oct 20, 2011 10:02 AM

    hendawg21 says:
    Oct 20, 2011 9:38 AM
    Get in line and stay at the back of it…it’s bad enough we have stadiums here that can’t fill seats and it’s a much shorter trip why in the world would anyone think it would work traveling overseas….don’t let greed ruin a good thing…
    ==================================
    who said anything about travelling overseas? im sure there are plenty of Brits who buy tickets.

  43. haanster says: Oct 20, 2011 10:06 AM

    I’m no expert, but I think there could be some difficulties with the labour laws. I don’t know how well the NFL-draft will sit with the Court of Justice of the European Union, and I’m not sure the court would allow players to be traded without their explicit consent either.

  44. paulieorkid says: Oct 20, 2011 10:07 AM

    It’d be a bit ironic to have a team named the Buccaneers become the England-based team, given that piracy was held in such contemptuous regard for centuries by England in particular.

    The British Kingdom would invest, take risks, engage in global commerce – and the Bucs would simply steal it from them.

    It’d be a little bit like a team based over here in the states being known as the Traitors or the Terrorists.

  45. bunchesofone says: Oct 20, 2011 10:08 AM

    Next up the Osaka Vikings vs. the Munich Dolphins.

  46. kenrobinson12 says: Oct 20, 2011 10:09 AM

    Thank God Glazer bailed on Baltimore as a potential owner during the early ’90s expansion. The fans of ManU HATE this guy and it sounds like Buc fans are not his biggest supporters either.

  47. nebster21 says: Oct 20, 2011 10:11 AM

    NFL Europe need anyone say anything more?

  48. The Phantom Stranger says: Oct 20, 2011 10:11 AM

    The British government is more interested in having an NFL team than the Minnesota government is.

  49. slickzmoney says: Oct 20, 2011 10:12 AM

    With the frequency that M. F. writes about this topic it sounds like he wants a team there as well. Stop promoting this horrible idea. The fans have resoundingly said NO and that’s not going to change.

  50. Robert says: Oct 20, 2011 10:13 AM

    Chelsea Jaguars.

  51. 1captain1 says: Oct 20, 2011 10:14 AM

    It has to become part of the CULTURE.

    The way to do that is to brainwash the youth by introcuice Pop Warner, Jr. Varsity, and Varsity Football.

    Then in jsut a matter of 10 years they will be just as addicted and mind controlled as I and the rest of us are!

  52. finsfan71 says: Oct 20, 2011 10:15 AM

    Are you ready for some Futbol!

    The London Hooligans vs The Mexican Chimichangas

  53. patriotsdefense says: Oct 20, 2011 10:16 AM

    England Patriots

  54. cdsaints says: Oct 20, 2011 10:21 AM

    New England Patriots vs London Silly Nannies

  55. ravensfan4life52 says: Oct 20, 2011 10:21 AM

    I like the idea of a team in London. It would be better than having teams in cities like Jacksonville or Miami where the people really don’t appreciate their teams.

  56. Andre's Johnson says: Oct 20, 2011 10:23 AM

    There’s no way a London team will be competitive. What free agents will want to move 5000 miles away, only to retrace those 5000 miles eight times every fall, and then pay a 60% income tax? Hell no.

    Furthermore, local game times will be all goofy to align them with U.S. television viewers’ expectations.

    Screw that.

  57. hjworton46 says: Oct 20, 2011 10:23 AM

    As a British NFL fan since 1982 I can tell you all that there is very little or no interest in having a permanent team based here. Its pie in the sky at best, pure folly at worst. Having politicians getting involved proves this. As has been pointed out, fans here – and there are lots of them – would not be dropping their own team to support a new team in London. The annual game is seen as a chance for all European fans to see real action up close, they’re a privilege and we appreciate these games massivelyg, appetite for anything more probably does not exist. Personally I cannot imagine that a team could fill 80,000 Wembley Stadium 8 times a season. Tickets are not exactly cheap.

  58. tampajoey says: Oct 20, 2011 10:26 AM

    Outsourcing to feed Corporate Greed.

  59. steelerdynasty2010 says: Oct 20, 2011 10:26 AM

    too bad their citizens dont

  60. petthefurrywall says: Oct 20, 2011 10:31 AM

    Wow, there are a lot of stupid hateful comments on this thread. Why do some Americans hate European Countries? This is the effect of all the right wing media hatred against any others that are not like them or have the same beliefs. Thanks foxnews…

    @psj3809 nice job calling out that idiot with the first stupid Comment..

  61. karlcuba says: Oct 20, 2011 10:31 AM

    Why has my perfectly reasonable post abou the irrevence of APPGs gone while my antagonistic and childish second post has been left up?

  62. vestheblessed1 says: Oct 20, 2011 10:32 AM

    I don’t see a problem with the NFL moving a team overseas, especially if the fan bases here don’t respect them…..

    It even goes back to the days of the now defunct NFL Europe….I actually liked watching those games on Saturday’s….

  63. richm2256 says: Oct 20, 2011 10:32 AM

    jcstoddard says:
    Why not, NFL Europe was amazingly successful.
    —————————————————————

    Then why is it not still around?

    Do a little research, please. NFL Europe had very limited success.

  64. xtb3 says: Oct 20, 2011 10:33 AM

    Spot on!

  65. tundey says: Oct 20, 2011 10:34 AM

    Unless you have a bunch of teams there like we do on the west coast, the weekly travel will be horrendous.

  66. blackqbwhiterb says: Oct 20, 2011 10:34 AM

    There will finally be a team more hated than the Cowboys!!!!!

  67. nbaraie says: Oct 20, 2011 10:35 AM

    I think the only way this works logisitically is if you add 3 more teams in Europe. That way European teams can all have 6 division games in Europe rather than having 1 London team travelling across the Atlantic 8 times. And lets say London has back to back road games against Seattle and lets say Oakland, it would put that London team at a distinct disadvantage with travel.

  68. zaggs says: Oct 20, 2011 10:35 AM

    Why dont they try not making people wait forever to get into a clinic?
    Still complaining? Fine. Trade the Browns for Manchester United.

  69. fwippel says: Oct 20, 2011 10:35 AM

    What sense does this make? Which division would these limeys play in anyways? What owners, coaches or players want to be hopping the pond once per year just to play in jolly old England?

    Let ‘em start their own league in Europe.

  70. m2karateman says: Oct 20, 2011 10:36 AM

    Didn’t NFL Europe fail? Didn’t England have a team? Didn’t they have trouble filling seats?

    I agree with the idea to possibly give England a helping hand to build some sort of an infrastructure to develop English players. But I think if those players become good enough, they should do like other world class players in other sports and move to the U.S. to play in the NFL, rather than expecting the NFL to field a team in their own backyard. It’s the reason why the NBA doesn’t have teams in Europe. Same goes for MLB and NHL.

  71. weekendatberniemadoffs says: Oct 20, 2011 10:37 AM

    hey london, the bucs are not coming! they are just breathing heavy.

  72. swagjag says: Oct 20, 2011 10:37 AM

    Dear UK,

    If Canada and now India (www.efli.com) can start their own professional leagues, why can’t you? Adding an NFL team in the UK would be a travesty on so many levels. West Coast teams have enough trouble with three time zones.

    Sincerely,
    The people who booted you from our soil 200+ years ago.

  73. b7p19 says: Oct 20, 2011 10:39 AM

    The travel argument is not as big as you people are making out. The London team wouldn’t be “traveling accross the pond 8 times a year.” They would be spending 2 – 3 weeks at a time over here and then 2-3 weeks at a time over there. You could arrange bye weeks to be held after trips to London for the most part (If the London team started on the road, you could avoid the problem of not wanting week 2 or 3 byes.)

    I’m not sure exactly how I feel about this, but the logistics would not be that hard to overcome.

  74. blackqbwhiterb says: Oct 20, 2011 10:40 AM

    Wanna know why this is a bad idea? Because football is an American thing. We like NASCAR even though Indy cars are faster and more interesting, because that’s an international thing. We like football over soccer because soccer is an international thing. Same with rugby. NFL football is a distinctly American thing, loved by Americans, and once you have a team there, you’re going to put them all over…but if it’s so popular, why did NFL Europe fall apart?

  75. crazycane says: Oct 20, 2011 10:41 AM

    “How will we ever communicate”
    – Channing Crowder

  76. johnnybuc says: Oct 20, 2011 10:44 AM

    Can you imagine ANY NFL player actually wanting to play in London? Why do you think so many big time musical artists have moved from there at one time or another? One Word……….TAXES!!!
    Someone needs to take Goodell behind the woodshed so as to knock some common sense into that idiot brain of his!

  77. johnnyshore says: Oct 20, 2011 10:44 AM

    Damn redcoats

  78. bigdogsolec says: Oct 20, 2011 10:44 AM

    let them start there own branch of the NFL, .can’t tell me they don’t have people over there big enough to compete against our players
    then they can have there ” British bowl champion,face our SUPERBOWL CHAMPION, and have a WORLD CHAMPION,were already calling our superbowl champion “THE WORLD CHAMPS” so no better way to have it, then to beat the world, not just the teams in the USA

  79. jdreed68 says: Oct 20, 2011 10:44 AM

    The London Jaguars? Hmmmm

  80. azc86 says: Oct 20, 2011 10:44 AM

    I live in England and like most NFL fans over here that I have spoken to I believe that a permanent British NFL team wouldn’t work and don’t particularly want one. People will make the effort to travel from over europe for 1 NFL game a year but they would not be able to sell out for a whole season.

    I don’t get that by sending the same team over each year like it has been mentioned (ie the bucs) that it means that everyone would support them. Every NFL fan that I have spoken to in Britain already religiously follows their own team and wouldn’t start supporting the bucs.

    I agree that this is just greed from the NFL. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it!

  81. alewatcher says: Oct 20, 2011 10:44 AM

    r8derfan33 says: Oct 20, 2011 9:56 AM

    I hate the fact that we play 1 game over there. This is the NATIONAL Football League, not the International Football League.

    —————-

    Then teams that win the SB need to stop calling themselves “World Champions”.

  82. johnnyshore says: Oct 20, 2011 10:44 AM

    Gneral Washington is rolling over in his grave.

  83. sirmixalotalotalot says: Oct 20, 2011 10:45 AM

    @ravensfan4life… if you think people in London would appreciate and NFL team you are stupid, high, or something else that has altered your common sense.

    Tickets are still available for the one game they host a year right now. 1 game per year and they are struggling to sell tickets.

    What do you think will happen when they are the worst team in the NFL every season because no free-agent in the world wants to sign with them and top draft picks are refusing to sign with them?

  84. blackqbwhiterb says: Oct 20, 2011 10:48 AM

    Then again, Rex Grossman and Donovan McNabb competing for the job of starting QB of the London Limeskins could be fun to watch

  85. wiseguyny says: Oct 20, 2011 10:48 AM

    Come out and visit the England Fighting Gingivitis’ at Wembley stadium…

  86. justadude71 says: Oct 20, 2011 10:49 AM

    richm2256 says: Oct 20, 2011 10:32 AM

    jcstoddard says:
    Why not, NFL Europe was amazingly successful.
    —————————————————————

    Then why is it not still around?

    Do a little research, please. NFL Europe had very limited success.

    ___________________________________

    What success it did have it had in Germany. In the end London had on team because the one they did have played in front of an empty stadium five games a year…

    ravensfan4life52 says: Oct 20, 2011 10:21 AM

    I like the idea of a team in London. It would be better than having teams in cities like Jacksonville or Miami where the people really don’t appreciate their teams.
    _________________________________

    While the fans in the cities of Jacksonville and Miami might number in the tens of thousands, the entire fan-base of England numbers in the tens of thousands.

    The NFL ownership needs to learn that the reason they are not selling out in the US is because they themselves have made football a TV event by RAISING THE PRICES to the point that the middle class can no longer afford to go.

    The English government and TV may bend over for the owners, but the public will not.

  87. toledoohoh says: Oct 20, 2011 10:50 AM

    It takes a special sort of ignorance to continually compare this to NFLE. It’s as ridiculous as suggesting the failure of the XFL means the NFL is in danger of failing too.

  88. ar082 says: Oct 20, 2011 10:50 AM

    Please Eli Manning didnt want to play in San Diego what hope is there for players going overseas

  89. awestcave says: Oct 20, 2011 10:50 AM

    NO!

    no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no!

    NO!

  90. buckybadger says: Oct 20, 2011 10:51 AM

    Love how Americans simply refuse and resist anything progressive and inevitable [watch the thumb downs rack up now]. All this talk of saying “Get your hands off our NFL” is just small minded and short sighted.

    I would love to see the sport expanded to a global level. It isn’t going to happen over night but it will happen. Eventually they will have a division over there as will the NBA and NHL.

    NFL Europe did fail but not everywhere. If you have ever been to Europe, especially Germany and England, you will find they do like football and if they had a “real” team than they would support it unlike many cities here in the US who aren’t, looking at yo San Diego, Miami, Oakland and Tampa Bay.

    To say the NFL shouldn’t do this because the NFL Europe failed is like saying we shouldn’t have NFL teams here because the UFL failed [and boy did that flop]. You are comparing apples and oranges. The NFL game in London always sells out and usually pretty quickly.

  91. kwgator says: Oct 20, 2011 10:51 AM

    If you can stop Hugh Grant from “acting” then we can talk

  92. ktcmoving says: Oct 20, 2011 10:52 AM

    Dear Roger Goodell,

    All of us in this country have our own teams that we support. We would only go to a London teams games so we could boo them and cheer our respective teams. True fans here also understand the logistic nightmare it would cause, and that American fans would be rightly annoyed.

    signed,
    A proper NFL fan in the UK,

  93. scomibord says: Oct 20, 2011 10:54 AM

    I don’t really care what the british govt wants! Can somebody remind me; How did the world league do? Anybody???

  94. chocopoppy says: Oct 20, 2011 10:54 AM

    @hendawg21 says:
    Oct 20, 2011 9:38 AM
    Get in line and stay at the back of it…it’s bad enough we have stadiums here that can’t fill seats and it’s a much shorter trip why in the world would anyone think it would work traveling overseas….don’t let greed ruin a good thing…
    ———–

    Gee, Mom woke you up early today! Do you guys need an Economics lesson? How will not having a game in London fill the empty seats in your home city? This is all about $$ and the possibility that a team in London will generate major $$. It’s an owner’s right if he’s struggling in JAX/MINN/wherever, and cannot make it work, to then pick up and move to somewhere he can make $. What’s so hard about this?

    You London haters are like the kid who can’t leave his hometown and realize there’s a big world out there.

    DING! Oh, Mom says your Pop Tarts are ready!

  95. ravensfan4life52 says: Oct 20, 2011 10:54 AM

    WAIT A MINUTE!!! I have a great idea!! These Steeler’s fans keep talking about how they’re gonna leave the NFL to create their own league. LET THEM DO IT! Send them to London and let them create their own league! BRILLIANT!!

  96. terrellblowens says: Oct 20, 2011 10:55 AM

    There many reasons not to do that. Here’s a few:

    1.)Bigger home field advantage with that time difference

    2.)Soccer will always be more important there

    3.)It’s called the NFL. N is for National

  97. realnflmaster says: Oct 20, 2011 10:55 AM

    emerican sucks.

  98. fhuizar says: Oct 20, 2011 10:55 AM

    Last time I checked this is “America’s” Game!

  99. logan1980 says: Oct 20, 2011 10:56 AM

    I am a 1%er. Do it for the $$$$$$

  100. philtration says: Oct 20, 2011 10:56 AM

    And I want the Brits to pay up for the BP oil spill in the gulf.

    And bring back the Beatles and Monty Python too.
    We will send you Lady GaGa and the cast of Glee.

    Oh… and you can take back you version of “football” It is boring and celebrates 90 minutes of nothing happening.
    Kind of like the Royal weddings.

  101. phillycass says: Oct 20, 2011 10:57 AM

    ugh Roger Goodell…

  102. youdownwithjpp says: Oct 20, 2011 10:58 AM

    seneca1ss says:
    Oct 20, 2011 9:37 AM
    they need to worry about providing citizens with a dental plan first.

    ————————————

    You are an idiot. And the fact that 209 people thought this was witty or funny tells me there are a lot of idiots on this site.

  103. philtration says: Oct 20, 2011 10:59 AM

    If London get a full time NFL team then Miami is going to want one too.

  104. ravensfan4life52 says: Oct 20, 2011 11:00 AM

    @terrellblowens

    The N in NBA stands for National as well. Toronto Raptors. That is all.

  105. nflofficeadmin says: Oct 20, 2011 11:00 AM

    The London Hacks.

  106. gonzagylot00 says: Oct 20, 2011 11:07 AM

    A team based in London would be 7-9, 8-8, or 9-7 every single year, and would win almost all of it’s home games, and lose almost all of it’s away games.

    If teams are disrupted by the four hour flight from LA to NYC, I can’t imagine how upset they would be by the 7+ hours to get from NYC to London. Not to mention the jet lag associated w/ the six hour time difference.

  107. gb4mn0 says: Oct 20, 2011 11:08 AM

    First off, all you nay sayers are forgetting the NFL is a business and growing the brand is the primary objective. They wouldn’t be looking at an international location if their own studies didn’t show a positive potential for growth.

    Secondly, other than the NFL all the other major pro sports in the USA have many foreign born players. This factor helps those leagues grow the brand. We can expect soon some European insurgence (sarcasm) unto the rosters of the NFL.

    Thirdly, they will lessen the stress of the schedule around the bye weeks of teams traveling there as they currently do. And when the Euro team comes Stateside they more than likely play 2 games before returning.

    And lastly, just imagine hating on a team who’s players speak with a snooty British accent.

  108. godofwine330 says: Oct 20, 2011 11:10 AM

    @ jessieboom says:
    Oct 20, 2011 9:40 AM
    their best bet is to organize a league of their own, and maybe ask the NFL for help in setting it up. It would be a huge disadvantage for any team to have to travel across the pond 8 weeks of the season

    *************

    I have to c/s this. It is not fair to any team whose ownership does this. This isn’t Baltimore to Indy, or Cleveland to Baltimore, or Minnesota/Jacksonville to LA, this is a 15+ hour flight to and from 8 games, not including playoffs. This isn’t like the Toronto or Vancouver basketball team, either. I don’t like it and I won’t support it. I am at least a partial fan of 31 NFL teams (sorry, my Cleveland Browns blood won’t allow me to root for the Steelers under any circumstances), but they will lose a fan if some team does this.

    It is also not fair to players who get drafted there. Their franchise tag is going to be BUSY, because as soon as a player’s contract is up, he is leaving on the first thing smoking. Good luck on free agents. You think the Raiders overpay for free agents? They are going to have to pay Larry Fitzgerald prices for a 3rd string receiver.

    Also, tryout Tuesday is going to be a nightmare. Some players double dip and do two teams in a day, or two teams in two days…not if the team is in the UK.

    I am staunchly against such a move by an NFL team.

  109. ukdude7 says: Oct 20, 2011 11:11 AM

    Some true viewing stats without NFL PR marketing spin.

    Average viewing figures for live Sunday afternoon NFL games – 70,000 people.
    Average viewing figures for Monday Night Football (admittedly on early am) 12,000 people
    NFC Championship 2010 live – 120,000 people.
    Super Bowl – 1.2m people

    That is how big the NFL is in the UK. Bare facts. I don’t think we deserve our own franchise.

  110. t1mmy10 says: Oct 20, 2011 11:13 AM

    out of all the different sports, how many have teams in the same league that play regularly (aka more than once a year) as far apart as Great Britain is the the USA?

    Answer: Zero

    It’s simply unrealistic to think a team 8-12 hours away by plane from the other teams and have a 5-8 hours time zone difference can actually play in that league.

  111. walkedintoabar says: Oct 20, 2011 11:13 AM

    im 100% for it. why should the fans care about logistics? more football in new locations always sounds good

  112. twitter:Chapman_Jamie says: Oct 20, 2011 11:14 AM

    Saying that you dont pay attention to politics is nonsense. I mean you intelligently place liberal ideals in your articles and then get used all amped up over it.

  113. weneedlinemen42 says: Oct 20, 2011 11:18 AM

    1) I am English, I’ve followed the Redskins for more than 25-years, I wouldn’t swap my allegiance to a British based team. Especially because it would be just that, an American team that just happened to play its games in London.

    2) I suspect most of the serious NFL fans in the UK don’t want to see a franchise moved over here. Much in the same way we don’t want to see our Permier League Football games exported overseas.

    Most Americans watch the game on TV. The way to grow the NFL’s following is to increase the availability of the NFL on free-to-air broadcase media at reasonable times of the day.

    If that means buying air time on the BBC then so be it.

    3) There 10’s of thousands of dedicated and knowledgeable NFL fans in the UK, but that’s it. At the very, very most it is probably less than 200,000 people who are interested in the whole of Great Britain. That’s not enough to support an NFL franchise.

    4) American football is never going to be played in schools or at the youth level. Traditional sports like soccer, rugby and cricket will always take precedence. Moreover, the equipment costs for American football, present a huge barrier to it ever gaining a cultural foothold as anything other than as a televised spectator sport.

    There are teams and leagues over here, but they are few and far between. It’s a sport played by dedicated ethusiasts at a very amateur level.
    A significant proportion are inferior athletes and misfits who either couldn’t make the team or got thrown off them in the traditional sports.

  114. footballfan292 says: Oct 20, 2011 11:21 AM

    So if the Bucs go over there every year… does that mean they will have a guanteed bye in week 8 of every year?

    That might actually be an advantage.

  115. pjm2011 says: Oct 20, 2011 11:23 AM

    The reason the NFL plays these games is that they have saturated the US market and need somewhere to grow. My guess is that the games are a loss leader to get people to consume media and merchandising. I cannot see a UK team making sense economically or in a sporting sense. Remember that the NFL has no anti-trust exemption here and both the draft and the franchise tag would be illegal under European law.

  116. kellyb9 says: Oct 20, 2011 11:23 AM

    Logistically, it’s a bit of a nightmare. The team would have to play all their home games and then all their away games. In the meantime, they’d have to have practice facilities within the US. Rather than create a team over there, why not create a LEGITIMATE minor league system?

  117. AlanSaysYo says: Oct 20, 2011 11:24 AM

    I imagine an NFL team in London would work as well as a Premier League team in New York City. Are there fans of soccer here? Absolutely. Are they going to sell out a massive stadium for every home game? No chance. Every four years America gets “World Cup Fever” and it never amounts to anything other than importing David Beckham for a circus stunt. There’s no reason to believe anything would be different for the NFL in the UK any time soon.

  118. hendawg21 says: Oct 20, 2011 11:26 AM

    Well if NFL Europe didn’t make it why would anyone want to put a team in Europe??? Plus how many jobs will this take from the US and put overseas? The rich sometimes are way too greedy and don’t know when to leave a good thing alone…and if you’re product isn’t selling it’s not so much the people it’s more like you’ve priced out the rabid diehard fans to become more corporate those empty seats are the real fans who can’t afford to pay that kind of money.

  119. steelersmichele says: Oct 20, 2011 11:28 AM

    I’m sure somewhere Goodell is saying the “fans” want a team in Britian…those same “fans” also want an 18-game season.

  120. peed1 says: Oct 20, 2011 11:28 AM

    Calm down, it will never happen.

  121. brock29609 says: Oct 20, 2011 11:28 AM

    How huge of a disadvantage would a England-based team have in free agency?! This would be a nightmare.

  122. mefolts says: Oct 20, 2011 11:32 AM

    The whole point is to make American football a “world” sport. Instead of giving them a single game every year, play an entire week’s worth of games there by using the various soccer stadiums in England, as well as, Spain, Germany, etc. You can make it an “International Weekend” and promote it the same way they promote “opening weekend”. Please make sure that season ticket holders don’t HAVE to buy tickets, but have “first dibs” on tickets if they want to go. In Buffalo, season ticket holders HAVE to buy tickets to the game in Toronto.

  123. toledoohoh says: Oct 20, 2011 11:32 AM

    ukdude7,

    what are the viewing figures for NFL Gamepass? My guess is the majority of serious fans watch their own teams every week on that (or illegal streams).

  124. ayrshireman says: Oct 20, 2011 11:40 AM

    ‘North America first…Brits are already all over our TV’s we don’t need anymore !’

    Ah diddums, all those talented and less egotistic Brits. How terrible it must be to have to suffer someone who is from the rest of the world. Much better to be insular like yourself.

  125. ayrshireman says: Oct 20, 2011 11:42 AM

    ‘First off, learn how to spell organi Z ation. Second, I don’t think they would be cheering if the U.S. had a premeir league SOCCER team.’

    Silly Brits, imagine having the nerve to spell their OWN LANGUAGE differently.

    And it is premier, not premeir.

    And you were criticising British spelling, yes?.

  126. ayrshireman says: Oct 20, 2011 11:45 AM

    ‘Free agents are not to going to sign to play in London. The team would be awful and nobody would go to the games.’

    As has been pointed out, gridiron has a sizeable support in the UK and Ireland. The Wembley game on Sunday will have at least 75000 fans and a sizeable TV audience.

  127. ayrshireman says: Oct 20, 2011 11:48 AM

    ‘Wanna know why this is a bad idea? Because football is an American thing. We like NASCAR even though Indy cars are faster and more interesting, because that’s an international thing. We like football over soccer because soccer is an international thing. Same with rugby. NFL football is a distinctly American thing, loved by Americans, and once you have a team there, you’re going to put them all over…but if it’s so popular, why did NFL Europe fall apart?’

    Rejecting soccer and rugby and non-American sports can equally be seen as insular and arrogant.

    Basketball was invented by a Scots-Canadian. Baseball isnt American. Ice hockey is Canadian. And NFL football is the son of English rugby.

  128. ayrshireman says: Oct 20, 2011 11:51 AM

    ‘Gneral Washington is rolling over in his grave.’

    That would be the General Washington who fought FOR the British in the Seven Years War against France. And who fought the Revolution to ‘retain the rights of true Englishman’?…..

  129. detroitrollin22 says: Oct 20, 2011 11:51 AM

    Wont happen. If cities such as LA, Oklahoma City, and Santa Fe cant have teams why in the hell would the NFL want teams traveling 10+ hours overseas each weekend

    And WE WON THE WAR!!!! AMERICA!!!!!!!!

  130. deep64blue says: Oct 20, 2011 11:52 AM

    1) I’m amazed how many people think NFL Europe is any kind of indicator of interest – a bunch of not good enough players who change every year. Sorry we’re past the point of watching second rate stuff.

    2) This group is not the Government by – they’re all Members of Parliament who have a common interest in this, but there’s no official Government backing.

    3) I think a team playing 4 times a year is more likely than a full team – not least because there is no way our laws would allow something as Communist as a Draft!!

  131. adstout says: Oct 20, 2011 11:52 AM

    steelersmichele says: Oct 20, 2011 11:28 AM

    I’m sure somewhere Goodell is saying the “fans” want a team in Britian…those same “fans” also want an 18-game season.
    ———————————–
    this is exactly right. Goodell’s ridiculous attempts at ‘giving fans what fans want’. I was red in the face every time i heard goodell talk about how fans were asking for an 18 game season.

  132. ayrshireman says: Oct 20, 2011 11:53 AM

    ‘And I want the Brits to pay up for the BP oil spill in the gulf.

    And bring back the Beatles and Monty Python too.
    We will send you Lady GaGa and the cast of Glee.

    Oh… and you can take back you version of “football” It is boring and celebrates 90 minutes of nothing happening.
    Kind of like the Royal weddings.’

    1–Why?. Since 1998, BP has been half-American. And the company that caused the spill was an AMERICAN subcontractor.

    2–Fine, if you take back baseball. Now thats about three hours of boringness.
    1

  133. yem123 says: Oct 20, 2011 11:56 AM

    I’m sorry but you have to draw the line somewhere. That line is the Atlantic Ocean. Can you imagine a team in London with 8 “road’ games in the USA? There is such a thing called jetlag… that much time in the air, for that long distance, and that frequently, it takes a toll on the body. A vacationer or business traveler can handle it, but when you are going to literally “leave it all on the field” … these guys’ bodies are going to be completely spent by midseason. I do not think a London based team will EVER make a Super Bowl, much less the playoffs.

  134. lunarpie says: Oct 20, 2011 11:56 AM

    Its called NFL EUROPE…

    No way! The NFL is OURS for a reason.

  135. yem123 says: Oct 20, 2011 11:59 AM

    To the moron who criticized the British spelling “organisation” … THEY invented the freakin language, WE (Americans) changed to a Z… it’s the English language, not the American language.

  136. asublimeday says: Oct 20, 2011 12:01 PM

    There should be a team with exclusively players from Europe. Thatll help develop a sense of nationalism. What southern SEC player wants to move to England, anyway?

  137. panthers34 says: Oct 20, 2011 12:04 PM

    Logistically wouldnt the CFL make more sense with its smaller league and postseason?

  138. prior0knowledge says: Oct 20, 2011 12:07 PM

    How about a whole division in British Isles? Choose 4 from London, Birmingham, Dublin, Liverpool, and Edinburgh.

  139. ayrshireman says: Oct 20, 2011 12:08 PM

    I AGREE with those here who dont think there should be a London or British/Irish team.
    I DISAGREE that we couldnt sustain it.

    What I have objected to is some of the Brit-bashing in this comment section.

  140. jag9 says: Oct 20, 2011 12:08 PM

    We need more NFL cities that have weather like Pittsburgh, Seattle and Chicago. Not to mention what downtown London looks like, Right.

    Let’s put a team in Anchorage!

  141. phinfan says: Oct 20, 2011 12:29 PM

    Grooovy baby yeah!

  142. rufustfireflyjr says: Oct 20, 2011 12:29 PM

    I wouldn’t be opposed philosophically to putting an expansion team in London (I don’t like established teams leaving their fan base and moving), but I can’t see how it would work logistically. The reasons have already been discussed above: insane travel considerations, English labor and tax laws, the difficulty in attracting American free agents to play overseas. The only way that it could even have a remote chance of working is if their could be a whole division of European teams, and the interest level just isn’t there yet. The existence of a European division would decrease the travel requirements, and presumably, if the interest overseas increased enough to make this feasible, the European countries would start to produce players to play on these teams. In other words, an NFL team or teams in London or elsewhere in Europe is a LONG way off, if it happens at all. So we should all just chill.

  143. glac1 says: Oct 20, 2011 12:30 PM

    Like the USA, they should concentrate on their debt. It’s dragging us into a depression.

  144. brianinwv says: Oct 20, 2011 12:44 PM

    For a number of reasons I would rather have an NFL team in Mexico City if they have to expand to an un-tapped market.

    I just don’t see the UK embracing American football for more than one game a year.

  145. b3nz0z says: Oct 20, 2011 12:55 PM

    i watched the eagles fins game at a bar in estonia four years ago (i love that interconference schedules rotate so that i can track the years). they were interested in what was going on, and were asking about rules (they had a really hard time understanding that a four yard run was a good, designed play and not just dudes falling down). i have a hard time believing that europeans will ever embrace football for a few reasons:
    1. there’s so much to learn, and we fans have been immersed in it since we were little.
    2. they’ll never admit that america invented the perfect sport.
    3. they seem pretty happy with boring old soccer

  146. alaricsrevenge says: Oct 20, 2011 1:04 PM

    And with the 3rd pick in the 2015 NFL draft, the Liverpool Limeys select….

  147. alaricsrevenge says: Oct 20, 2011 1:13 PM

    And then we are going to open the NCL… National Cricket League

  148. deconjonesbitchslap says: Oct 20, 2011 1:13 PM

    The NFL is an AMERICAN sport.

    The Britts can have their fast kicking, low scoring soccer games. Do you want TIES? THEY GOT EM.

  149. freedomispopular says: Oct 20, 2011 1:23 PM

    If you’re gonna make it international, put one in Mexico City. They’ll for sure fill up the stadium every week, and they’re not an ocean away. Or Toronto…oh wait…

  150. m2karateman says: Oct 20, 2011 1:27 PM

    Let me explain why NFL Europe IS an indicator of how such a proposal would go.

    NFL Europe, admittedly, was used as a farm league for the NFL teams. But the fact is, the best players in the NFL will stay stateside rather than go to Europe to play. It is that way in basketball, hockey and baseball now. The elite talent tends to stay home, and would be willing to sign for less money to stay here. You don’t hear about great players from the other sports playing in other countries, unless they are originally from those countries. Basketball, baseball and hockey ARE international sports. They are played, and are quite popular in other countries. The same cannot be said of American Football, as it is commonly known globally.

    So, while the teams visiting a team based in London would likely have the elite talent, the team in London would NOT. The only way the team in London (or anywhere in Europe) would be able to attract elite talent is to pay a ridiculous sum of money to those players. And with taxes how they are in England, the term ridiculous wouldn’t even begin to describe what those players would want.

    NFL Europe was used as a measuring stick for the interest in the sport as a live spectator sport in Europe. From the get go, it was tepidly received and got worse from there. Yes, some teams did OK, but it was nothing compared to what is seen here.

    So please, those of you who keep bringing up the UFL, XFL, WFL and other deceased leagues, just stop. Remember, those leagues, like NFL Europe came AFTER the original NFL and tried to compete against a juggernaut. They were doomed to failure from the start. NFL Europe had the backing of the parent company and still couldn’t generate the interest needed to maintain its existence.

    As one of the Brits said, other sports will get the better talent….rugby, cricket, soccer. Those sports will get the fundings, TV deals, university support, etc. before football. Even now, in America, soccer is STILL struggling to gain acceptance as a major sport. And it’s been over 30 years in the making.

    Bad idea. Just let it go.

  151. Robert says: Oct 20, 2011 1:54 PM

    Can England- please send us a English Premier League team in exchange?

  152. armchairqb says: Oct 20, 2011 1:55 PM

    Can we please stop trying to turn football into an international sport?

    Please drop this idea. It’s awful.

  153. brutus9448 says: Oct 20, 2011 1:57 PM

    that’s one long flight for san diego team that would have to fly to london. I hope this doesn’t happen.
    I think canada or even mexico should get a football team before london.

  154. toledoohoh says: Oct 20, 2011 2:00 PM

    m2karateman,

    Your post doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

    You seem to be under the impression that NFLE was in a position to attract elite talent if it could. It wasn’t. NFLE was given, at best, players who were possible practice squad players to develop.

    NFLE is not even slightly comparable to European basketball, hockey, or baseball leagues. It was a development league, not a rival league.

    European fans aren’t morons; they know when they’re being given a 3rd rate product. Incidentally, NFLE most certainly was not given the backing of its parent league.

    You then suggest a London based team would struggle to attract players. Are you kidding? A free agent has a choice between living in Buffalo or London. Where’s he gonna pick? Hey, kids, we’re moving to Buffalo!!!!

    Also, a team in London would not, as your bizarrely suggest, have to maintain its existence fighting the might of the NFL just as the XFL, UFL etc had to.

    I don’t want a team in London, but your reasoning is nonsense.

  155. jaxjhawk says: Oct 20, 2011 2:03 PM

    Don’t get me wrong because I’m a Jag fan. But wouldn’t the Jaguars be the ideal team for London? Jaguars motors sued the Jags when the team was announced because they basically stole their logo.

  156. paulbrownsrevenge says: Oct 20, 2011 2:08 PM

    Good thing the Jags drafted a long-haired sissy QB, he’ll fit right in over there.

  157. irishgiant says: Oct 20, 2011 2:31 PM

    terrellblowens says:
    Oct 20, 2011 10:55 AM
    There many reasons not to do that. Here’s a few:

    1.)Bigger home field advantage with that time difference

    2.)Soccer will always be more important there

    3.)It’s called the NFL. N is for National

    ————————————————–

    If it’s called the National football League. Why do you refer to yourselves as ‘world champions’??

  158. hjworton46 says: Oct 20, 2011 2:41 PM

    I love the reasonable arguments that you expert fans use. What an inspiration to us poor Brits you are.

  159. gmen1987 says: Oct 20, 2011 2:42 PM

    toledoohoh says:
    Oct 20, 2011 2:00 PM

    You then suggest a London based team would struggle to attract players. Are you kidding? A free agent has a choice between living in Buffalo or London. Where’s he gonna pick? Hey, kids, we’re moving to Buffalo!!!!

    ————————————————–
    There are plenty of more places a player could play in besides Buffalo or London. It will be difficult to keep a free agent or attract free agents to London due to their tax rates and standard of living.

    Most NFL players don’t care about the culture their teams host city offers. As long as there is plenty of strip clubs, blow, hookers around, an NFL player will be happy in almost any city they are in.

  160. hboc01 says: Oct 20, 2011 2:44 PM

    Unless the Concorde makes a comeback, logistically it’s just not going to happen.

  161. lionhammer says: Oct 20, 2011 3:06 PM

    If the NFL is so motivated to play games in London, use it as the centerpiece to their expanded season. 19 Week season would give all 32 teams 8 home games, 8 away games, 2 byes and 1 London game. This really is the only solution I could imagine and the only thing that Logistically works.

  162. dolphincritic says: Oct 20, 2011 4:23 PM

    With tongue in cheek I say, “Give them the Dolphins! They think they are in trouble with socialism, an out-of-control EU and Islamic Fundamentalists making the streets unsafe; well we’ll show them what trouble and despair really is!”

    On a serious note, I believe that this is a tremendous waste of time. The owners should focus on buying a couple of Canadian teams. What better place to develop talent and recycle NFL veterans. Personal services contracts could be used to ensure that players stayed under contract no matter what venue they played in. Think of the old Hollywood studio contracts. Who knows, they might even make a profit.

    The European league didn’t work out so move on. When Europe wants “American Football” they will start their own damned league.

  163. rbrow018 says: Oct 20, 2011 6:07 PM

    r8derfan33 says: Oct 20, 2011 9:56 AM

    I hate the fact that we play 1 game over there. This is the NATIONAL Football League, not the International Football League.

    —————-

    Then teams that win the SB need to stop calling themselves “World Champions”.

    ————————————————-

    I’ll stop doing it when you can find me a football team of international players that can beat the Packers right now

  164. pastabelly says: Oct 20, 2011 6:33 PM

    This idea is full of shipoopie. You would need two teams over there (somewhere else in Western Europe) for this to make any sense and they aren’t ready for two teams.

  165. wicky888 says: Oct 20, 2011 6:37 PM

    England is too far and the potential fan base is too small, and if the franchise fails, the NFL will lose lots of money. I say put the team in Mexico. Its cheaper, its closer, there’s more of them, and even if the franchise fails, half of the fans will end up in the US anyway

  166. ayrshireman says: Oct 20, 2011 6:39 PM

    ‘The NFL is an AMERICAN sport.’

    Based on ENGLISH rugby.

  167. ayrshireman says: Oct 20, 2011 6:41 PM

    ‘Can we please stop trying to turn football into an international sport?

    Please drop this idea. It’s awful.’

    Damn straight. I mean its not as if it has any roots to British sport. Oh, wait a minute.

    And the Canucks have been playing it longer than you.

  168. ayrshireman says: Oct 20, 2011 6:46 PM

    ‘Good thing the Jags drafted a long-haired sissy QB, he’ll fit right in over there.’

    Youve been watching too much Monty Python and Hugh Grant, mate. ‘Cos most British men are working class, have short hair, and play their rugby on real grass in open weather without the need for retractable roofs, oxygen tanks on the sidelines and sissy padding.

  169. ayrshireman says: Oct 20, 2011 6:51 PM

    ‘I’ll stop doing it when you can find me a football team of international players that can beat the Packers right now’

    You can call yourselves world champions when you win a sport that the rest of the world actually plays at professional level. Otherwise calling yourself that is utterly meaningless. The Gaelic hurling champs in Ireland or shinty champs in Scotland may as well call themselves world champions. After all, it would have as much credibility as the Packers et al being world champions.

    World champions?. Your best dont even play the Grey Cup winners for North American bragging rights!.

  170. rolandsloan says: Oct 20, 2011 10:51 PM

    Idiotic. Take care of the fans you have! The fans
    who actually care! 310,000,000 people in THIS
    country. Plenty of room to grow here! I love the NFL, but sooner or later the unmitigated greed
    is going to bite you in the a$$!!! Seriously.

  171. thetooloftools says: Oct 20, 2011 11:26 PM

    Great, can’t wait to hear them blow those vuvuzelas all F-ing game !

  172. paulieorkid says: Oct 21, 2011 12:53 AM

    Woooooooooo boy, looks like Ugly American has reared its head again.

    And again.

    And yes, again.

    Look, I hate soccer too – it’s lame as hell.

    But every Brit I’ve ever met has been pretty damned cool. Welsh, Scottish, Irish and English. Every one of ‘em. Fun-loving thinkers who like to laugh with distinctive senses of humor and are passionate — pretty effing hard not to appreciate that.

    We’re not catering to soccer pansy — let’s look at the Brits who dig a real game.

    My take is it’d be pretty damned sweet to have Britain really jazzed about the NFL for a number of reasons, but it’s, of course (sigh), too much for you non-visionary simpletons to understand.

  173. feverdr says: Oct 21, 2011 1:23 AM

    Forget about the UK, when are the Bills going to be moving to Toronto, Canada? That’s what everyone should be talking about!

  174. feverdr says: Oct 21, 2011 1:25 AM

    Sorry, also the CFL (Canadian Football League) plays a much different game. Only 3 downs, 1 point for kicking into the endzone, different size balls, different field length, no FAIR CATCH rule. Canadian football is not the same as American Football so Green Bay doesnt need to play the Grey Cup champ… its a different game.

  175. pigeonpea says: Oct 21, 2011 7:40 PM

    “There is strong support for American football within Westminster and a group of us felt that we should get more involved in developing the sport here at both the amateur and professional levels.”

    Can someone please remind Westminster exactly how many NFLE teams were left outside of Germany and Holland when the league finally folded? The NFLE experience was enough proof that Germans and Dutch enjoy American Football; the English – not so much.

    Besides, if anyone believes London will get a permanent franchise before L.A. does based on attendance of what amounts to a glorified exhibition game in a soccer stadium, I have some oceanfront property in Kentucky you may be interested in.

  176. quittsburghstoolers says: Oct 22, 2011 10:14 AM

    “British government wants full-time NFL team”

    ———————————————————-

    And I want Jessica Alba to be with me.

    But there’s about as much chance of that happening as there is England getting an NFL team for a long time.

    Maybe in 60 years or so it’ll happen… just like with me and Jessica…

  177. jerruhjones21 says: Oct 22, 2011 10:17 AM

    It.will.never.happen.

    Just stop the insanity…

    Go the All Blacks!

  178. quittsburghstoolers says: Oct 22, 2011 10:23 AM

    dolphincritic says:Oct 20, 2011 4:23 PM

    The European league didn’t work out so move on.

    When Europe wants “American Football” they will start their own damned league.

    ——————————————————

    EXACTLY!

    Too many problems with having teams playing each other, especially since there is an entire OCEAN that separates the USA & Europe.

    The added risks of having these guys traveling just doesn’t make it (IMO) worth the hassle…

  179. ayrshireman says: Oct 22, 2011 5:52 PM

    ‘Sorry, also the CFL (Canadian Football League) plays a much different game. Only 3 downs, 1 point for kicking into the endzone, different size balls, different field length, no FAIR CATCH rule. Canadian football is not the same as American Football so Green Bay doesnt need to play the Grey Cup champ… its a different game.’

    I KNOW. I am myself a massive CFL fan.

    My point was the silliness of calling the Superbowl champs ‘world champions’. As you say, only the US plays gridiron in that form at that level, so ‘world champions’ is pointless. Superbowl champions is a perfectly fine moniker.
    Even baseball, which has the Blue Jays, and therefore is a league of two countries, is equally silly to play the ‘world series’ and call themselves ‘world champions’.

  180. ranthis08 says: Oct 23, 2011 12:49 AM

    I do support the NFL adding a team or 2 overseas. I just can’t understand how ppl can love anything more than NFL football. Best sport in the world.

  181. pigeonpea says: Oct 23, 2011 10:58 AM

    ayrshireman says:
    World champions?. Your best dont even play the Grey Cup winners for North American bragging rights!

    Seriously? I live in Canada and can say without a shadow of a doubt that the Packers would destroy any of the CFL teams by double-digits, whether the game be played in Canada or at Lambeau.

    Can you possibly imagine how badly Rodgers would light up a Canadian field considering it is even wider than an American one? Does the CFL have even one player that could stand up to Matthews’ pass rush, or stop Raji from taking out center and getting to the QB?

    CFL players make an average of $50,000/yr. NFL players, on the other hand, make close to $1,000,000 when you factor in salary and roster bonuses. Do you not think that if a CFL player could compete for a roster spot south of the border that he wouldn’t for the chance to make 20x what he would make here?

    As for you silly insinuations that American football is based on “English rugby” and thereby English pedigree, please stop. That is patently ridiculous as saying rock ‘n’ roll is based from blues, and since blues originated from African slaves and the tribal music they brought with them to America, that rock ‘n’ roll is African. Sorry, dude… That logic doesn’t fly.

    Tying to imply the Packers are not the current World Champions when there is no team in existence outside the NFL that could actually compete against them, is as silly as trying to prove the existence of god using the argument that it cannot be proven that he does not exist either. Name the competition THEN make your case as to why they, and not the current Packers team, should be awarded the title of “World Champions”. The cart does not come before the horse.

  182. ayrshireman says: Oct 23, 2011 11:49 AM

    ‘As for you silly insinuations that American football is based on “English rugby” and thereby English pedigree, please stop. That is patently ridiculous as saying rock ‘n’ roll is based from blues, and since blues originated from African slaves and the tribal music they brought with them to America, that rock ‘n’ roll is African. Sorry, dude… That logic doesn’t fly.’

    American and Canadian football is BASED on rugby, which was invented by the English. If you dont know that, then its YOU who needw to learn NFL and CFL history. Both nations then molded different sports out of those roots. I didnt say US and Canadian gridiron were simply rugby with different names, all I pointed out was the FACT of their roots, which are in rugby.

    ‘Tying to imply the Packers are not the current World Champions when there is no team in existence outside the NFL that could actually compete against them, is as silly as trying to prove the existence of god using the argument that it cannot be proven that he does not exist either. Name the competition THEN make your case as to why they, and not the current Packers team, should be awarded the title of “World Champions”. The cart does not come before the horse.’

    It is not silly. It IS silly for a competition which is played by teams from only one country to call themselves ‘world champions’. Do the Irish gaelic hurling or Scottish shinty champs call themselves world champions?. After all, like the NFL or MLB champs, they play in a tournament with trams from only their nation. Or in the MLB’s case, two.

    In soccer, there IS a world club championship where the European, North/Central American, South American, Asian and African champions of their respective regional championships play in Tokyo to decide who is the best club side in the world. Therefore the winners of that, be it Barcelona or Boca Juniors or LA Galaxy, can truly say they are the worlds best, as they have actually played and beaten the best of every other continent.

    The Superbowl and the World Series winners do no such thing. So it is utterly redundant, utterly ridiculous to call yourselves ‘world champions’ when nobody else plays that sport professionally except you.

    As a Canadian, you will notice the Grey Cup champs never call themselves world champions. Clearly they have more common sense or less arrogance.

  183. Slackmo says: Oct 23, 2011 2:43 PM

    London Shaguars Baby!

  184. cbrady2k says: Oct 23, 2011 3:03 PM

    Obviously you don’t pay attention to football either you moron, the Bucs aren’t moving anywhere. Another worthless, stupid article that makes me dumber for having read it.

  185. mrpc30 says: Oct 23, 2011 5:15 PM

    Im glad so many americans dont want a franchise in london because neither do most of the British. The NFL has been trying to promote its sport overseas for years without success. Its nothing to do with anti americanism
    either. Football, rugby and cricket have a history in England and other parts of the world that dates back more than one hundred years,you just cant replace that. Much like the nfl has history in the states, a new sport will never replace it like the mls especially when its a poor standard of soccer. If the world wanted to play american football they would have started playing it by now.

  186. lookatthefarside says: Oct 24, 2011 5:48 AM

    A perfect name(s) would be:

    1.) The London Texans

    2.) The London Indians

    3.) The London Braves

    4.) The London Redskins

    5.) The London Saints

    The London Indians would be the best bet since Europe employed drunken sailors to discover other worlds….

  187. saintsfire says: Oct 25, 2011 3:05 AM

    Send the N.E. Patriots to London!

    No disrespect intended towards Londoner’s

  188. pigeonpea says: Oct 25, 2011 4:14 PM

    ayrshireman says:
    Do the Irish gaelic hurling or Scottish shinty champs call themselves world champions?

    If those are the only countries that compete at those sports on a professional level, then they have every right to.

    As a Canadian, you will notice the Grey Cup champs never call themselves world champions. Clearly they have more common sense or less arrogance.

    I think the real reason has less to do with arrogance or common sense, and more to do with the Montreal Alouettes being acutely aware that they would have no hope whatsoever of actually beating the current World Champion Green Bay Packers.

    Your argument is as silly as claiming anyone can declare themselves “World Heavyweight Champion” and having every right to until the current World Champion actually beats them in the ring. As stated before, name your competition and then make your case as to why they can claim to be World Champions. Otherwise, all you have done is basically claim that the Packers have no right to call themselves “World Champions” until they beat every other football club out there, both real and (in your case) imagined.

  189. ayrshireman says: Oct 25, 2011 9:55 PM

    Pigeonpea, its very simple.

    If no one else plays the sport, how can you with any seriousness call yourself ‘world champions’?. How can you call yourself the best in the world, if the rest of the world you reference dosent actually play the sport?.

    You can only call yourself world champions if you play a sport where you compete against other teams from around the world. Anything else just makes no common sense.

  190. hendeeze says: Oct 27, 2011 3:56 AM

    They can have the Raiders.

  191. bealeman says: Oct 27, 2011 8:38 AM

    The London Vikings.

  192. packerfan12 says: Oct 27, 2011 2:34 PM

    Move the Chargers to L.A and the Jags to Britain?

  193. jrh0 says: Oct 28, 2012 11:43 PM

    paulieorkid says:Oct 20, 2011 10:07 AM

    It’d be a bit ironic to have a team named the Buccaneers become the England-based team, given that piracy was held in such contemptuous regard for centuries by England in particular.

    ———————————————————–You sure about that? The British government regularly issued Letters of Marque, essentially contracts to pirate crews to plunder ships of enemy nations. Buccaneers were just one sect of these pirates or privateers. The Bucs were originally of Frendch origin, but accepted letters of Marque from British, French and Dutch governments, so that they could (sort of) legally attack Spanish ships.

Leave a Reply

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