As the NFL gets ready to stage the first-ever cold-weather, open-air Super Bowl, talk once again has emerged regarding the possibility of sending the Super Bowl overseas.
Speaking at an event in New York, and based on the Twitter feeds of various reporters who covered it, Goodell didn’t rule out taking America’s ultimate sporting event to London.
“I want to grow the game,” Goodell said in response to the possibility of exporting the Super Bowl, via Bart Hubbuch of the New York Post. “Fans want more, and London is a great example.”
Per Daniel Kaplan of SportsBusiness Journal, Goodell said that London would get a Super Bowl only if it first had a franchise, which remains a viable possibility. (In 2009, Goodell mentioned that there wouldn’t be a Super Bowl in London unless a team is based in London.)
In October, Goodell addressed the question of whether he wants to see a team in London or Los Angeles by saying, “Both.” Last night, he expressed no preference as to the order.
“I don’t know which one will be first, and I’m not sure I care,” Goodell said, via Hubbuch.
If a team ends up in London, plenty of fans will care. In a bad way. If a Super Bowl ends up in London, plenty more fans will care. In a worse way.
Folks in London may care in a non-positive way, too. In order to start the Super Bowl at 6:25 p.m. ET, which delivers a maximum American television audience, the game would have to begin locally at 11:25 p.m. ET.
While talking about putting a Super Bowl in London and actually putting a Super Bowl in London are two different things, the league always benefits from having as many interested cities as possible. Staging the game in New York/New Jersey unlocks a new universe of cities (like Denver, Chicago, and Washington) that can craft competitive bids for the game, necessarily forcing other interested cities to step it up financially.