Skip to content

If NFL goes to London and L.A., who will move?

Uhaul Getty Images

When it comes to exciting new markets, the NFL has become too predictable.  Periodically, owners talk about one or more teams landing there, but nothing happens.

Ever.

Most recently, Dolphins owner Stephen Ross has said the NFL “certainly” will return to Los Angeles within five years.  Likewise, Falcons owner Arthur Blank has said that one or two teams may be headquartered in London — and that the NFL also will go back to L.A.

That’s fine, but where will the three or four teams come from?  Expansion surely can’t happen, not with a shortage of competent quarterbacks to complete 32 depth charts.  That means current teams will have to move.

So who’s moving?  Let’s consider the fairly small universe of candidates.

The Bills.

The burgeoning list of buyers includes groups that would move the team.  However, the lease at Ralph Wilson Stadium provides only two future opportunities to exit — in 2020 and after the lease expires following the 2022 season.  More importantly, the other owners may not want to abandon Western New York, especially if that would cause the politicians to launch an assault on the league’s broadcast antitrust exemption.

The Jaguars.

If a team will move to London, the Jaguars become an obvious candidate, since they’re playing there once per year through 2016.  But relocation would go against the clear commitment owner Shad Khan has shown to Jacksonville, and there’s no reason to think he’s being anything other than honest about his desire to keep the team there over the long haul.  Also, the lease at Everbank Field wouldn’t be easy to break.

The Raiders.

Owner Mark Davis is running out of options to stay in Oakland.  But the NFL may not want the Raiders to move as long as Davis controls the team.  Still, the Raiders can leave as soon as after the coming season, thanks to a one-year lease at the Coliseum.

The Chargers.

Despite a clear intention to remain in San Diego, the Chargers would be foolish to stay put in a subpar stadium if/when another team moves to a brand new venue in L.A.  At that point, it could make sense for the Chargers to slide up the coast and share the new building with another tenant.  Their lease has a buyout that shrinks each year.

The Rams.

Currently on a year-to-year lease after the powers-that-be in St. Louis opted not to make the upgrades necessary to put the Edward Jones Dome in the top 25 percent of all NFL stadium, the Rams can leave after any year and every year.

When it comes to teams that could move, that’s the extent of the options.  Which means that, if one or two move to L.A. and one or two move to London, up to four of those teams could eventually have new homes.

If not sooner.

Permalink 148 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Buffalo Bills, Jacksonville Jaguars, Oakland Raiders, Rumor Mill, San Diego Chargers, St. Louis Rams, Top Stories
148 Responses to “If NFL goes to London and L.A., who will move?”
  1. artvan15 says: Jun 2, 2014 2:46 PM

    How about the Dolphins and Falcons since their owners are running their mouths.

  2. ttommytom says: Jun 2, 2014 2:47 PM

    And each of those teams will have won a super bowl before that mediocre team in Dallas.

  3. obsessedvikingfan says: Jun 2, 2014 2:49 PM

    So much for the “LA Viking” Comments.

  4. ftball101 says: Jun 2, 2014 2:50 PM

    I don’t understand why the keep toying with the idea of London based teams. Everyone and their mother knows that will be an uglyutter failure.

  5. slugbaitspace says: Jun 2, 2014 2:51 PM

    Two or more of these teams definitely do not want to move overseas, so we could see a cat fight to move to L.A.

    I think the two top contenders will be the Rams and the Raiders. Irony much?

  6. chaseutley says: Jun 2, 2014 2:51 PM

    These are the usual suspects.
    Are there any dark horse teams out there?

    I doubt Parliament would get involved with strong-arming Dan Snyder into changing the name of his team.

  7. TBaySlim says: Jun 2, 2014 2:51 PM

    LA packers ” get it right”

  8. thegreatgabbert says: Jun 2, 2014 2:52 PM

    How about a lottery to see who moves? That would be fair to all, and generate a great deal of suspense and fan interest.

  9. footballfan211 says: Jun 2, 2014 2:53 PM

    Football is an American sport. There is no reason to move a team out there and have 16 teams fly over there every week. The players are tired enough as it is, and with each week being crucial; there’s no time for jet lag and leaving three days before the game like they do now.

  10. cheapglazers says: Jun 2, 2014 2:53 PM

    Please be the Cowboys! Deport Jerry!

  11. iamkillerfin says: Jun 2, 2014 2:53 PM

    There were 2 leagues in Europe the FAILED miserably!!! Idiot Goodell is KILLING the NFL WITH THIS B/S!!! Soccer is Europe’s game of choice, leave it ALONE!!!

  12. mkelly534 says: Jun 2, 2014 2:54 PM

    No NFL team is going to be able to move anywhere without a huge legal and political mess. No city takes losing a major franchise well and politicians will do anything to stop it since there is no downside for local politicians and a chance for them to look “tough” and get attention.

  13. limitfive says: Jun 2, 2014 2:54 PM

    Stop stirring the pot!!

  14. shaunodame says: Jun 2, 2014 2:55 PM

    Any chance the NFL just expands with 2 new teams? 1 in LA and 1 in London. Expanded playoffs make it that much more tangible also. Plus, I think the most attractive aspect for the NFL is maintaining all the current markets teams already hold, while also still adding two new streams of revenue in HUGE markets.

    I also wouldn’t be surprised if down the road the NFL adds a team in Canada and a team in Mexico City/Puerto Rico.

  15. cervetta12 says: Jun 2, 2014 2:56 PM

    RAMS/RAIDERS THE WAY IT SHOULD BE!

  16. rex1979 says: Jun 2, 2014 2:57 PM

    If there is a god: COWBOYS.

  17. garrisonxcvii says: Jun 2, 2014 2:58 PM

    It honestly troubles me that writers continue to bring up Jacksonville, when talking about relocating teams.

    Khan has made it clear plenty of times he’s not moving. As well the millions of his own money he’s pumping into the team, stadium and the city itself.

  18. dallascowboysdishingthereal says: Jun 2, 2014 2:58 PM

    “Don’t look at us”
    Sincerely, the Jags

  19. southpaw2k says: Jun 2, 2014 2:59 PM

    Yup, move a team to London and figure out the logistics, or lack thereof, of how to schedule that team and all its opponents later. If the NFL were to ever do something to harm its brand or legacy, moving a team to London would definitely be the spark to the fire.

  20. armchairqb says: Jun 2, 2014 2:59 PM

    Who will move?

    Most of the NFL fans … away from the NFL. Because this will be the beginning of the end of the league that we all love.

  21. wrdtoyrmama says: Jun 2, 2014 2:59 PM

    “Football is an American sport. There is no reason to move a team out there and have 16 teams fly over there every week.”

    So a potential London team gets to play 16 home games?

    Its actually pretty easy to schedule, 2 weeks in the States, 2 in England. The flight time from NYC to London is a little over 7 hours. Flight time from NYC to LA is 5 1/2. A 90 minute difference.

  22. wrdtoyrmama says: Jun 2, 2014 3:01 PM

    As for players being “too tired” as it is.

    Well certainly doesn’t stop a large minority of them from going out the night after a ballgame, especially a home game.

  23. coachbeck says: Jun 2, 2014 3:01 PM

    St Louis should NEVER have another team. Move the rams back to LA and close the door on St Louis. Same for Oakland of they can’t get their act together. Either you do what’s needed to have a team or you don’t get one.

    Those cities should lose their teams and they shouldn’t get another ever again.

    Buffalo can go to London if they are moved. Slap a Union Jack within their logo and move on.

  24. conormacleod says: Jun 2, 2014 3:02 PM

    I’d like to second guess whatever those billionaire owners are thinking. But I’m poor. So I’m pretty sure whatever they end up doing will simply work, and make them even more money.

  25. seahawkfanfrom1970s says: Jun 2, 2014 3:03 PM

    Don’t buy this. This is just blackmail leverage for the NFL to lay on cities who are reluctant to build new stadiums at taxpayer expense every 20 years.

  26. metalhead65 says: Jun 2, 2014 3:05 PM

    nobody cares about a team in L.A. and even less will care about one in London. why is the NFL trying to mess with the good thing they have now? more playoff games and now moving franchises?smh.

  27. scoops1 says: Jun 2, 2014 3:06 PM

    Whatever happens in the NFC

    …just move the cowboys out of the NFC East….

    who is the Geography major that put em in the NFE East to being wit…??

  28. coreyb3p says: Jun 2, 2014 3:07 PM

    Having a team in London is the dumbest thing I have ever heard of.

  29. xli2006 says: Jun 2, 2014 3:07 PM

    The London experiment should be just that… an experiment. Nothing wrong with games there, but a franchise?

    The Raiders or Chargers would have the least impact on the existing structure/fanbase/divisions.

    The Jags financially make the most sense (renamed of course). The Jags would literally double in value if they moved.

  30. returntoexcellence says: Jun 2, 2014 3:09 PM

    Funny, Mark Davis seems to be the only owner that the NFL wants to force to sell his team. Yet, the NFL has no bias against the Raiders right? We’re all just making that up?

  31. boomboombrown says: Jun 2, 2014 3:11 PM

    Move the Packers!

  32. erikinhell says: Jun 2, 2014 3:11 PM

    What owner will never want to have a Monday, Sunday, or Thursday night game? 8PM on the east coast is 1AM in London. You can kiss all night games goodbye in the UK.

    As that stands, a 4PM game will start a 9PM in the UK.

    What does the team do with those players that are indicted or have outstanding warrants against them in the US or the UK. They are not allowed through customs. Any player in debt will not be able to permantently move to the UK. I don’t know about the standards to move to the US when it comes to debt. Players that have a conviction will also have trouble moving back and forth between countries.

    Not to mention all the travel time (and cost) a team will have when they get the West Coast part of the schedule. I just don’t see this as ever working out for a team based in London.

  33. sellout1983 says: Jun 2, 2014 3:12 PM

    Cleveland.

  34. hrmlss says: Jun 2, 2014 3:12 PM

    Move Washington to London. The London Red Coats.

  35. NoobTubeTV says: Jun 2, 2014 3:13 PM

    Buffalo to London

    San Diego to Los Angeles

  36. kinggator says: Jun 2, 2014 3:17 PM

    London Raiders- Football Hooligans!!

  37. coltzfan166 says: Jun 2, 2014 3:21 PM

    If they’re really going to put a team in London, they may as well put team in Tokyo too. And then rename the NFL to the IFL (International Football League).

  38. ghostofgilchrist says: Jun 2, 2014 3:24 PM

    “Expansion surely can’t happen, not with a shortage of competent quarterbacks to complete 32 depth charts.”

    Using that logic, the league should contract to 16 teams. Expansion would make more money for everyone, without alienating an entire base of fans just to satisfy the urge to have a presence in these two questionable cities.

    Want better quarterbacking? Get going on a developmental league. The time is right, since the college model is starting to leak at the seams. There are a lot of potentially good QB’s who either never get the reps they need, or are thrown to the wolves before they’re ready, destroying their confidence.

  39. ncm3587 says: Jun 2, 2014 3:25 PM

    “Its actually pretty easy to schedule, 2 weeks in the States, 2 in England. The flight time from NYC to London is a little over 7 hours. Flight time from NYC to LA is 5 1/2. A 90 minute difference.”

    What about from London to LA? That’d take all day.
    Leave the NFL in America.

  40. doe22us says: Jun 2, 2014 3:25 PM

    New York Manchester United or even better Boston Barcelona, the idea and thought of a franchise moving to London is as dumb as the person who thought of this. Listen, let me make this clear on a global scale the NFL will play second fiddle to soccer/football and basketball.

  41. fwippel says: Jun 2, 2014 3:26 PM

    The NFL is not and will not go to London. It is not going to happen. Give it up.

  42. bbb82 says: Jun 2, 2014 3:27 PM

    And what happens when a team(s) in London fails? How will they fix that mess? Once you move, it’s not like you can just cut an run in a year or two.

  43. nflfan1326 says: Jun 2, 2014 3:28 PM

    In 2005, when jags owner Wayne Weaver shrunk capacity of Alltel Stadium to 67,124, we all heard how the jags would be playing in LA in five years. Well, this would be the 5th year for the Jags in LA. How did that work out? I’ll tell you how it worked out: The jaguars will be wearing a 20 year patch on their jersey this year.

  44. antalicus says: Jun 2, 2014 3:30 PM

    They need to form a whole new division for London teams. That would have to suck to fly all the way to London 2+ times a year, especially if you are a West Coast division.

  45. jpaq68 says: Jun 2, 2014 3:30 PM

    The Bills will be in Los Angeles long before any team moves to London.

  46. Paul M. says: Jun 2, 2014 3:31 PM

    Lambeau Field and Aaron Rodgers each have about five good years left before they need to be replaced so look at 2020 for the move.

    The city of Green Bay gets a billion dollars and L. A. gets it’s football team. Win, win.

  47. thestrategyexpert says: Jun 2, 2014 3:33 PM

    There’s money in expansion and it’s debatable how many competent QBs there are. Just a matter of perspective and I think the league is going to lean towards expanding sooner than many people are going to be ready to accept. The new money will push them over the edge to wanting to do it.

    Go ahead and try and predict how many teams there will be 20 years from now, grab a dart and guess.

  48. nflfan1326 says: Jun 2, 2014 3:33 PM

    There were several other teams left off of this list: Carolina, whose fans are praying Richardson stays alive. Tennessee, stadium getting old, new family in charge. Tampa Bay, no stadium upgrade and blackouts out the wazoo. Miami, no new stadium in sight. Even if one is built see Marlins.

  49. thegreatgabbert says: Jun 2, 2014 3:34 PM

    Expansion. Since no one wants to move. Or relegation. Finish last and you have to move.

  50. nflfan1326 says: Jun 2, 2014 3:35 PM

    For Tennessee, meant to say new family members in charge.

  51. seanx40 says: Jun 2, 2014 3:36 PM

    London can have the Lions. I am sure lots of us in Metro Detroit will help them pack.

    That said, how will a London team actually work? Given the large numbers of felonies committed by NFL players every year, those players will not be welcome in England. The same if Toronto becomes the host of an NFL team.

    That said, how come expansion is never mentioned? The NFL would make billions off 4 new teams. Say, London, LA, San Antonio, and Toronto.

  52. Robert says: Jun 2, 2014 3:38 PM

    1. L.A. Rams 2. L.A. Raiders

    2. St Louis Jaguars

    3. London Buccaneers

  53. purpleguy says: Jun 2, 2014 3:42 PM

    Raiders/Rams to LA, and 2 expansion teams in Europe.

  54. ampats says: Jun 2, 2014 3:43 PM

    I’m in agreement that the NFL should not have a franchise in London. It would be a disadvantage to the London team having to travel “across the pond” minimum 8 times and the time zone etc would suck.

    I feel bad for any fanbase to lose its team as someone who grew up with the LA Rams their relocation makes the most sense since St. Louis is not willing to support the football team and looking at the Clippers , having a successful franchise in LA could mean a lot more than having a team in several of the cities mentioned.

  55. packerbully says: Jun 2, 2014 3:44 PM

    Living in the UK, I can say a UK team is dumb dumb dumb. Why..
    1. It will fail
    2. Now the season has ended we have no NFL on the tv at all…Sky who show the games are just lame and don’t even show programming outside of the games during the season.
    3. London could never have Thursday, Monday or Sunday night football. That means that it could not have a US prime time playoff game
    4. Travel time is too long
    5 I support the Packers, why would I follow the Uk team..

  56. coachbeck says: Jun 2, 2014 3:44 PM

    Why does anyone think St. Louis deserves a 3rd franchise? They wouldn’t do what necessary to keep the others

  57. icewalker946 says: Jun 2, 2014 3:51 PM

    I heard that Iowa was going to get a professional football team. Rumor has it that fell thru because the people in Minnesota were very irate. They thought they would finally get one.

  58. dobe420 says: Jun 2, 2014 3:56 PM

    Los Angeles Rams should be the only move.

  59. rcali says: Jun 2, 2014 3:58 PM

    Whatever city’s taxpayers don’t fund a new stadium for an owner that wants one will lose their team to some other country or city. The NFL is a business and doesn’t give too hoots if the fans of that city get screwed. Never have, never will.

  60. chrisco4bucs says: Jun 2, 2014 4:00 PM

    The BUCS aren’t going anywhere except to win another Lombardi trophy

  61. bingobrown12 says: Jun 2, 2014 4:01 PM

    So the London team will have 8 away in the States?
    Yeah good luck with that.

  62. jbaxt says: Jun 2, 2014 4:07 PM

    Hilarious these 5 losers are called out.

  63. gbpats says: Jun 2, 2014 4:07 PM

    Maybe if a team moves to London the winners of the Super Bowl will actually be Wprld Champions and not just champions of America, never understood why they call themselves World Champions

  64. 4thqtrsaint says: Jun 2, 2014 4:08 PM

    I’m more interested in how this will screw up the divisions.

  65. iloveagoodnap says: Jun 2, 2014 4:16 PM

    I’m shocked by the “not enough competent QB’s” logic (or lack thereof) for a reason why the NFL would never expand. I mean, seriously, picture it- room full of owners plus Goodell “Hey you know, we could make millions off expansion, but, I don’t think this years crop of QB’s is that strong so the hell with it, lets make less money instead”.

    Seriously, baffling. That is the biggest reach I’ve seen yet.

  66. jagstothesuperbowl says: Jun 2, 2014 4:21 PM

    Maybe it is just me being an ignorant fan, but something tells me that adding expansion teams wont work…. Where exactly would they fit in? You cant have 5 teams in 1 division and expect that to work in the current format and the last time I checked….34 is not a friendly number when I comes to dividing it all up…

    As far as moving teams…

    As a Jags fan, I have listened for months now about how they are going to move despite all of the renovations dedicated to our franchise. I would not wish moving on a team ever…. HOWEVER……. The Raiders play on a goddamn Baseball field for Christ’s sake!! Atleast get them a new Stadium!!!!

  67. jpaq68 says: Jun 2, 2014 4:23 PM

    The Payers Union would never allow a team in London.

  68. gonzoforbills says: Jun 2, 2014 4:25 PM

    If soccer brings out the “hooligan” in British fans…imagine what a good old slobber-knocker contact sport will do…

  69. jcp1417 says: Jun 2, 2014 4:26 PM

    Roger Goodell and his cronies will take the least popular option and run with it. And the nfl will remain popular as ever.

  70. degnanzack says: Jun 2, 2014 4:30 PM

    Have all the Florida teams other than the dolphins maybe move to either LA or London. Worst fans. Then have the raiders or rams move to LA.

  71. brucealmty says: Jun 2, 2014 4:32 PM

    To think that any of these teams, meaning the players, not the owners, would want to be based, with their families, in London strikes me as fanciful. To any owner that moves his team….I’m roflmao at you.

  72. 1rockyracoon says: Jun 2, 2014 4:32 PM

    A major goal of the 3 pro sports leagues is to go global. The flat Earthers who complain that relocating a team to another country will be disastrous are funny to listen to. Their grandparents probably said the same sort of things when MLB expanded to the west coast.

  73. spoonreck says: Jun 2, 2014 4:37 PM

    So London is going to support football while the EPL is going on? There are currently 6 EPL (7 if you count Fulham).
    Logistics is the biggest thing a team is going to fly players in for tryouts each week?
    Will the London team get a different salary number since the cost of living in London is much more than anywhere in the US not to mention the taxes due.

    Sorry just don’t see it happening unless you had a star trek transporter room.

  74. supermanium says: Jun 2, 2014 4:39 PM

    The comments from uninvolved owners seem orchestrated. “This week, Ross mentions LA, then Blank mentions London. Jerry, prepare your talking points for mid-June.”

    The Vikings got a new stadium from city, county & state funds recently in no small part because of the very real threat of relocation.

    The Rams already have their hands out for their government backing. The Bills are in line as well. Other teams will soon begin making their pitches for new stadiums.

    It is a very clever plan & it is working quite well.

  75. vickspuppy says: Jun 2, 2014 4:42 PM

    That new dump they’re building in Minny is actually a series of connected double-wide trailers. Just keep the wheels on it and roll it 100 miles west of LA. Everybody wins.

  76. tomtravis76 says: Jun 2, 2014 4:43 PM

    Steve Ross is taking his franchise to LA, becoming the king has has dreamt of being amongst the Hollywood crowd, while leaving the dolphins name and history behind to celebrate 1972 and the most overrated QB, Danny boy.

    Shula was a proven championship coach, Marino couldn’t finish for Don.

  77. smackingfools says: Jun 2, 2014 4:44 PM

    Unless they can guarantee that those teams would be successful then it’s going to be a waste. Nobody in London is going to watch a losing team. American cities don’t even support losing teams.

  78. smackingfools says: Jun 2, 2014 4:47 PM

    Nobody is going to want to play in London. People don’t even want to play for the Raptors and that’s in Toronto. Americans will want to play and live in America.

  79. bucsorbust says: Jun 2, 2014 4:47 PM

    Top Secret (Keep this Quiet): An expansion team will be established in London in 2017, and move to L.A. in 2019. And be out of L.A. by 2021. In 2023 the NFL and L.A. make case to get a team. A vicious circle.

  80. Please Ban TheStrategyExpert From Posting says: Jun 2, 2014 4:48 PM

    The logic behind the reason for teams to go international is so incredibly flawed.

    Blank’s argument is that the games in London continue to sell out, so, obviously this means a franchise there would make sense, right?

    Wrong. The NFL games there sell out because it’s a spectacle, it’s a show, it’s a novelty, it’s something they don’t have. If Real Madrid and Manchester United decided to play 1 game a year in NY, guess what, that would sell out too. Why? For all the same reasons mentioned. But would a new team from the Euro soccer league be a good idea to put in the US? As a citizen of the US who enjoys soccer, I believe it would be a disaster.

  81. flannlv says: Jun 2, 2014 4:51 PM

    London has sports gambling. You know, that scourge of society that the NFL hates, at least publicly. How come the NFL never mentions that when discussing the games?

  82. ragnarthemagnificent says: Jun 2, 2014 4:52 PM

    Why not Canada first? They need some real football up there anyway. or Mexico?

  83. djshnooks says: Jun 2, 2014 4:55 PM

    Guess what? The Bills probably make more revenue than all of them. Go figure.

  84. nolasoxfan2012 says: Jun 2, 2014 4:55 PM

    I still don’t buy that the NFL is going to London (although the annual grudge match between the NE “Patriots” and the London “Redcoats” would be awesome…). How are London teams going to manage all the working out, signing, cutting, and re-signing of fringe free agents that goes on all season long? If a player gets called for a workout by two clubs, is he going to go to the one that’s a 2-hour flight away or the one that requires an overnight transatlantic flight? It’s just not real practical.

  85. drs76109 says: Jun 2, 2014 4:59 PM

    None. Because the NFL will realize the PR disaster it will be (just like expanding playoffs, field goal bars, etc.). However, a team in Canada I think would be accepted.

    There WILL be movement within the USA. They clearly want a team in LA. What about Hawaii?

  86. slick50ks says: Jun 2, 2014 5:03 PM

    The NFL would be better off without a Davis in ownership. The original was bad enough, but the son is a complete idiot.

    And oakland isn’t a major league city. It’s a large slum and the area is already represented by a real franchise across the bay.

  87. 34defense2014 says: Jun 2, 2014 5:13 PM

    Why does a City need to loose a Team? Buffalo? That would suck!! Jacksonville? That would suck!! St.Louis? That would suck!! Oakland? That would suck!! How about the Dolphins or the Falcons? That would be GREAT!!!!!

  88. ketchupaholic says: Jun 2, 2014 5:20 PM

    Why aren’t people mentioning the Packers? In 20 years they will basically be a defunked franchise. More and more athletes are choosing to move and live in locations that better suites their environment and social lives. There is virtually nothing in Green Bay that is attractive to the top tier athletes. The stadium can only be renovated so many times before it becomes Wrigley Field of football. If it wasn’t for Reggie White, Brett Favre and the luck of getting Aaron Rodgers, the Packers would be worse off than the Bills.

  89. mvp43 says: Jun 2, 2014 5:21 PM

    I would rather the NFL concentrate on keeping the current NFL cities viable and exhausting every option on that front before they decide to jump the pond.

    If pushed to shove I would say Jacksonville would be the likeliest because they’re the newest team of those mentioned with the least history. Not to mention, Kahn already owns an English footbal team.

  90. radrntn says: Jun 2, 2014 5:40 PM

    like the raiders need permission to move to a city that they own the rights to……see ya in court roger. signed Mark

  91. upperdecker19 says: Jun 2, 2014 5:41 PM

    Heard about the ratings for the NHL West Conf. Final last night……ratings in Chicago were 4 1/2 times the viewership than in L.A. As a lifelong SoCal, I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt….

    WE DON’T CARE IF WE GET AN NFL TEAM!!!!

  92. jgedgar70 says: Jun 2, 2014 5:44 PM

    “That’s fine, but where will the three or four teams come from? Expansion surely can’t happen, not with a shortage of competent quarterbacks to complete 32 depth charts.”

    That’s a logical statement. But since when did logic play into any of the NFL’s decisions lately? There is one, and ONLY one, criterion for the NFL to amke any type of decision – how will this decision increase revenue?

    I would not be the slightest bit surprised if the NFL added 2 expansion teams in LA and 2 in London, made 6 divisions with 6 teams each (so you would play the 5 teams in your division twice and all the teams in 1 other division, rotating divisions each year), then finding a way to force DirecTV to charge $600 per year for Sunday Ticket.

  93. Andee says: Jun 2, 2014 5:44 PM

    Sounds like:

    1. Rams
    2. Chargers
    3. Raiders
    4. Bills
    5. Jags

    The last two are the most interesting. Buffalo represents the only actual NY team, and has a much more likely chance of ending up in Toronto than London or LA.

    The Jags should be a more serious candidate but Khan does seem to have doubled down on North Florida. Also, I’ll take him at his word that the lease agreement would be difficult to break. Buffalo’s is a bit more easier to explain.

  94. lewiscafarella says: Jun 2, 2014 5:53 PM

    New England Patriots to London. I’d just wanna see the looks on Brady and Bellichik’s faces. It’d be priceless.

  95. seahawkswilson says: Jun 2, 2014 6:00 PM

    Should still be the Vikings. Horrible fan base and even with a new stadium will not work in the long run.

  96. phinsfanjoz says: Jun 2, 2014 6:07 PM

    If the NFL really wants L.A. and London, I think they should probably be able to support two new teams…or no teams at all.

    If London is really that viable, then an expansion team that the Brits could call their own should make sense, yes?

    And if L.A. is so ready for another NFL team, it shouldn’t be hard to get the support for a brand new one, right?

    The idea that current fanbases have to “give up” their teams so the NFL can “have” franchises where it appears to really want them…I think that’s kind of messed up.

    I guess if the local fanbases aren’t supporting their teams very well, then maybe the impetus to move is stronger.

    But if it’s just a matter of “We, the NFL oligarchs, want teams based in giant media markets”…well, I think they should put money where mouth is, or shut said mouth.

  97. u4iadman says: Jun 2, 2014 6:11 PM

    Have to give London a try for a team…we need to know if it will work. Sure, I am skeptical like you are too, but if it works, and we add more teams, get more football on tv, more college players get jobs, more NFL news, maybe a real developmental league….damn, football 24-7 so we dont have to hear about frickin baseball or LeBaron, or Serena (heck, hockey is ok though)….then bring on London.

    But dont send my team.

  98. billh1947 says: Jun 2, 2014 6:24 PM

    “I heard that Iowa was going to get a professional football team. Rumor has it that fell thru because the people in Minnesota were very irate. They thought they would finally get one.”
    An NFL fan can sure get lonely in De moines.

  99. erikinhell says: Jun 2, 2014 6:39 PM

    How many football teams has LA had already? LA Rams, LA Raiders, LA Dons, LA Chargers, LA Buccaneers, LA Wildcats, LA Bulldogs. Did I miss any?

    LA has not been able to keep a football team, since the founding of the NFL. They’ve been through the NFL, AFL, AAFL, and probably others. You’d figure the NFL would figure out by now, that a Los Angeles team does not work for football.

  100. ravenswinsuperbowl47 says: Jun 2, 2014 6:42 PM

    Many of you just don’t get it: capitalism …. follow the green. If NFL owners are most enriched by placing a team in London, LA or even Albuquerque — be it via expansion or relocation — they will do it. Laughing all the way to the bank and ignoring all your thumbs up and down.

    Except for a few legacy teams — Bears, Packers, Giants, one or two others — every NFL is in its current city due to relocation, expansion, or league mergers. Adding a couple teams to London & LA via relocation or expansion would be business as usual.

  101. bblaamd72 says: Jun 2, 2014 6:56 PM

    Jerry jones will move the cowboys…as long as it is popular, right?

  102. tokyofilthblaster says: Jun 2, 2014 7:19 PM

    LA wants an NFL team – which eliminates the Vikings.

  103. xx4zu1 says: Jun 2, 2014 7:21 PM

    Expansion would be a possibility with a true minor league and expanded rosters to allow teams the ability to groom players instead of the trial by fire that goes on these days many players wash out in 2-3 years that would possibly make good players had they not been thrusted into a high profile position on a bad team.

  104. petecarrolmorelikecheatpayroll says: Jun 2, 2014 7:26 PM

    Top 5 Teams Least Likely to Move (in order):

    1) Packers – The fans would go ape and create WWIII if that happened. Which it wouldn’t, because they own the team.

    2) Steelers – The Championships, history…..not moving.

    3) Cowboys – Jerrah’s crazy, but he just built that shiny new stadium. Plus, Cowboys can’t go to London. That just sounds stupid.

    4) Bears – Big market team in a big city. Staying put.

    5) Seahawks – Winning the Super Bowl cemented this team to stay put indefinitely.

  105. docboss says: Jun 2, 2014 7:34 PM

    Logically, it should be the Rams that move, BUT, Kroenke will not spend his money to build a stadium, nor pay the outrageous relocation fee. Pony up LA. You want it? Put your money where your big mouth is! Three billion for the stadium and the relocation fee. Otherwise, shut up.

  106. fishyinalittledishy says: Jun 2, 2014 7:41 PM

    There is not enough elite players to go around with 32 teams like you said in the article so somebody is going to move to London and that’s never going to happen. The owners are scaring those teams fans that don’t make enough money for them. LA will probably happen, teams have moved before, they are not afraid to do it. The Saints would have moved but then Katrina struck lets not forget those sounds coming out of NO before those tragic events. But moving to Europe no chance.

  107. nyctraffic says: Jun 2, 2014 7:57 PM

    Hey Blank: take the Falcons to London–permanently–and let the Hawks fly right along with them. We’re sick of these teams that choke every year in the playoffs, and don’t get us started on the Braves. I’ve been following these bums for 40 years and ain’t nothing changed when it comes down to it. You wonder why Atlanta fans are ambivalent? Because their teams have been almost as bad as Cleveland’s for decades.

  108. natigator says: Jun 2, 2014 7:58 PM

    Holding cities hostage with the threat of an LA move has been a boon for the league. No way they give up that bargaining chip by taking away the threat of LA. It’s not like the lack of a team there has hurt the league in the last 20 years

    The only reason the owners are speaking up is because the LA leaders are tired of being led around by the nose and publicly stated they’ve given up on ever getting a team. This game only works if LA is participating, thus a new carrot gets dangled

    They are crazy enough to move someone to London, which will crash & burn. Players won’t want to live there, taxes would be outrageous, the long flights to & from. That team won’t ever be competitive

  109. thelastpieceofcheese says: Jun 2, 2014 8:17 PM

    A billionaire will buy the bills. buy out the lease and take the team to LA.

  110. nflfan1326 says: Jun 2, 2014 8:23 PM

    Bills have lowest ticket prices.

  111. raiderfanatic4life says: Jun 2, 2014 8:28 PM

    It won’t be the Raiders. Oakland won’t let the Raiders leave and Mark David don’t want to leave. He already offered to put up 400 million of his own money so they will get stadium deal done. Hopefully sooner rather than later.

  112. ptownbearsfan420 says: Jun 2, 2014 8:34 PM

    Love it. Bears. Never will win again (for 7 years anyway), but they won’t be leaving either!!

  113. oldcracker says: Jun 2, 2014 8:42 PM

    Move the Raiders to Fresno so they can market the entire Central Valley. Move the Chargers up to LA, giving them the entire southern Cal market. 49′ers market northern Cal.

    Move the Super Bowl to Hawaii.

  114. paulhoss1 says: Jun 2, 2014 8:43 PM

    Redskins move to London and keep their name.

  115. nygmann says: Jun 2, 2014 8:50 PM

    A London team in the NFL? Hahaha! Can we just deport the commissioner of the NFL to London instead?

  116. vikesandravens78 says: Jun 2, 2014 8:57 PM

    Happy to see the Vikings are finally off the list, but I feel bad for the fans in every named city. It’s an uneasy feeling knowing that your team could relocate.

  117. fballguy says: Jun 2, 2014 8:58 PM

    I find it funny that at least 90% of all fan feedback regarding a team in London is negative…but the NFL is deaf to it. It’s all sunshine and crumpets and all systems go for the owners.

  118. arrow43050 says: Jun 2, 2014 9:10 PM

    I nominate the Patriots to be removed from the continent and sent as far away as possible. London will do, for now. Minsk or Yakutsk are other appealing possibilities that should be investigated.

  119. alonestartexan says: Jun 2, 2014 9:43 PM

    Move the Bills to LA, keep their history in Buffalo (ie Browns 1995)

    Move the Bills to the NFC West, move the Rams to the AFC South, and put the Colts back in the AFC East.

    LA would have a division/region rivalry with SF, AZ, and SEA. The Colts would regain their rivalries with the Jets, Pats, and Dolphins. Finally, the Rams would finally have a more regional rivalry with Tennessee, Jacksonville, and Houston.

  120. drs76109 says: Jun 2, 2014 9:51 PM

    Sidnt the WLAF have a London team? How that work out (and the league for that matter).

    Keep it on this continent.

  121. ravensbob says: Jun 2, 2014 9:54 PM

    Rams and jags

  122. tonyc920 says: Jun 2, 2014 10:39 PM

    As some others have posted, this is smoke and mirrors. I f any city gets a team it WILL be L.A. metro based. I say Mark Davis moves it. The stadium in Oakland is a sewage pit. And there’s no serious negotiating w/Oakland or San Jose. If he doesn’t go to L.A., the new SF stadium will become home just like NY.

  123. tangledorchard says: Jun 2, 2014 10:55 PM

    Keep Buffalo where they are and create a natural rival in Toronto. LA is not a football town or you might say they’re satisfied with having UCLA and USC in town. The Bills will get a new stadium; it’s the price of keeping the team and Jacksonville is the first choice for a London ‘experiment.’ Time to get a pair of Concordes out of mothballs or team travel will be ridiculous.

  124. trytobnimble says: Jun 2, 2014 11:00 PM

    Does Davis have a spare Billion dollars to build his own stadium? Because he isn’t getting a dime of public money.

    Once again, ad infinitum — You can’t use the existing stadiums in LA. They’re both nearly a century old and rebuilding them is both not allowed due to historic preservation. Who would want to anyway?

    Any team must build their own stadium with their own money. That is the only way it will work in Southern California. I know Davis doesn’t have the dough. That leaves Kroenke and the Rams as the most viable candidate. And it is also the scenario that most Angelenos want to see. Come home, Rams.

  125. puntonfirstdown says: Jun 2, 2014 11:24 PM

    Putting a team in Jacksonville in the first place was the stupidest expansion move ever.

  126. bearshaterseverywhere says: Jun 2, 2014 11:42 PM

    I can’t imagine NFL teams having to travel there or their team here, that would be very hard to adjust too.

    The UK needs their own league and let American football spread (IE. CFL) and possibly become an Olympic event.

    Imagine the dream teams for football….

  127. rajbais says: Jun 2, 2014 11:45 PM

    No one!!

    No one has the guts to do it.

    Plus, owners are suckers for temporary outcries to where they don’t realize that fans can be bandwagoners or unwelcome to the team even when they were around.

    It’ll never happen. No proof and conjecture/prediction/feeling is not evidence.

  128. kappy32 says: Jun 3, 2014 12:17 AM

    I really would not be surprised to see the NFL add 2 more teams in the next 5-8 years, one in LA, one in London. You talk about the dearth of starting QB’s in the NFL, but I don’t think that is a more persuasive factor to the NFL than money is. If the NFL started 2 brand new franchises in these 2 cities, they would make tons of money. Both cities would have rabbid fanbases that would eat up the merchandise & sell out games. Then, in addition to the new franchises, the Chargers would move to LA & the Jaguars would move to London. The Chargers would still have their loyal SoCal fans, and would add more by moving to LA. The Jags will have a solid fan following after playing in London once a year until 2017, more or less being the “home” team there. That would be your 4 teams in new cities because I don’t see either the Bills, the Raiders, or the Rams moving from where they are. The Bills have a HUGE following in Western NY & Buffalo is a football town, whereas NYC is a baseball town. Once you get north of Westchester County in NY, you have either Bills fans or Patriots fans, but definitely more Bills fans. It would be heartbreaking for the Bills to leave; it would be like the Brooklyn Dodgers leaving NY for LA back in 1957. As for the Raiders, they could be a candidate to move back to LA, but I don’t see the NFL continuing to play musical chairs with them between LA & Oakland. I think the NFL would be more interested in Oakland building a new stadium for the Raiders & having them add to their fan following there. If Oakland doesn’t build, I can see Oakland moving into the new Santa Clara stadium with the 49ers. I think that is the wave of the future, having 2 teams in close proximity to one another build & share stadiums together. The Giants & Jets did it with MetLife & it has worked out very well, and the municipality where the stadium was built didn’t get screwed into footing the bill because the Jets & Giants shared the expenditures. Finally, with the Rams, I don’t see them moving to LA for the same reason the Raiders won’t. They played in LA once before & moved because they weren’t generating enough money. St. Louis wanted them, they better accommodate them because they aren’t going anywhere.

  129. patsarethegoat says: Jun 3, 2014 12:20 AM

    LA Doesn’t deserve a football team

  130. romospersonalsnuggie says: Jun 3, 2014 12:21 AM

    All the Cowboy haters can’t get THE D out of their Mouths!!!!

  131. z0inks says: Jun 3, 2014 12:57 AM

    Apparently NFL owners believe Londoners are so starved for American football, they won’t mind or even notice that their newly relocated team is a perennial bottom-feeder that loses 10+ games every year.

    It’s gonna be real funny when the novelty wears off after one or two 4-12 seasons and London’s team is staring at tens of thousands of unsold seats week after week.

    NFL owners are simply giddy at the thought of tapping into the European market and all that money that they’re not currently receiving. I wonder if they’ll be so enthusiastic when they’re forking over tens of millions of dollars out of their own pockets to keep the team on life support without seeing a dime in return.

  132. jayyemm77 says: Jun 3, 2014 12:59 AM

    Raiders come to L.A already!!!

  133. truthhammer says: Jun 3, 2014 1:50 AM

    What a joke a London team would be.

    Some 21 year old kid gets drafted by the London team and has to spend the next four years living a 7 hour flight away from all his family and friends in a country where he wouldn’t even have permanent residency.

  134. tictoccpthook says: Jun 3, 2014 5:40 AM

    Redskins to London and Cowboys to Dublin. That way the Giants and Eagles have back to back games across the pond twice each season, and travel time is hardly any different that is has always been.

  135. greymares says: Jun 3, 2014 7:17 AM

    NEW JERSEY doesn’t need 2 teams.

  136. frankfordyellowjackets says: Jun 3, 2014 9:40 AM

    I say we get the Sons of Liberty to throw Roger Goodell into Boston Harbor.

  137. phluffyclouds says: Jun 3, 2014 10:24 AM

    Goodell and the NFL need to get over the whole London thing.

    Toronto should be the ONLY international city considered.

    NFL in London? No thank you.

  138. orcahawk says: Jun 3, 2014 3:00 PM

    Cities not mentioned that could host an NFL franchise:

    Portland OR
    Las Vegas NV
    SL City UT
    Little Rock AR

    ?????

  139. fishyinalittledishy says: Jun 3, 2014 3:37 PM

    Some of you are completely insane. Cowboys, Seahawks moving ludicrous or am I missing something won’t be the first time.

  140. mickton says: Jun 3, 2014 11:07 PM

    The nfl Europe is doing so well oh wait it went under.

  141. R. Scott Freeman says: Jun 4, 2014 3:24 AM

    Are the NFL owners pushing for overseas expansion, or is it just Goodell? Are these greed mongers going to follow that up with injecting it into their schools as well? Hey, why don’t the Feds borrow a few more trillion dollars from China and gamble on our football catching on worldwide? We could probably breed our players overseas for cheaper. They could consult Caesars Entertainment for guidance, since its gamble is working out so well. Eventually, corporate America will try to find a way to sneak some money into Heaven. Oh, my bad… they’re not worried about that.

  142. jagsfan2012 says: Jun 4, 2014 11:11 AM

    The NFL in London is a novelty. If a franchise is placed there, it would start to falter is 5 years. So sick and tired for this relocation crap.

    I’m surprised they haven’t decided to place the Superbowl in London.

  143. politicallyincorrect says: Jun 4, 2014 1:21 PM

    not enough QBs now…. don’t like expansion with added teams… reshuffling much better…

    I don’t think Florida can support 3 teams… I’d move TB or Jax to Orlando and the other to …. Mexico City (I’d go there over London)

    I’d move SD up to Orange County rather than move a new team to LA and keep SD

    Look at moving Buffalo to Toronto or just leave alone…

    If they want another new market, move Oakland or St. Louis (though I would try to keep St. Louis)…..

    my picks for new markets…
    Mexico City (if international)… London is a logistical problem IMO (just as Honolulu would be)

    if they want another west time zone, I’d look at Salt Lake City or Sacremento/Portland, or maybe Vancouver

    if they don’t care about west coast, and I do not, I’d look at the south, maybe the VA Beach/Norfolk area or Research Triangle

  144. smackattack52 says: Jun 5, 2014 5:31 AM

    send the rams, michael sam will fit right in over there.

  145. bluetalons says: Jun 5, 2014 12:53 PM

    There is not going to be a two-team expansion. If there is any expansion at all, it is going to be four teams. That would make restructuring the league and scheduling manageable.

    The problem is going to be finding four suitable buyer (groups) and four suitable locations, with local governments willing to pitch in on new stadiums…

  146. politicallyincorrect says: Jun 9, 2014 8:57 AM

    biggest problem would be finding 4 suitable starting QBs

  147. drhenning says: Jun 9, 2014 5:55 PM

    Has anyone outside of Jacksonville other than some media types listened to Khan’s and Lampings business plans for Jags??? Huge new investments this year in stadium upgrades including new giant scoreboards and some more premium seats.. One change they want to make is to redo clubs to give them an open view of the field.. Main problem we have in Jacksonville is the need to still have an 80K+ sized stadium once a year for Florida-Georgia game which is an important annual event. Teams make a ton of money playing there due to all the premium seating areas especially compared to their home stadiums which are full of bleacher seats and student tickets.

  148. skobolt says: Jun 13, 2014 4:47 AM

    Every season divide the league in half. Half the teams play one week the other teams are off. The following week the off teams play and the other teams are off. The fans still see games every week, the teams have two weeks to recover, practice and travel and the season lasts longer. Why can’t every state have a team? Would that help the economy, create jobs and pride? Maybe with a bigger pie, prices could be lowered especially for pre-season games so the average Joe could afford to take the family.America loves football!!!
    .

Leave a Reply

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