Possible London Super Bowl raises serious logistical question


The article making reference to the plausible possibility of an NFL moving to London also mentions the unrealistic scenario in which a Super Bowl would be exported to Wembley Stadium.

Sure, the folks in England would love to host a Super Bowl.  And some in the NFL may think that sending the league’s premier event overseas would be the best way to spread the virus beyond our borders.

But there’s a serious problem that needs to be mentioned whenever “Super Bowl” and “London” appear in the same sentence:  The time difference.

The NFL kicks off the game after 6:00 p.m. ET.  That means the Super Bowl would begin at after 11:00 p.m. local time, and that it would last until 3:00 a.m. local time, or possibly later.

For that same reason, a team sent to London could never host a prime-time game on Thursday, Sunday, or Monday.  Playoff games would also have to be scheduled accordingly.

That’s the tip of the iceberg as it relates to the issues that would flow from putting a team in London on a full-time basis.  At most, we can envision a split U.S./U.K. schedule, maybe for a pair of teams.  When it comes to moving a team to England for every home game, competitive balance could quickly be thrown out of whack.

28 responses to “Possible London Super Bowl raises serious logistical question

  1. If they put the Super Bowl in London before allowing every other NFL stadium to have it first, I will boycott the NFL forever. That is just ridiculous. England care less about American football as much as Americans care less about English soccer.

  2. prosportswashington says: Sep 24, 2013 2:25 PM

    I’m British, and I think having the superbowl here would be an awful Idea, nor do I want a London franchise!

    You’re obviously NOT an American Football fan.

  3. So are you saying that putting a team in London might not be such a great idea after all?!?!?!

  4. So Goodell will be taking the economic impact (estimated 300-400 million dollars) generated from the Super Bowl away from an American city? Well done commish.

  5. They would have to play the game 9:00 PM LON time, 4:00 PM EST. You can’t start a game at 11:00 PM local time. You’re not going to get the highest level of play. You’re already asking the players to travel thousands of miles to another country and then you ask them to play at a time of night when their bodies are used to going to sleep.

    I really hate the idea for many reasons. Every day, I have to deal with time zone differences working with an international company (7:00 AM calls with Singapore, trying to get a hold of the UK crew before they go home, etc.). I don’t want to have to worry about it for my Super Bowl!

    Bad idea. Don’t do it.

  6. The NFL does just fine without a team in London. Just as it does without a team in LA.

    But how about we make sure the American cities that want a franchise are addressed before we go overseas? (Not saying give a team to every city that wants one, Saying a viable US city should get a team before London)

  7. The game would have to be shown on tape delay like the Olympics that were just held in the same city. Isn’t this time/travel issue pretty obvious to anything related to the NFL in London?
    They can’t even play the game in LA or Vegas, let alone London.

  8. Here’s a crazy idea…why not have the Pro Bowl in London. That way the London fans could see all the All Stars, and an American city wouldn’t miss out on hosting the Super Bowl. Factor in the fact that nobody in America cares one bit about the Pro Bowl, it could be a way to breathe some new life into it with very little blowback for doing so. Also the players voted in would get an overseas Vacation which would be a nice incentive to go and play in the game

  9. I’m a huge NFL fan living in England (I’m English too btw), but seriously come on! I love having two games a year, happy to have a few more, but there is no way we should have a Super Bowl here, a playoff game at most, but no way a SB. This type of thinking, well….. It’s just not cricket

  10. I believe the premise of this article is wrong. Why would you play at a different time? The American fans will be in front of their TVs, the players and coaches are condiditioned to play in that timeframe anyway. The only difficulty will be for the locals in the stands. And seriously, who cares if they sleep through it as long as they bought a ticket.

  11. I think it’s a stupid idea to have a Super Bowl in London.

    If they did do it I’d guess the game would start at 9:20pm in London, 4:20pm in the east, 1:20pm in the west. No other option with the time really.

  12. That’s a bunch of crap, I mean it’s bad enough the Super Bowl is already reserved for domes and warm weather cities. Hopefully NY/NJ pulls off this Super Bowl this year so maybe other franchises and cities can profit off the Super Bowl coming to their cities. A London Super Bowl would be a slap in the face to fans everywhere.

  13. tjules21 says:
    Sep 24, 2013 3:05 PM
    They would have to play the game 9:00 PM LON time, 4:00 PM EST. You can’t start a game at 11:00 PM local time.
    And that’s what makes this such a terrible idea – they WOULD start the game at 11:00 PM London time. All the networks would demand it, because starting the game any earlier would offend the people in LA. That’s why World Series and NBA Finals games end at midnight. We can’t offend the LA market by starting games before PST prime time begins. Yeah, just about everyone has a DVR these days and you can start watching a game 2 hours late and be caught up with the live broadcast easily. But that’s the way it’s been done before, so we have to keep doing it!!!!!!!!

    Knucklehead idea, conceived by Godell, a knucklehead.

Leave a Reply

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