armchairgm
all sports, all you
+ Add Friends
You are not logged-in.
Sign Up - Log In
Main Page
Sports
Write
Articles
Hot Links
Images
Meet People
Fun
Explore
MLB - NFL - NBA - NHL - College Basketball - College Football - Soccer - Nascar - Other
Article - Locker Room Discussion
All Articles - New Articles - Today's Articles
Submit a Link - Approve Links
Picture Game - Ratings - Polls - Pick Game - Quiz Game - Spring Silliness
Random Page - Random Image - Random Fan
Edit
Page history Discuss pageWhat links here

6 reasons why the Super Bowl should not be played in London

22
Vote

by Emmettjones

From my blog Sports Agent News

Dear Mr. Goodell,

What in the world are you doing? I understand that you are a business man, and you’re trying to expand the NFL market, which is good, because who doesn’t want to see their business do well? But honestly…the Super Bowl? to London? Has it really come to this?

Goddell told reporters on Monday that “There’s a great deal of interest in holding a Super Bowl in London…So we’ll be looking into that.”

I understand that the NFL is doing well in non-American markets. The Cardinals/49ers game in Mexico in 2005 brought over 100,000 into Azteca Stadium in Mexico City. And this year, over 95,000 tickets have been sold for the October 28th regular season game between the Dolphins and Giants in London.

I understand that even if the NFL isn’t held in the US, people will still watch it on TV ( last year’s Super Bowl 42.6% of all U.S. households were tuned into the Super Bowl last year).

But seriously, Mr. Goddell, this is not a good idea. Why? Well, I’m glad you asked.

1. The whole time zone issue. Depending on what time of year it is, London is 4(5) or 5(6) hours ahead of the Eastern time zone in America (7 or 8 hours difference between London and the West Coast). What possible time can we play this Super Bowl without alienating one of the time zones? Are we going to have the Super Bowl come on during a non-primetime hour in America, or do we play it in the dead of night in London?

2. The potential to alienate American football fans. True, like I said above, there will be plenty of Americans who will still watch the game, but what about those people who are so Pro-American (I don’t want to put anti-European, but it probably fits as well) that they get upset with the game not being in America? It seems like you would be losing a portion of your fan base unnecessarily, as European fans only know watching the NFL on Television, and they would continue to do so without any problem.

3. Pure Irony. How do you take the championship game of the most popular sport in America…and play it somewhere other than America? If the Premier League Championship was ever played in America…there would be riots in the streets. I’m failing to see how this same logic doesn’t apply to the Super Bowl being held somewhere other than America.

4. NFL Europe. How popular is football over in Europe? Ask NFL Europe…oh wait! The whole league just went under. Granted, its the Super Bowl, so you could probably sell out Wembley Stadium, but is the price (Disgruntled American fans who are the regular season fan base) worth the reward?

5. Weather. There is a reason that Super Bowls are always held in warm weather cities (Miami) or in a Dome (Detroit). People aren’t exactly prone to coming out when its the middle of February and its 30 degrees. Sure, you probably will still sell out the game, but why take that risk (unless London is planning on building a dome? If that’s the case, I would refer you back to point #4, and how popular football is in Europe).

6. The Players. I don’t know for sure what the players think, but something tells me that they would not be overly excited about going all the way over to England for a two week span to play the Super Bowl (although maybe I’m wrong?)

Mr. Goddell, I believe you are honestly trying to do what’s best for the NFL, even though I have disagreed with some of your past decisions (see below), but I truly hope that someone is able to talk some sense into you before this gets past the “looking for something interesting to say to reporters” phase.

( Ed. Note : Don’t misconstrue this article. I am not against NFL football in places other than America. I just don’t see why Goddell went straight for the jugular with the Super Bowl comment. Regular season and pre-season games? sure! But the biggest American sporting event in someplace other than America? It just doesn’t make logical sense to me, regardless of whether or not you’re trying to create a “World Football League” or not.)

ESPN: Goddell says NFL looking to hold Super Bowl in London

CNN Money.com: CBS scores with Super Bowl ratings

Related –

Sports Agent News: The NFL (NO FUN LEAGUE!)

Sports Agent News: What Roger Goddell should have done


Enable Comment Auto-Refresher
PickemgeniusWaterboy
774 days ago
Score 2+-
Reason #1: England prefers futbol over football.
Permalink | Reply
Manny StilesMajor Leaguer
774 days ago
Score 4+-
psst... they speak Anglais over der un England.
Permalink
Manny StilesMajor Leaguer
774 days ago
Score 3+-
Reason: They'll want to have Tea and Crumpets instead of a halftime "show"

Big Reason: Security - The day the Super Bowl is in London is the day that terrorists will dirty bomb London, for sure.

Bigger reason: Because it would make George Washington cry!

Biggest reason: Hey, you pussified, pansy-ass cashgrabbers - What does the N in NFL stand for anyway?

Biggerest reason - because we couldn't make the game the Fighting Irish vs NEW England Patriots - just to mess with them
Permalink | Reply
DNLLegend
774 days ago
Score 2+-
Reason #1: "Posh Spice Half-Time Extraviganza!"
Permalink
NejoshiDiv-I Stud
774 days ago
Score 4+-
Having a Super Bowl overseas would be the most retarded thing the NFL has ever done.
Permalink | Reply
Taytay 24All-American
774 days ago
Score 2+-
1) Time Zone is not a big issue. Play the game Sunday evening in London, while America watches it live Sunday afternoon. Since football is played in the afternoon all season, this should not be a deal breaker.

2) The overwhelming majority of those "pro-American" fans aren't going to the Super Bowl in Miami either. I don't see why they should be bothered by it being played in London.

3) This is more or less the same as #2.

4) As you said, there is a big difference between the Super Bowl and NFL Europe. And as you also say, they would more than likely sell out Wimbley. So what's the problem?

5) Weather is a good argument against this idea, at least for London.

6) If I was a player, I would much rather spend two weeks in London than Detroit, no offense to Detroit.

I think it actually makes more sense to play the Super Bowl in a foreign city than a regular season game. At least the Super Bowl is supposed to be a neutral sight, whereas with a regular season game, someone is losing a home game.

Out of curiosity, would you be more accepting of a Super Bowl in Mexico City?
Permalink | Reply
JuTMSY4Legend
774 days ago
Score 2+-
i'm not exactly in favor of it but... I agree with Taytay, i don't see it being a big deal...for that matter most people who go to the SB already drop a few Gs to get there, stay and get in the game (and often times, not)...london...glendale, san diego...meh, who cares...
Permalink
Anonymous Fanatic #1
774 days ago
Score 1+-
Two days of horrible food and you'd wish you were in Detroit, trust me. These are big boys. They gotta eat!
Permalink
Taytay 24All-American
774 days ago
Score 1+-
I think I could manage, and I'm sure an NFL team could.
Permalink
CheezerAll-Star
774 days ago
Score 1+-
Tay, You're letting your non-american side show.  :-) My biggest beef with this idea is simply put. It's the National Football League. The championship game should be in America.
Permalink
Taytay 24All-American
774 days ago
Score 0+-
I hope not, Cheezer. Being non-exclusionary is not the same thing as being non-American. But American xenophobia does beat me down.

Actually, I agree that the Super Bowl should be played in America, I just don't think any of the reasons cited in the article are why. I agree with what you and a few others have said: it is an American league; therefore, its championship should be held in America. I also agree with Raw in that this was most likely a passing comment, an answer to a question, that means nothing in reality.

However, I also think that if the NFL did have an interest in generating a more world wide audience, playing the Super Bowl outside of the US is worth considering.
Permalink
Pittsburgh GunnyMajor Leaguer
774 days ago
Score 4+-
The time zone thingee really is not that big a deal. I sometime get up on a Saturday just so I can watch Arsenal play at 7AM, that would be a noon kickoff London time. So moving the start to 8PM London time would make it 3PM in the Eastern Time Zone. As far as point 3, there is no Premier League Championship. The Premier League has no playoff system. Now if you wanted to bring the biggest European club football event to the US then that would be the Champions League Final.
Permalink | Reply
Dcsundevil2002Div-I Stud
774 days ago
Score 2+-
The tailgating before the game would be difficult. The attendance wouldn't be a problem, when NFL teams, not NFL Europe teams, play in Europe, people show up.
Permalink | Reply
WrmjrRed-Shirting
774 days ago
Score 1+-
Though I don't think time zone is an issue, I agree that weather could be. It would make far more sense to me to play the first international Super Bowl in Mexico. Everyone wants to go to Mexico in February, the weather is great, there are no timezone issues at all, and they have a huge stadium.
Permalink | Reply
RawbeezeitzMajor Leaguer
774 days ago
Score 3+-
This is probably what happened. Somebody asked Goodell about the possibility of a future Super Bowl in London. It's a dumb question because Super Bowls are and always shall be played in warm weather cities and/or domed stadiums. But Goodell didn't want to alienate the small but loyal London fan base by declaring "No, we'll never have a Super Bowl there." So he said that the NFL was looking into it, which is probably not true at all. This is a mountain out of an anthill.
Permalink | Reply
Anonymous Fanatic #1
774 days ago
Score 0+-
This doesn't make any sense. Do you think the EU would ever consider having their biggest "futbol" game would be held in America? Not a chance.
Permalink | Reply
PleatsnCleatsVarsity
774 days ago
Score 0+-
This was me. I keep getting signed out.
Permalink
Taytay 24All-American
774 days ago
Score 0+-
If they wanted to expand their brand to the US, the could consider it. Same for the NFL in Europe, perhaps moreso.
Permalink
PleatsnCleatsVarsity
774 days ago
Score 0+-
They could consider anything, but I guarantee they will not be holding a European soccer championship here anytime soon. If it doesn't make dollars, it doesn't make sense/cents.
Permalink
JgiuffraDiv-I Stud
774 days ago
Score 2+-
wembley has a roof. Weather wouldn't be an issue. I do agree that the game should be played in America...there is too much important league football in england that time of year.
Permalink | Reply
Taytay 24All-American
774 days ago
Score 0+-
Good point, I just looked it up and saw that. Nice arch. Weather-wise, if they could play Detroit, they could do London.
Permalink
TyduffyRed-Shirting
774 days ago
Score 1+-
They just need to grapple with the fact that, since no one outside of the United States plays American football. There isn't really a growth market for it internationally. There are enough ex-pats and people who enjoy the spectacle to fill up Wembley. But it really won't have that much of an affect in the long run. The Super Bowl should be played in three places. New Orleans, Miami, and San Diego. Anywhere else and the sports writers all get cranky about having to spend a week in an unsavory location.
Permalink | Reply
RawbeezeitzMajor Leaguer
774 days ago
Score 1+-
Since nobody plays it internationally, doesn't that make it a market for potential growth? In other words, there's no place for the NFL to go but up in international markets.
Permalink
Pittsburgh GunnyMajor Leaguer
774 days ago
Score 0+-
Well actually there is a World Cup of American Football. It was just held this year in Japan. The USA defeated Japan in the final.
Permalink
PleatsnCleatsVarsity
774 days ago
Score 0+-
Well the only really good thing about this could be that the players would have less new family and friends trying to get tickets to the game since they'd have to pay to get to London, too.
Permalink | Reply
RawbeezeitzMajor Leaguer
774 days ago
Score 0+-
It was a passing remark, an answer to a stupid question, the odds of this happening are 1,000,000,000 to 1.
Permalink
Hit By a PitchVarsity
774 days ago
Score 0+-
Is he trying to make me hate the NFL as much as I hate the NBA?
Permalink | Reply
Simms1156Div-I Stud
774 days ago
Score 0+-
I agree with Rawbeezeitz that this will never happen. In the event that it did happen, although it wouldnt really make a difference to me, I wouldnt be a fan of the superbowl being played overseas just for the fact that football is arguably americas favorite sport and many Americans are obsessed with football. To play the biggest game of the year that all of the fans look forward too overseas feels like a rip off to me.
Permalink | Reply
Alex HolowczakHall of Famer
774 days ago
Score 2+-
Re: your points -
  1. Time is not an issue. If I can watch NFL games primetime over here, then there is no problem at all. It would just be a bit earlier start than usual to a Super Bowl.
  2. It won't alienate them too much - if 42.6% watch on TV, then that's a whole heap of people not going to the stadium.
  3. Learn to understand "soccer" over here. But that is only the English League. We don't want to include other countries in our league... They enter their League.
  4. NFL Europe was poor quality, and we knew it. So we stayed away.
  5. Wembley Stadium has a roof.
  6. It may not be a bad thing.

Your Psychological reasons are good, but your logistic reasons are badly researched...

You miss the biggest issue of all, however... London doesn't want for it. Whilst it won't refuse the NFL if it wanted to come here, we are more than happy to not have it. So on that basis, it should be kept how it is.
Permalink | Reply
Tyrone BriggsHall of Famer
774 days ago
Score 1+-
This must have been some hair brained negotiation from George Bush to get Tony Blair to send British troops to the Middle East. It all makes sense now.
Permalink | Reply
Add your Comment
ArmchairGM welcomes all comments. If you don't want to be anonymous, Register or Login. It's free


Retrieved from "http://armchairgm.wikia.com/6_reasons_why_the_Super_Bowl_should_not_be_played_in_London"

This page was last modified 14:29, 16 October 2007. Content is available under the GFDL.

Contribute

ArmchairGM's pages can be edited.
Is this page incomplete? Is there anything wrong?
Change it!

Edit this page Discuss this page Page history

Recent contributors to this page

The following people recently contributed to this article.

Embed this on your site

Main Page About Special Pages Help Terms of Use Advertise