NFL in Britain: Good or bad?

by Ed Valentine on Oct 24, 2009 8:30 AM EDT in News Comment 64 comments

Something non-Giants related to ask you guys about this morning. The New England Patriots and Tampa Bay Buccaneers are venturing across the pond this weekend to play the NFL's annual regular season game in London.

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell wants to expand the number of games played in Britain, and possibly put a franchise there.

"The interest and the enthusiasm for our game continues to grow, and we want to feed that," Goodell said. "We want to respond to that by hopefully bringing more to the UK.

"I expect that sometime in the next couple of years, we could be playing multiple games here," Goodell said. "If we brought more than one game here, and it continues to have the same kind of enthusiasm and growth of interest, I think that is about as good of an indicator you can get that it could successfully support a franchise. And that's what we're looking at."

Patriots owner Robert Kraft supports the idea of an NFL team in Britain.

"I really believe it would be the right thing to do sometime in the next decade that there should be a franchise here."

What do you guys think? Is this a great idea, or a stupid one?

[NOTE: Don't forget I am on Game Face this morning at 9:15.]

0 recs | Comment 64 comments | Add comment | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Britain?

Thats soft! Take the game down under, its only a 23 hour flight!

It would save the Giants Defence a lot of time if QBs just stayed down!

by ChuckyofNorris on Oct 24, 2009 8:52 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

no way

it sounds like they dont want us there anyways. Id be more interested in setting up a team in canada or mexico, how about st louis?

we have enough teams already, which team would move to england? would they be called the old england monarchs?

oops I crapped my pants!

by TheWenz on Oct 24, 2009 9:03 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

There's an episode of Family Guy where Peter joins the

Silly Nannies.

by TerraByte on Oct 24, 2009 11:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

how many teams want to fly to britian?

and how about the team in britian? 8 out of 16 weeks they gotta fly here?

if theirs a lot of interest, and the players and personel are willing to travel.. but i doubt it

LET'S GO RANGERS!!!

by Moshe52792 on Oct 24, 2009 9:04 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I don't think it is a good idea..

No offense to our buddy G fan in England, and I wouldn’t be opposed to the Giants playing a game over there so he wouldn’t have to travel so far to see them..but it is an American sport, and I think it would be a strain on the NFL teams and players to be travelling back and forth to london every week..and a strain on a a team from the UK doing the same if they decide to go that route and form a franchise there.

by Bobbiblue on Oct 24, 2009 9:05 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Business Goals

The NFL has taken the US by storm. Football coverage is a year-around business. Football games get huge ratings on television. The sport is an obsession with many Americans, but there are only so many people in America. The bigwigs of the NFL see sport enthusiasts all over the world and want to dip there hands into new fans’ wallets. Games broadcasted in Europe would bring more sponsors, more fans buying merchandise, and more cash for the NFL…It will also bring more players. Once the best atheletes from other countries get a taste for the gridiron the NFL ranks will swell with even better players. It may suck for the players to get on a long flight once or twice a year, but it’s still a lot better than doing my job everyday…

by Aceholioo on Oct 24, 2009 9:07 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Awful idea, are you crazy?

Think about the players for a second. No, not just the players that need to fly there once or twice a year. but what about the players that grow up in California and then get drafted by the London team and must move to London 13 hours away. And what about platers like Richard Seymour for example who had such a hard time moving his family across the country to Oakland. Think about someone from California getting traded without their consent to London. They would have to move their whole family not only 13 hours away, but out of the United States and to a whole new country!! THIS IS AN AWFUL IDEA AND WOULD BE A HUGE MISTAKE

by Ahmad Bradshaw on Oct 24, 2009 9:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think a single player would complain about making pounds over dollars

by Major on Oct 24, 2009 10:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That gave me an idea

For example, players in Toronto, are their salaries in American dollars, or the Canadian? Especially game checks! If it was Canadian, the players would be losing alot, given the exchange rate!

As for the British pound, perhaps G Fan could elaborate. But my question is about the Euro? Is the Euro strictly for European transactions between the countries, and each countries currency strictly for within a country?

I know this has no bearing, but i was curious!

by Hootman on Oct 24, 2009 12:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

the canadian dollar

currently is stronger than the american dollar, players would be getting paid more in canadian dollars but would probably be taxed more heavily.

by cntrlalt on Oct 24, 2009 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Okay whoa... time to clarify some things

COntracts are signed in USD, so where you play would not matter. Local taxes do apply to a point, BUT Ontario has tax laws applying to sports players that are different than an average joe worker who makes 6 figures.

As for the Canadian Dollar, it did get above the USD about two years ago, but then fell off. It has since made a comeback, getting to 98 cents, but it dropped off by 6 cents or so in the past week. It is expected to fluctuate in the next 12-24 months, sometimes moving above and then below the USD, but once the US finally rights the battered economy completely, it should settle down into the 80-90 cent range (where Canadian business wants it).

by brisulph on Oct 30, 2009 3:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

the euro replaced the local currencies

from wikipedia

The euro (€) is the official currency of 16 of the 27 Member States of the European Union (EU). The states, known collectively as the Eurozone, are Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain.

as soon as you have teams playing in more than one country, you have a certain amount of confusion. The US, Britain and Canada are all developed nations, 1 million dollars spent in america will get you pretty much the same amount of stuff as 1 million pounds would in britain.

by catsmeat84 on Oct 25, 2009 9:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe they should just "Out source" the whole NFL to China

Hell, every other business has!!…They would just have to worry about the Chinese using lead based paint on the helmets…

by Bobbiblue on Oct 24, 2009 9:10 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

NFL World

The success of NFL Europe is not a good indication of NFL long term marketability. You can take any event publicize it and get a big turnout but weekly it probably won’t work. People who want to be seen and business that want to impress will buy tickets but for how long. Anyone that has spent time outside the US, and not just vacation, will know that the world is crazy about soccer,“their” football. Rich kids and poor kids, and countries, are equal. They don’t need expensive equipment. Even “Our” football’s closest relative Rugby has it’s own cult following and that’s another world that is probably unattainable.

by BlueFrank on Oct 24, 2009 9:46 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

its a good idea...

but it wont work… they have to get NFL europe more popular before they move and NFL franchise there

by matth313 on Oct 24, 2009 10:13 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

if you go anywhere

go to canada or how about hawaii?

oops I crapped my pants!

by TheWenz on Oct 24, 2009 10:27 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I think

Hawaii, Alaska, and the Caribbean Islands would be too small TV markets. Canada has it’s own brand of football. Europe and South America are addicted to soccer. Australia would be good but I think they follow rugby. Mexico and Africa are a huge, interested markets with no money. The conclusion is inescapable — The Chinese Mandarins, the Japanese Samurai, the India Bovinities, and of course, the Iraqi Terrors.

by TerraByte on Oct 24, 2009 11:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

American Football is pretty small down under.

I love it but only about 6 people in my school year of 160 like it, including me! So Aus would be a small market plus it would be WAY too hard to fly between the US and Australia every week. Maybe we could set up an international tour though, the Aussie team playing the NFL team with the worst record, that way we woudn’t be embarassed too much.

It would save the Giants Defence a lot of time if QBs just stayed down!

by ChuckyofNorris on Oct 24, 2009 7:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

CFL is fairly popular here

BUT the NFL fanbase is strong as well. The big issue would be ticket prices, as Toronto NFL fans have shown an aversion to get tix for 350 bucks a pop.

by brisulph on Oct 30, 2009 3:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If my team lost a home game to play there, I’d HATE it.

by Bye, Dawk :( on Oct 24, 2009 11:07 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Oops… Read that wrong.

Still, terrible idea to put a franchise there, for the sheer logistics of it. You know how the Western teams complain about playing early games on the East coast (a valid complaint, in my opinion)? Tack on another 5 hours to that time difference and a14 hour flight, that’s a MAJOR disadvantage. Hate it.

Goodell is a horrible commissioner.

by Bye, Dawk :( on Oct 24, 2009 11:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

yeah

i’m english and i think it’s a terrible idea.

well, I like the IDEA of being able to go to nfl games more often, but what the commish is ignoring is that nfl fans in europe ALREADY SUPPORT A TEAM. I don’t think i could care about some team in london or berlin or wherever as much as i care about the giants.

by catsmeat84 on Oct 25, 2009 9:17 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think it'd be pretty cool

But once I put some actual thought behind it, it doesn’t seem reasonable.

As much as I’d like expanding the NFL, and making it popular globally, it doesn’t seem logistically possible.

Los Angelos, Canada and Mexico should get teams first if we’re going to expand.

I think the best idea would be to have a league by itself it Europe, than have the super bowl winner play the europe bowl winner after it establishes itself.

by Willgfass on Oct 24, 2009 11:31 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

The problem with US football in Europe

is very few native Europeans play it growing up. Most leagues or schools or schools are for AMerican children or Armed force members that live overseas on bases. It’s not Soccer in the US, which might not be popular on a professional level but is a very popular youth, High School, and collegiate sport. Football to Europeans is like Criquete to us. Some wacky sport played only by foreighners. (I know I spelled it Horribly wrong).

by Landeta on Oct 24, 2009 11:38 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

and i cried

love cricket.

by catsmeat84 on Oct 25, 2009 9:18 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I personally hate it but

the US market is saturated so why not try Europe for a few games and merchandise. It makes perfect business sense to sell Jeresey’s and other NFL merchandise over there, thats what any good business would do to make more money.

I agree with Dawk in regards to a franchise, that would be absurd from a logistic standpoint and once the novality of it were’s off they’ll be nothing but empty seats just like in Jacksonville. There are still US cities that can fill a stadium exhaust those options before moving a team to London. Hell go to Canada before London. Makes no sense.

by Landeta on Oct 24, 2009 11:32 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, they should put a team in DC

Oh wait … never mind.

by TerraByte on Oct 24, 2009 11:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

LOL!!

by Ed Valentine on Oct 24, 2009 12:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well if I was an American Indian I'd

..be suing Snyder to get my ancestors reference off those helmets and uniforms for sucking so bad..that’s truly defamation of character..Then I’d open up a casino in the stadium.

by Bobbiblue on Oct 24, 2009 2:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's why it shouldn't even be explored

Whether or not it’s expansion or relocation, look at the NFL as it is. Look at all of the bad teams vs. attendance, revenue and television blackout rates. These are American cities with an American sport and if there isn’t anything remotely close to mediocrity, why but it?! Even the hardcore fans wouldn’t be enough to support a failing franchise. So why would the NFL think the English would?

The only reason there is interest now, is because of the annual one-time event. But if they’re stuck with there own sad story, it won’t take long for the franchise to be in the red! Then what?

by Hootman on Oct 24, 2009 12:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

*their own sad story...

by Hootman on Oct 24, 2009 12:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I also think it's terrible

but my main reasons have already been said. The way it is now, every team that has played there has had a bye the week after to recover. How is a team supposed to make a trans-Atlantic flight 8 or more times a season? It’s ludicrous.

Homer: Aw, twenty dollars! I wanted a peanut!
Homer's Brain: Twenty dollars can buy many peanuts!
Homer: Explain how!
Homer's Brain: Money can be exchanged for goods and services!
Homer: Woo-hoo!

by bigbluethruandthru on Oct 24, 2009 12:05 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

hate the idea

But it makes good business sense and I’m sure they’ll do it. It’s a pain for the teams that have to go, somebody loses true home-field advantage. Irritated me when it was the Giants’ turn

You play to win the game!

by Simms-McConkey on Oct 24, 2009 12:10 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I suspect...

There’d be a lot of teams willing to see if zebras can swim about half way across the Atlantic. I guess this idea showsshows that greed has no boundaries. Personally I’m not in favor of it beyond “exhibition” status" which is what I view we’re in now.

by Cranky50 on Oct 24, 2009 12:45 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Lol, some zebras can't even cross the Nile!

by Hootman on Oct 24, 2009 12:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

its an exciting idea

and if its good for business and the NFL then they should do it, but i dont see it happening because of the distance and time zones. conquer all of north america first. sorry CFL, you must be sacrificed so that the NFL can have proper
“living space”. also meixcans need to start making more money so they can give more of it to the NFL.

Lets hope that when gut check time comes again the Mets will pass it with flying colors.

by kendynamo on Oct 24, 2009 1:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Bad Idea

The team based in England would be at an extreme disadvantage. If they have back to back road games are they going to fly to the states. Then back to England to return the following week to USA. Otherwise they’ll have to stay in the states for 2 weeks.

by FrankB0318 on Oct 24, 2009 1:50 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Division

What division will the play? Every year the same teams will have to travel to England.

by FrankB0318 on Oct 24, 2009 1:56 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Easy...

Both the NFC and AFC have 16 teams, let them play ALL teams in whatever Conference they’re in ONCE per season.

by Cranky50 on Oct 24, 2009 2:07 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I SAY ALASKA!!!

by old man strahan on Oct 24, 2009 2:24 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

The Alaskan Mavericks

and the LA Terminators/Governators

Give Hawaii a team, and some canadian city in British Columbia and we have a new division

by Willgfass on Oct 24, 2009 5:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

put a team in vancouver

and you won’t have to hear the seahawks complain about traveling anymore

by cntrlalt on Oct 24, 2009 6:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Seahawks dominate the NFL fanbase in BC

wth close proximity, it makes sense.

by brisulph on Oct 30, 2009 3:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

tha Alaskans had a team once

according to Madden 09, and it was an all eskimo team. They were referred to as the iron men of the North or something

It would save the Giants Defence a lot of time if QBs just stayed down!

by ChuckyofNorris on Oct 25, 2009 12:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

bad idea

who in their right mind would want to play for London? it means the closest road trips they make are at LEAST 8 hours on a plane.

and frankly, from the games i’ve watched there, the crowd is far from excited. more like bemused curiosity.

there a city in this country more deserving: LA.

but please, enough with expansion. we’ve got 32 teams already! that’s more than any other major sport. how f’in diluted does Goodell want the NFL?

by Travis G on Oct 24, 2009 2:36 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

Get a team in LA first. Maybe get out of Jacksonville, or even St. Louis.

by Ed Valentine on Oct 24, 2009 2:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

LA will get a team

Its inevitabl. Its ridiculous to think that LA, the largest media market next to New York, lacks a team and yet they’re talking of expansion over seas.

I don't need birthdays. I buy myself everything I need and because of my drinking its often a surprise

by ItsaToomah on Oct 24, 2009 3:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

well

look at the circumstances around the city. when you look at new york, we’re connected to major urban areas in a 3 state radius with 2 major NFL teams for those markets.

LA’s surrounding markets are saturated already with 3 NFL teams, and the market in LA solely isn’t strong enough to support one more. 2 teams have already failed and left LA, there’s really nothing to suggest that another one would succeed.

by cntrlalt on Oct 24, 2009 3:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

to put it

in another perspective, think about moving the giants and jets both to the 5 boroughs inside new york. then move the eagles to jersey, and the patriots to connecticut.

the giants and jets would no longer draw on markets in jersey, white plains, eastern long island and connecticut and would rely solely on the market share within the 5 boroughs. could the giants and jets both survive? maybe..but new york is more of a sports city anyway, while LA is not.

by cntrlalt on Oct 24, 2009 3:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

All good points but

if the Chargers are the team that moves to LA that will just move LA’s closest ,and other southern California market, into LA. With the other two all the way up in the Bay area I think it would be feasable to think the Chargers would be viable in LA. They would still get a lot of the San Diego Market while drawing in more fans from the larger LA area and the surrounding Southern California market. Also if SD was the team to move I don’t think they would need to draw fans from OAK & SF to be viable. The LA/Southern California area is big enough (or should be at least) to sustain a team. Just like the Giants don’t need South Jersey (Eagle territory) to be viable. An LA team should not need northern California to be viable especailly if they keep a good chunk of the Chargers fan base. (Though like you said NY is more of sports town than LA so that remains to be seen.) But if the Chargers are the team I think it could work, especailly if they are good. Remember the Rams sold out until the 90’s when they became one of the worst teams in the NFL and their owner wanted to move the team to St. Louis because she was from there.

by Landeta on Oct 25, 2009 11:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly, what does that say about the L.A. fans abroad?

The second largest market in this country cannot maintain at least one NFL team, but two NBA teams? Whether it was the L.A. Rams/Raiders, they’re the equivalant of the Clippers! I bet the Clippers have been there longer than both the Rams/Raiders existence together?! So what gives in a psychological frame of mind here! Perhaps the NFL is done with it!?

But as far as saturation? There is no more saturation than the east coast! From Boston and down the I-95 corridor to D.C., there can’t be that much more saturation than that! Were talking about the Patriots, Giants, Jets, Eagles, Ravens and Redskins! My thinking doesn’t even take into account of perhaps the Bills, Panthers or Steelers as they are within proximity of other markets!

Not to get off the target, but in reality, what business does L.A. have in deserving of an NFL team? That can be said of a foreign city not in North America! I’m not thinking about Latin or South America, as there are political issues to overcome given our national security!

by Hootman on Oct 24, 2009 7:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I still think they should 'offshore' the whole damn league to China..

Like I said every other business has done that..Why not the NFL??..We’d be watching the “Beijing Bulldogs”..The “Shanghai Shiners”..“The Shenzen Shit kickers”..The “Macao Monks”…etc..

by Bobbiblue on Oct 24, 2009 2:39 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Brazil

I wouldn’t mind having a NFL game here in Brazil. lol

A match in the Maracanã Stadium would be awesome.

Yeah, we like NFL here in Brazil.

by GiantsBRFan on Oct 24, 2009 2:45 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Bad idea

It just won’t work based on the time difference – all games would be 1PM kickoffs in the US – any later and they finish too late in the UK.

Fans in the UK altready support an NFL team – so will not switch to a team based in the UK if it played in the NFL.

Games sell out because UK fans go to see a game rather than a particular team.

It would not get the coverage in the UK as it would be the 5th sport.

Keep bringing the bames over but leave it as just that.

by G Fan in England on Oct 24, 2009 3:24 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Well, there you have it.

Remember those people…what were they called…oh yeah…“fans?” If they ain’t into it…fuggedaboudit.

I left my swagger in my other pants.

by HughG16 on Oct 24, 2009 9:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

They are fans

of the game, but have watched it on TV for 20 years – you cannot expect them to swap teams.

If a new NFL franchise opened in New Jersey would Giants and Jets fans change to support the new team?

by G Fan in England on Oct 25, 2009 5:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Who do they support?

by Landeta on Oct 25, 2009 5:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i think they should make a european league

then take the two best teams and put them in the playoffs so basically wat im saying is make 2 more divisions and put teams from different countries other than england

by metsbaseball93 on Oct 24, 2009 3:32 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

bad idea

nfl just wants more money. england doesn’t even understand american football. (no offense g fan in england) when the giants were taking a knee at the end when the played miami, the fans were booing because they didn’t see why the giants weren’t still throwing the ball. let them have their own sports. let us have ours

by bmanley620 on Oct 24, 2009 4:13 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

How about MNF first

I live in the UK and for the past few years on TV we’ve had 2 of the 1pm games, 2 of the 4pm games, SNF and MNF

This year we now only have 1 of each day game, SNF and no MNF at all

That to me sounds like a step back in interest. So how about the NFL do something about that first, namely really MNF. I don’t see how we could have our own franchise when no one here can even be bothered to show MNF.

by daisymay_tr on Oct 25, 2009 12:02 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs