Roger Goodell plans to expand NFL presence in London

[Denver Native (Carol)]

With both London games already sold out this season, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell has visions of expanding the league's overseas schedule in the future.

Speaking at a New York University conference Tuesday, Goodell revealed that the NFL is planning to add a third London game each year. In fact, Goodell told the New York Post's Bart Hubbuch that there's a chance the Jacksonville Jaguars will begin playing two games in London annually.

The league's goal is to eventually place an NFL team in London. Now that many English Premier League teams have upgraded their stadiums, football games can be played at other venues beyond Wembley Stadium. As London mayor Boris Johnson likes to point out, the $780 million stadium constructed for the 2012 Olympics does not have a permanent tenant.

rest - http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000209140/article/roger-goodell-plans-to-expand-nfl-presence-in-london

[Ravage!!!]

Having a game there from time to time will fill the stadium. But having HOME games there, 8 times a year, and you will find a franchise searching for a new city within 5 years. The "new" will wear off, and the stadiums won't be filled. Not to mention the crappy schedule of having to fly teams there on a regular basis. One team having to fly there, and back, 16 times a year.

The Thursday night games are already hard on the players.

[BroncoWave]

Having a game there from time to time will fill the stadium. But having HOME games there, 8 times a year, and you will find a franchise searching for a new city within 5 years. The "new" will wear off, and the stadiums won't be filled. Not to mention the crappy schedule of having to fly teams there on a regular basis. One team having to fly there, and back, 16 times a year.

The Thursday night games are already hard on the players.

I think if London could somehow land an elite team it would keep the fans interested. Now if a team like the Jaguars were to land there fans would stop going halfway through the first season.

Travel would certainly be the toughest part, but it could be done. Maybe set up the London team's schedule to where they play 4 home games, then 4 away, then 4 home, then 4 away. that cuts down on their cross-continental travel.

[Ravage!!!]

I think if London could somehow land an elite team it would keep the fans interested. Now if a team like the Jaguars were to land there fans would stop going halfway through the first season.

Travel would certainly be the toughest part, but it could be done. Maybe set up the London team's schedule to where they play 4 home games, then 4 away, then 4 home, then 4 away. that cuts down on their cross-continental travel.

Reading articles from writers that go to the London games, show consistantly just how very little the Europeans like football. THey certainly don't know anything about it, and the kids absolutely don't play it. I think the fact that the NFL is there once/twice a year is the reason the stadiums are full. If it was a regular thing, you would see the interest dramatically fall. THe NFL Europe was a collosal failure, and that did NOT raise the interest in American Football.

To get TRUE interest in Europe, the NFL would have to try and change the culture of their sports, and that just isnt' going to happen. I mean, look how hard Americans fight the interest in soccer and how disinterested we are in all the European sports. Do you think that the Europeans are that interested in "americanizing" their sports, they aren't! The NBA would have been able to make their way into European culture MUCH faster than Football, and yet, European basketball sucks! Why? The interest isn't there! Look at baseball... a MUCH easier sport for the Europeans to accept since its similar to some of their own sports, yet, its not popular there. Why is that? Because despite us liking to believe that the Europeans WANT american sports...... they don't.

[Ravage!!!]

Travel would certainly be the toughest part, but it could be done. Maybe set up the London team's schedule to where they play 4 home games, then 4 away, then 4 home, then 4 away. that cuts down on their cross-continental travel.

Then you are giving a team the home field advantage for an entire month that other teams in the NFL don't get. So ironically enough, that crosses into "unfair advantage."

[BroncoWave]

Then you are giving a team the home field advantage for an entire month that other teams in the NFL don't get. So ironically enough, that crosses into "unfair advantage."

They still play 8 home and 8 away games. And any advantage they gain by getting 4 home games in a row is cancelled out by the cross-continental travel and having to play 4 away games in a row.

[BroncoWave]

Reading articles from writers that go to the London games, show consistantly just how very little the Europeans like football. THey certainly don't know anything about it, and the kids absolutely don't play it. I think the fact that the NFL is there once/twice a year is the reason the stadiums are full. If it was a regular thing, you would see the interest dramatically fall. THe NFL Europe was a collosal failure, and that did NOT raise the interest in American Football.

To get TRUE interest in Europe, the NFL would have to try and change the culture of their sports, and that just isnt' going to happen. I mean, look how hard Americans fight the interest in soccer and how disinterested we are in all the European sports. Do you think that the Europeans are that interested in "americanizing" their sports, they aren't! The NBA would have been able to make their way into European culture MUCH faster than Football, and yet, European basketball sucks! Why? The interest isn't there! Look at baseball... a MUCH easier sport for the Europeans to accept since its similar to some of their own sports, yet, its not popular there. Why is that? Because despite us liking to believe that the Europeans WANT american sports...... they don't.

This is what the crowd for most Seattle Sounders (MLS) games look like.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3634/3373441972_0dedca873e.jpg

Soccer has done a great job of catching on in America. No, it's nowhere near the level of the NFL or NBA, but teams like Seattle still have a huge following. I see no reason why the NFL couldn't gain the same type of niche popularity in Europe.

[turftoad]

So much for the NATIONAL Football League. :tsk:

[OrangeHoof]

I'd rather the NFL place a team in Mexico City before flying across the Atlantic. Maybe even a team in Sao Paolo, Brazil.

The London glamor wore off about Year Two of this thing. Now, it's just booooooring.

But if they ever get a true London NFL franchise, I think the only fair way would be to schedule a month of home games then a month of away games, etc otherwise the travel would just be murder. Hell, the East Coast teams already bitch about having to play in California and Seattle. The London team would need to establish a "second home" for training on road trips - perhaps one of the training camp locations that another team uses.

[Timmy!]

Stupid idea is stupid.

[Simple Jaded]

We are just a matter of minutes away from a War and Peace sized history lesson on how much the NFLE screwed the pooch from Joel, if anybody reads it maybe they could trim it down to about 1000 words or less cliff notes style. Mmkay, that'd be great, tia.

[aulaza]

In fairness, the two games for this year were sold out before the superbowl, so the interest is definitely still there. Will it be able to support 9 games per season? Well there is now way of knowing for sure so any guess that it will or won't is speculation. I would suggest that this move to three games is designed to further test the market. They will probably keep expanding until they are sure the market can support a franchise, or until support dies down a bit and its clear a franchise is not an option right now.

As for scheduling, I think you would have to split it up into chunks as has been suggested. Also, a flight from London to the East Coast is not that dissimilar to East Coast/West Coast, and the time difference is only 1 hour more. The problem would be playing a West Coast team. However, if the money is there to be made, you can guarantee the NFL will stop at nothing to expand and make extra money. Last year around the London game I heard Robert Kraft say that the American market is basically maxed out and they need to expand in order to increase revenue significantly.

If the market is there, you can be sure that it will be exploited, any practical problems will be worked around.

[OrangeHoof]

The other issue is that, like Noah's Ark, league expansion ought to be done in pairs so there would have to be two new sustainable markets. I know the NFL has lusted for a team in L.A. but it is used quite well now by disgruntled owners who want better stadium deals to threaten to move to.

Sometimes, you should just accept that a league is the perfect size and not tamper with it. 32 teams. 16-game season. 12 playoff teams. Easy math. Easy scheduling. Why jack with that?

Now, I suppose the Jaguars could be moved to London (with Miami moved to the AFC South) and then you'd have annual visits for the Bills, Patriots and Jets. Would that sit well?

[Ravage!!!]

They still play 8 home and 8 away games. And any advantage they gain by getting 4 home games in a row is cancelled out by the cross-continental travel and having to play 4 away games in a row.

Tell that to the 33 other teams that wouldn't have the advantage of having 4 straight home games. No one cares that they have to fly, its the fact that you can play an entire MONTH with your home crowd at your back. Is that the last month of the year when you are playing all division opponents? The point is, having a team in London WOULD force them to travel as regularly as the rest of the NFL, thus, cause problems for them as well as those they have to play.

The MLS is a LONG ways off from being a successful sport in America. Not only that, but how long has the United States had organized soccer, club soccer, school soccer, and other major league soccer leagues?? DECADES.. and it still isn't even strong enough national television. It's behind tennis.

So although you think that the MLS is a "strong growing" sport in the US, it hasn't shown to be very strong yet. Now in Europe, how many schools play American football? Right now, their organized American Football can be compared to the United States' organized rugby. Small clubs. Do you see Rugby growing fast in the US?

[LTC Pain]

Putting an NFL franchise in Europe would be stupid. Although NFL athletes are finely tuned machines, the traveling team would have a distinct disadvantage because of the effects of crossing multiple time zones and sleep patterns getting screwed up. I've seen the negative affect of a well rested home team playing a tired traveling team in the NHL and it's night and day. I'm not seeing the sense in this at all. Agree with whoever above stated about that a couple of NFL games in London are well supported but the market/interest for an NFL team lin Europe ikely wouldn't be.

[Ravage!!!]

The other issue is that, like Noah's Ark, league expansion ought to be done in pairs so there would have to be two new sustainable markets. I know the NFL has lusted for a team in L.A. but it is used quite well now by disgruntled owners who want better stadium deals to threaten to move to.

Sometimes, you should just accept that a league is the perfect size and not tamper with it. 32 teams. 16-game season. 12 playoff teams. Easy math. Easy scheduling. Why jack with that?

Now, I suppose the Jaguars could be moved to London (with Miami moved to the AFC South) and then you'd have annual visits for the Bills, Patriots and Jets. Would that sit well?

I agree with you 100% on this. Even amount of teams with even amount of teams in each division. So if you add 2 more teams, which division has to have an additional 5th team, and how does that effect how the playoffs? Every division has to play their own division rivals twice, equaling 1/2 the season. That would mean that 2 divisions have 10 games. That's a 25% increase in the number of division games for 2 divisions over the rest... NOT to mention that those other four teams would have to travel across the ocean every year, at least once if not more depending on playoffs.

But then... Goodell.. the man "concerned" with football injuries thinks it would be a good idea to increase the number of games per year, talking out of both sides of his mouth while throwing in Thursday night games on top of that.

[Chef Zambini]

We are just a matter of minutes away from a War and Peace sized history lesson on how much the NFLE screwed the pooch from Joel, if anybody reads it maybe they could trim it down to about 1000 words or less cliff notes style. Mmkay, that'd be great, tia.hilarious.
But joel always adds an intelligent perspective and adult debate, wether one might agree or not.

Joel is an EASY read.
a pleasure compared to the zambini hyroglyphics.

[dogfish]

someone needs to punch goodell in the face. . .

[Chef Zambini]

you all post valid concerns and make lucid poiunts, bravo.
I would not mess with the "32"
each division, and conference, perfect.
adding teams in PAIRS, is absolutely preffered!
and the same would apply in eorope!
all the points about american football popularity are correct, bravo RAV, but there is most definatly an interest, thanks to the "american influences that do exist in eorope, especially our MILITARY !
If we added a second team in GERMANY. then a team could make the travel on a short week or BYE week, and play 3 games while in EUROPE!
this would justify the trAVELL AND MINIMIZE THE TRAVEL IMPACT!
it would also give top tier $$$ fans, a chance to partake in a eoropean vacation and add some culture to their football ferver.
But a mediocre team , regardless of the scheduling would quickly wear-out its welcome, much as manny of you have discribed.


3 GAMES ???
yes, we send TWO continental US teams at the same time!
one plays in munich, the other in london.
they switch opponents for the second week, and then in the third week,
thats right, they play each other !
and you can tighten up the rotation by sending out the next pair of teams and they start by playing EACH oTHER, that way the travel element is the same for both teams.
it could work with a TWO team expansion !
not that I am in favor of it !
the first thing the NFL should do , since thier 18 game schedule failed, is go to a 2 bye-weekls schedule for each team.
this would artificially expand the season and TV coverage.
doing this would also allow the schedule to show some mercy for teams playiong on thursday nights.
Before we run off to europe, lets improve some things at home.
ask ANY player if he would appreciate TWO bye weeks in the middle of the season, never playing more thaN 5 GAMES WITHOUT A BREAK ?

[LTC Pain]

Will an NFL football field fit in a European soccer field???

[Ravage!!!]

Will an NFL football field fit in a European soccer filed???

Yes, soccer fields are bigger then football fields.

[OrangeHoof]

someone needs to punch goodell in the face. . .

Preferably much lower. I know James Harrison and NDonkeyKong Suh will volunteer.

[Ravage!!!]

This is what the crowd for most Seattle Sounders (MLS) games look like.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3634/3373441972_0dedca873e.jpg

Soccer has done a great job of catching on in America. No, it's nowhere near the level of the NFL or NBA, but teams like Seattle still have a huge following. I see no reason why the NFL couldn't gain the same type of niche popularity in Europe.

This made me curious, so I looked it up. The Seattle Sounders is by FAR the most successful team in the league. It averages 39,000 fans per game (down from 43,000 in 2012)... more than DOUBLES the attendance of every other city other than LA (21,000) and Montreal (25,000). The entire MLS, which consists of 19 teams, average 18,000 fans per game.

Other than Col (1996), Houston (2006), Seattle (2009), and KC (1996)....every other team has a lower attendance by an average of over 3,000 people per game since entering the league. Other than Colorado and KC, the other two teams that have increased have only had a team for 7 and 4 years respectively.

Soccer's attendance is just over the average for hockey, but the MLS season is just 30 games compared to Hockey's 82.

[Denver Native (Carol)]

I'd rather the NFL place a team in Mexico City before flying across the Atlantic. Maybe even a team in Sao Paolo, Brazil.

The London glamor wore off about Year Two of this thing. Now, it's just booooooring.

But if they ever get a true London NFL franchise, I think the only fair way would be to schedule a month of home games then a month of away games, etc otherwise the travel would just be murder. Hell, the East Coast teams already bitch about having to play in California and Seattle. The London team would need to establish a "second home" for training on road trips - perhaps one of the training camp locations that another team uses.

Or maybe place a team in Oakland - OH WAIT

[ShaneFalco]

I think it would be cool. Im all for it.

[Chef Zambini]

Preferably much lower. I know James Harrison and NDonkeyKong Suh will volunteer.neither of those guys would be able to resist going beyond one punch.

[Ravage!!!]

neither of those guys would be able to resist going beyond one punch.

Like eating potato chips, when it comes to hitting Goodell, most wouldn't be able to stop with just one.

[BroncoWave]

Soccer's attendance is just over the average for hockey, but the MLS season is just 30 games compared to Hockey's 82.

So you're admitting that it's on par with one of the 4 major sports then.

[Chef Zambini]

18k is B-ball and hockey attendance, thats what fits in a typical indoor arena.
these would be impressive numbers if it was indoor soccer, but it is not.
culteral appeal, it is undeniable.
But if marketed correctly, and our large military presence in germany is honored with a second team there, a europian swing could work for the NFL.
I dont think it justifies breaking up the perfect "32",
but it could work.
I am just not sure european audiences are comfortable with a game where there is more violence on the field, than there is in the stands.

[Ravage!!!]

So you're admitting that it's on par with one of the 4 major sports then.

Admitting? Well, I'm saying that soccer has been around the United States for decades in schools and in clubs, and the DECLINING attendance at the MLS soccer games has the average at 18,000 per game. Also, Hockey is NOT one of the 4 major sports, when it comes to attendance or TV revenue (NASCAR and MMA has it clobbered). I'm pointing out that DESPITE soccer having organized clubs and school teams for nearly 40 years, that it just NOW has one team that can get over 30,000 spectators. ONE team.

The reason the interest in a sport rises is because people play, have played, or want to play that sport. When a country hasn't even had more than "club" teams (much like we have rugby) in their country, how many kids have played, will play, or hope to play american football when its no where to be found?

[Ravage!!!]

I am just not sure european audiences are comfortable with a game where there is more violence on the field, than there is in the stands.

hah... true.

But if you ask Europeans, they prefer the game of rugby over american football. Sure they can fill the stadium for a game, two or three, a year...because the Super Bowl is such a worldly event and people want to go and see "the game" that is around. But filling that stadium for 8 games.. year after year after year? I don't think Europe is close to that kind of fanbase. Some teams in the american MLS have been around since 1996, and have LOWER attendance now than they did 17 years ago. That's not growth, and the NFL Europe showed just how little interest there is for american football on a regular basis.

[Chef Zambini]

they had what 6-8 teams in nfl-e ?
too saturated to start.
as a developmental league it was far too expensive to operate over sees.
the NFL tried to accomplish TWO major advancemants at once, developmental league and expansion. they tried to kill two birds with one stone.
I think the continental european community could easily support 2 games in 2 cities with tourist interest and appeal, as well as an already well established american tourist market.
a team making the trans-continental flight to play 3 games will be in a much better position to compete on a fair rest, have a chance to enjoy the "location with family".
and it would be the easiest to promote while being cost effective.
the added third game would give all the other euro cities in a rotation and competition for RESULTS when they host the game between the two travelling america teams.

[OrangeHoof]

Berlin and Barcelona were the only two teams on the continent that seemed even close to sustaining NFL-e.

[Simple Jaded]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9352073/andrew-whitworth-quit-team-moved-london

Yeah.

[sneakers]

Just relocate the Bills there

[Dapper Dan]

Ron Paul thinks the NFL should stay out of other countries.

[OrangeHoof]

From the article cited above:


The Jacksonville Jaguars (http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/jac/jacksonville-jaguars) will play a game in London again this season; it's the fourth straight year the Jags will play in England.

Wait - I thought Goodell was trying to sell the Brits on the NFL and yet he keeps sending them the Hags? I think this just expands my earlier point of moving the Jaguars to London and probably moving the Dolphins to the AFC South. This is the warm-up act, sending the Jaguars there repeatedly and sending out smoke signals that they'd like to put a team in London.

And Whitworth is right - more than a few players would not want to go there. Since the league is 70% black and their likely impression of London is a land of stuffy (and pasty) white people, I'm sure a lot of the brothers would be unhappy to go. What they don't realize is that London is increasingly becoming a land for Arab Muslims who are slowly killing off the infidel Brits a little at a time. Denmark is becoming the same way.

[MOtorboat]

From the article cited above:



Wait - I thought Goodell was trying to sell the Brits on the NFL and yet he keeps sending them the Hags? I think this just expands my earlier point of moving the Jaguars to London and probably moving the Dolphins to the AFC South. This is the warm-up act, sending the Jaguars there repeatedly and sending out smoke signals that they'd like to put a team in London.

And Whitworth is right - more than a few players would not want to go there. Since the league is 70% black and their likely impression of London is a land of stuffy (and pasty) white people, I'm sure a lot of the brothers would be unhappy to go. What they don't realize is that London is increasingly becoming a land for Arab Muslims who are slowly killing off the infidel Brits a little at a time. Denmark is becoming the same way.

Do you think you could add some more stereotypes to this?

Whitworth, who is white, said he doesn't want to play in London. Amani Toomer, who is black, said he loved the experience as a Giant (no link, heard a radio interview over the weekend).

I don't think race plays into it all.

[Dapper Dan]

The new team would be the Redcoats. I would cheer for the Patriots once.

[Chef Zambini]

wow, we need some ideas for names for the never gonna happen london team!
Damn Yankees
The FOGetaboutits.
the" go FOG yourselves."
Lon-done and buried.
(whats the name of that harry potter game? )
Yank my chaingang
the pipe dreamers
the smokeblowers
the titanics, historic pond crossers.
the hindinburgs
the spawning salmon...


cmon guys pitch in !

[Chef Zambini]

the London Out post.

[Chef Zambini]

union jack and the rippers.

[Chef Zambini]

badteeth.

[FanInAZ]

union jack and the rippers.

That sounds more like a name of a metal band.

[Ravage!!!]

Rippers would be a cool name, if it didn't describe a homicidal maniac.

OHH!!... Homicidal Maniacs! NAILED IT!

[Joel]

Two equally irresistable factors ensure the NFLs European expansion is a question of when and how much, not if.

1) Its US market is saturated to the point of marginal returns on additional investment, with few (if any) profitable new areas to exploit. The main reason is revenue-sharing. The NFL divides most revenue into 32 equal shares, the only reason unprofitable teams like the Jags can afford a ball, let alone roster salaries. Merchandise is the largest single most profitable source: Balls, jerseys, jackets, caps, posters, mugs, bobbleheads; Amazon probably even sells Raider toilet paper (I sure hope so.) The next largest revenue source is reportedly Madden NFL, and of course broadcast contracts are highly lucrative, too.

Expansion teams cannot increase any of that much. They might sell a little more NFL gear, but L.A. residents aren't boycotting Madden until they get a home team, and L.A. affiliates already air five NFL games/week; another million or two viewers would justify charging networks any more to air games (especially since only one bidder, ABC, currently lacks such a contract.) The only thing expansion would significantly raise is stadium receipts—one of the few things NOT equally shared, but held by their respective teams and (usually) host cities.

Look at this from the perspective of owners, if only because they alone decide whether and where to expand: Expansion in the US would actually COST each of them a great deal of money. All it offers is another awful Cleveland or Jacksonville team current owners would have to subsidize to maintain, while ceding top college talent as well as several of their own best players in an expansion draft.

Think 32 NFL owners will unanimously vote for PAYING new owners to loot their players and compete with them?

2) The EU market has the worlds largest GDP and a population 50% larger than the US, most of both concentrated in about half a dozen countries; the NFLs share of that is minimal. Anecdotally, I see many Yankees and even some Dodgers caps daily, but none of their NFL counterparts, not even from the Giants; FIFA 13 is in high demand, but stores can't sell and thus don't stock Madden. Broadcasts are profitable enough ESPN America airs the weekly night games plus two others, much as in the US, but it's a premium channel subsisting on US expatriates; it probably couldn't survive without charging them a monthly fee for US sports.

European expansion is an accounting game changer. Suddenly the NFL would have more than just 4-5 networks bidding for games; it could sell broadcasts to places like Eurosport and Eurosport2 (instead of the latter showing me US arena football for free, but demanding I pay for European league gridiron.) Half a billion viewers with a GDP >$16 trillion would be bombarded with reasons to give NFL Properties money. No longer would the NFL ask people to support teams playing an unfamiliar game on the other side of the globe.

That local connection is critical, and was one of the big flaws in WLAF/NFL Europe/a. Distance isn't always a factor here (e.g. one of my wifes cousins is a rabid Arsenal fan, her best friend a rabid Manchester City fan, even though both live >1000 km from England.) However, local ties ARE vital to establish a market foothold; fans need SOMETHING in common with any team seeking their support. A "European" gridiron league where everyone but the kicker was American and instantly vanished once invited to the NFL (or even CFL) was a huge mistake, because it ensured no European fan could ever identify with "their" team.

The problem with the NFLs European farm league was that it WAS an NFL farm league. I know we have some hardcore baseball fans here: Would any of you buy tickets STARTING at $200 to watch A baseball? Just so you could say, "yeah, I watched Kurt Warner start for Amsterdam, backed up by Jake Delhomme, for a whole year before they left us to play REAL football"? Rather than requiring all-American teams have a token European kicker, allowing no MORE than one American player would be far more sustainable (and not just because it developed half a billion talented but inexperienced European athletes.)

European teams can only succeed if they are just that: Composed of players, including many Europeans, tied to European cities, not just awful US players trying to slum their way to the Bigs. That model was so deeply flawed in so many ways I don't know how the NFL expected it to succeed. It stocked a League with FOREIGN players even the CFL didn't want, paid them minimal wages to play a FOREIGN game, snatched back the few decent players who slipped through the cracks to the cellar league, then wondered why no one in Europe would PAY to see that garbage.

By whatever means though, this WILL happen sooner or later; NFL fans can like it or lump it, but can't AVOID it, so should make their peace with it now. The NFL smells money, which it has never been able to resist, hence it's spent two decades or more trying to find any way it can into the EU market. Like Americas, that accounts for 25% of global GDP; unlike America, the NFL only gets a thin trickle of it broadcasting to Europe all season. I'm not even sure they get to charge ESPN additional fees, since they already have a much bigger US broadcast contract.

The only reason there's not already a true NFL Europe is the leagues frantic search for a way to (literally) capitalize on that rich opportunity has so far been fruitless, but that only redoubles efforts to find one.

[Ravage!!!]

We are just a matter of minutes away from a War and Peace sized history lesson on how much the NFLE screwed the pooch from Joel, if anybody reads it maybe they could trim it down to about 1000 words or less cliff notes style. Mmkay, that'd be great, tia.

NAILED it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Joel]

It's a good question with many possible answers. The key point is the need for a permanent European presence. That's as much a logistic as commercial factor. Each team playing an annual London regular season game is one thing (if EVERY team played one (and only one) London game Wembley could sell season tickets to as many home games as any NFL stadium.) Expecting a London FRANCHISE to play eight transcontinental road games is another matter entirely. Putting that in four game blocks might help—or just permanently jeglag the team: By the time they adjust to the new time zone they're leaving for the other.

Make no mistake, that's a huge difference. Seattle-Miami or NYC-San Diego (pretty much the farthest any two NFL teams must fly to play each other—NOW) is ~2500 miles, 5-6 hours by air with a time shift of 4. New York to London is another 1000 miles and 2 hours of flight time even non-stop, with a 5 hour time shift; West Coast teams would add the width of the US for a 10 hour flight (non-stop) across 6000 miles to a place 8 hours ahead of their hometown. Reverse all that for a London team flying there.

A full European division is the only (and necessary) alternative. That would cut 6 grueling transcontinental games; a European division in BOTH conferences would cut 4 more, leaving a far more manageable 3 at home and 3 away (or 4 each if the league goes to 18 game seasons.)

Put eight teams in two European divisions offer NFL salaries and give them exclusive rights (or at least right of first refusal) in annual European drafts, then watch how fast things change. People talk about expansion diluting talent: If we TRIPLED the pool of players while increasing the teams by just 25%, would overall talent go up or down? Which league would have the greater average talent:

1) A 32 team league drawn from 320 million people or 2) a 40 team league drawn from 900 billion?

Start with an AFC division in say, London, Paris, Amsterdam and Madrid, then an NFC division in Berlin, Frankfurt, Zurich and Milan. Each division plays a round robin schedule like now (6 all-European games,) the other conferences European division (4 more all-European games) and the team with the same division finish in each of the 8 current NFL divisions (8 games) for an 18 game season. Current NFL schedules wouldn't change, except for each US team playing a game against the teams with the same finish in both European divisions.

Eventually we'd want a pair of European conferences playing for a European championship, with the winner facing the NFL champ in a transcontinental Super Bowl, but that would take decades. That's just one of many possible approaches though; the critical concept is self-sufficient teams in the centers of European population and finance:

Germany (GDP $3.6 trillion, pop. 82 million) France (GDP $2.8 trillion, pop. 65 million) The UK (GDP $2.5 trillion, pop. 63 million) Italy (GDP $2.2 trillion, pop. 61 million) Spain (GDP $1.5 trillion, pop. 47 million) The Netherlands (GDP $0.8 trillion, pop. 17 million) Belgium (GDP $0.5 trillion, pop. 11 million) Switzerland (GDP $0.7 trillion, pop. 8 million)

Bear in mind the Randstad and Flemish Diamond are so close, large and densely populated they're practically a single economic unit, so we can consider the Netherlands and Belgium one area of 30 million people with a GDP of $1.3 trillion. Essentially, and ideally, NFL expansion should be along Europes "Blue" and "Golden" "Bananas:" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Banana http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Banana

That's most EU residents (350 million of half a billion people, ~70%) and money ($14.5 trillion of a $16 trillion GDP, ~90%.) There are other parts, of course, just with far less money and (except for Poland) people.

[Dzone]

This sucks. Screw London.
If Europeans want to watch American Football, tell them to come over here and watch it. Then hurry up and go back to where they came from

[Joel]

NAILED it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yeah, except replace "minutes" with "days." Mainly because I didn't feel like debating my merits rather than the topics. ;)

[Ravage!!!]

Yeah, except replace "minutes" with "days." Mainly because I didn't feel like debating my merits rather than the topics. ;)

So it WOULD have been minutes had you not chosen to intentionally NOT post.

[Ravage!!!]

Yes.. decades. I think someone mentioned that.

[Joel]

Reading articles from writers that go to the London games, show consistantly just how very little the Europeans like football. THey certainly don't know anything about it, and the kids absolutely don't play it. I think the fact that the NFL is there once/twice a year is the reason the stadiums are full. If it was a regular thing, you would see the interest dramatically fall. THe NFL Europe was a collosal failure, and that did NOT raise the interest in American Football.

To get TRUE interest in Europe, the NFL would have to try and change the culture of their sports, and that just isnt' going to happen. I mean, look how hard Americans fight the interest in soccer and how disinterested we are in all the European sports. Do you think that the Europeans are that interested in "americanizing" their sports, they aren't! The NBA would have been able to make their way into European culture MUCH faster than Football, and yet, European basketball sucks! Why? The interest isn't there! Look at baseball... a MUCH easier sport for the Europeans to accept since its similar to some of their own sports, yet, its not popular there. Why is that? Because despite us liking to believe that the Europeans WANT american sports...... they don't.
There's interest, it's just never been developed, because the NFL never offered any option but paying to see awful foreign players play a foreign game badly, with any true stars rushing off to the NFL (or even CFL) at the first chance. Same reason Americans don't follow soccer: Our best athletes play sports that earn them more money and fame (in the US.) so our soccer players suck, and no one wants to pay to watch some Lithuanian scrub play soccer just as badly as our own guys.

Yet if Eurosport2s freakin' ARENA league and ESPN Americas NFL regular season broadcasts make money, there's definitely enough interest to make it profitable. These guys http://www.eurobowl.info/index.php?Inhalt=newsmeldung&ID=1663 maintain a HS and JHS league right alongside their pro league (with both a touch and full contact version for the youngest kids,) so don't tell me Europeans are all clueless about gridiron football. The cricket/baseball comparison only works in Britain; cricket's less popular than gridiron in the rest of Europe, but rugby (from which football evolved) IS popular.


However, if the money is there to be made, you can guarantee the NFL will stop at nothing to expand and make extra money. Last year around the London game I heard Robert Kraft say that the American market is basically maxed out and they need to expand in order to increase revenue significantly.

If the market is there, you can be sure that it will be exploited, any practical problems will be worked around.
This; a thousand times this. Outside L.A. there's no new major media market for the NFL to exploit, and even in small markets the league already sells plenty of gear and Madden, while local network affiliates air 5 games/week just like in NYC or Chicago. That's why the NFL has been overtly and desperately chasing women for a decade or more: The NFL share of US males is already as large as it will ever be, and the League knows it. As with most things, the answer to the question of "WTF is the NFL doing this?!" is "follow the money."

[Joel]

This sucks. Screw London.
If Europeans want to watch American Football, tell them to come over here and watch it. Then hurry up and go back to where they came from
If every European went back whence they came you'd probably be somewhere in Europe griping about greedy imperialist Cherokees (or some tribe) shoving their weird foreign sports down your throat. Comments like this and observations Ron Paul, James Harrison and Suh hate the idea just make it look better and better. Many fans may dislike "Euros," but the NFL desperately wants euros. ;) Accept the inevitable.

[OrangeHoof]

You would also have to weigh the strength of the Euro vis-a-vis the dollar. That's an issue with Canadian teams in other sports.

[Ravage!!!]

You would also have to weigh the strength of the Euro vis-a-vis the dollar. That's an issue with Canadian teams in other sports.

YEah.. from wht I understand its the taxes that really hurt an american team in Canada. Everyone thinks is "free" med care until they see your taxes (from what I understand).

[Joel]

You would also have to weigh the strength of the Euro vis-a-vis the dollar. That's an issue with Canadian teams in other sports.
The cited EU GDP was in dollars; EU GDP>US GDP (or any other,) most of it in half a dozen countries. The per capita GDP of most of them is slightly lower than the US, mainly because the total GDP is about even but their population is slightly greater. The economies are roughly comparable though, so expanding there could theoretically DOUBLE the NFLs $9 billion annual revenue.

For what it's worth, the euro's been falling and the dollar rising recently, so €3 is only worth $4 currently.


YEah.. from wht I understand its the taxes that really hurt an american team in Canada. Everyone thinks is "free" med care until they see your taxes (from what I understand).
It's practically a zero-sum game: Expenses are less because more essential goods and services are from government, but that just makes the cost part of taxes rather than direct. Individual costs are equalized because no longer tied to individual use, and economy of scale theoretically reduces total cost just as for large businesses, but the difference shouldn't be much. It might affect players and teams choice of tax-home (especially since the US taxes nationals on ALL income, whereever they earn it or reside, but only taxes corporations on US income) but not much, since US nationals can deduct their foreign taxes from US taxes.

[Dzone]

If every European went back whence they came you'd probably be somewhere in Europe griping about greedy imperialist Cherokees (or some tribe) shoving their weird foreign sports down your throat. Comments like this and observations Ron Paul, James Harrison and Suh hate the idea just make it look better and better. Many fans may dislike "Euros," but the NFL desperately wants euros. ;) Accept the inevitable.
This country is overpopulated and we dont have the money to take care of all the new folks. Sad but true.

[Joel]

This country is overpopulated and we dont have the money to take care of all the new folks. Sad but true.
Debatable; EU population is nearly twice ours and its land area less than half, yet it has the worlds highest GDP. Hence precious few US immigrants in the past half century were European anyway. If you oppose NFL European expansion because the US can't support European refugees the response is 1) no one is asking us to and 2) wtf does that have to do with NFL expansion?

[Dzone]

lmao!!!

[Broncos Mtnman]

Goodell's plan to destroy the NFL is right on schedule.

2930

[Joel]

Much as I loathe Goodell and sympathize with that pic, he ultimately does nothing but exactly what the owners tell him. He has some latitude absent owner consensus, but when agreement's unanimous or nearly so he's just the mouthpiece we blame for their decisions. I complained at length about the ban on backs leading with their head, but did Goodell approve it? No: 31 of 32 owners voted to make it a rule, so now it is.

The owners smell money: $16 trillion of it. Putting the players in pink shoes every October won't double their profits any more than putting a team in L.A. will. The money's in Europe, and if the mountain won't come to Mohammed, Mohammed must go to the mountain. That simple, and how any of us feels about it is irrelevant unless we have $16 trillion to change the owners minds.

[Simple Jaded]

Every time you rant about NFL Europe the amount the owners will make goes up. It's like a fishing story, every time you hear it the fish gets bigger.

16 trillion could buy the entire ******* league, you'd think with that kinda money the ******* Euros could start their own league.......if only they wanted to.

[GEM]

Just bring back NFL Europe, build the brand and go from there.

Oh wait, they already did that and failed. :coffee:

[Broncos Mtnman]

The owners smell money: $16 trillion of it. Putting the players in pink shoes every October won't double their profits any more than putting a team in L.A. will. The money's in Europe, and if the mountain won't come to Mohammed, Mohammed must go to the mountain. That simple, and how any of us feels about it is irrelevant unless we have $16 trillion to change the owners minds.

$16 Trillion? That's more than the entire GDP of America for a year. I think you're exaggerating a bit.

:rolleyes:

[aulaza]

Its a little dissapointing when people regard efforts to grow the game abroad to 'destroying the NFL'. We're not that awful guys!! And many of us love football too!

[Dapper Dan]

You guys already have "football".

[aulaza]

So we therefore can't also enjoy the NFL? I really don't understand the mindset.

[Dapper Dan]

Of course you can. With NFL Sunday Ticket.

[Ravage!!!]

So we therefore can't also enjoy the NFL? I really don't understand the mindset.

Has nothing to do with the people in England, Britain, Germany, or any of the surrounding countries. Has EVERYTHING to do with Goodell already taking a league that is absolutely thriving, and trying to ruin it by over-stretching the boundries. I'm not talking about country boundries, I'm talking about spreading the talent pool. I'm talking about extending a league over seas and over time-zones that make it extremely difficult to include into the NFL. We already see how it effects 2 teams during the regular season, having to deal with the difficulties of supporting an NFL team (not only with the local fan market but the traveling of teams to and away) is something that most fans do NOT want to see involved in America's favorite sport. There is no other top professional sport (team sport) that does this.

I'm just glad I was born early enough so that I would have had football for a majority of my life. It's going to be dead by the time I'm old.

[Joel]

Every time you rant about NFL Europe the amount the owners will make goes up. It's like a fishing story, every time you hear it the fish gets bigger.

16 trillion could buy the entire ******* league, you'd think with that kinda money the ******* Euros could start their own league.......if only they wanted to.
No, I've used the $16 trillion EU GDP number from the start. The NFL owners wouldn't get all of it any more than they do the smaller US GDP, but even 1% of 1% it would be >$1.5 billion (i.e. 15% more profit.)

Just bring back NFL Europe, build the brand and go from there.

Oh wait, they already did that and failed. :coffee:
Right, because no one in their right mind will pay top dollar (or even bottom dollar) to watch foreign rejects play a foreign game badly. Imagine the rest of the world sent us former HS soccer players who couldn't even get college scholarships (let alone make a FIFA team) instead of guys like Pele and Beckham. Would you pay $200 a seat to watch that, knowing any decent (foreign) player who somehow made it to your team would be gone like a shot once he had a shot at a REAL team?

Paul Tagliabue had a crazy idea the solution to the problem of US fans unwilling to pay to watch an NFL farm league was charing Europeans to watch and NFL farm league. Scary thing: Not Tagliabues worst idea.


$16 Trillion? That's more than the entire GDP of America for a year. I think you're exaggerating a bit.

:rolleyes:
Right, I already said that. What part of EU GDP>US GDP was too complicated? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)


So we therefore can't also enjoy the NFL? I really don't understand the mindset.
You're not ALLOWED; apparently Europeans should "go back where they came from" and stay the HELL out of gridiron (Jim Thorpe would surely agree.) Never mind American football was only invented when a visiting SOCCER team (from Eton, no less) told Yales RUGBY team 11 players worked better than 12. Get the :censored: over it, folks: Want a purely American game free of evil European influences? Play/watch lacrosse.


Has nothing to do with the people in England, Britain, Germany, or any of the surrounding countries. Has EVERYTHING to do with Goodell already taking a league that is absolutely thriving, and trying to ruin it by over-stretching the boundries. I'm not talking about country boundries, I'm talking about spreading the talent pool. I'm talking about extending a league over seas and over time-zones that make it extremely difficult to include into the NFL. We already see how it effects 2 teams during the regular season, having to deal with the difficulties of supporting an NFL team (not only with the local fan market but the traveling of teams to and away) is something that most fans do NOT want to see involved in America's favorite sport. There is no other top professional sport (team sport) that does this.

I'm just glad I was born early enough so that I would have had football for a majority of my life. It's going to be dead by the time I'm old.
We've been over this: 300% the athletes for 125% of the teams fortifies the talent pool rather than reducing it. Believe it or not, nothing in Americas melting pot uniquely suits us to football.

But get used to it, because the EU has the worlds highest GDP (by about a trillion dollars) whether or not anyone knows/is willing to accept it, and (again) nearly all of it is in six countries ripe for NFL exploitation.

[GEM]

So take down the level of the brand where it's working in order to branch out and take some money from a market where it hasn't worked.

Sounds good.

Build an NFL Europe. A real one with real athletes. Then have a couple games a season where a couple of those teams come here and couple of US teams goes there and its international conference play.

Crossing the NFL players across the ocean multiple times during the season will make the product in the US worse. The athletes here will feel the effects of it.

[Joel]

Of course you can. With NFL Sunday Ticket.
Sunday Ticket's not available in Europe, and the NFL's not exactly making money hand over fist with it even in the US. You just neatly illustrated the irresistible twin motives for the inevitable European expansion:

1) The NFL has already squeezed every possible dollar from the US market but 2) barely scratched the surface of the EUs larger more lucrative one. Offset the NFLs couple billion reasons to expand, or get used to it.

[Ravage!!!]

We've been over this: 300% the athletes for 125% of the teams fortifies the talent pool rather than reducing it. Believe it or not, nothing in Americas melting pot uniquely suits us to football.

But get used to it, because the EU has the worlds highest GDP (by about a trillion dollars) whether or not anyone knows/is willing to accept it, and (again) nearly all of it is in six countries ripe for NFL exploitation.

What the hell are you talking about? 300% of the athletes for 125% of the teams? The talent pool for GOOD football players is already stretched thin...adding a team in a country that doesn't even PLAY football, will NOT ADD to the talent pool. Get off your high, smug, horse.

[Northman]

Just send Tebow to play in Europe ball. He will become a king there.

[Ravage!!!]

So take down the level of the brand where it's working in order to branch out and take some money from a market where it hasn't worked.

Sounds good.

Build an NFL Europe. A real one with real athletes. Then have a couple games a season where a couple of those teams come here and couple of US teams goes there and its international conference play.

Crossing the NFL players across the ocean multiple times during the season will make the product in the US worse. The athletes here will feel the effects of it.

Exactly. FIRST, we have to see if a football league would even work in the EU. I mean, they don't have football available to play in schools, they don't have leagues, they don't have their summer "pop warner" leagues...yet we are supposed to believe that they will supply enough interest to interest filling stadiums once a week. Lets see if they can support a summer "canadian" type of team before we waste our time putting a team and ruining what has been built here in the US.

[MOtorboat]

If the NFL wants to really gauge European interest, they need to play a Super Bowl in London, and quit sending these random, mostly useless, regular season games to Wembley.

The Super Bowl is a worldwide television event, but mostly a corporate on site event. Host the thing and London with all the media events and fan events, and you could gauge actual interest in the sport in the European market. Quit sending the Jaguars over to play.

As far as travel, I don't see why a six hour flight to London is much different than a five hour flight to San Diego...

[Ravage!!!]

If the NFL wants to really gauge European interest, they need to play a Super Bowl in London, and quit sending these random, mostly useless, regular season games to Wembley.

The Super Bowl is a worldwide television event, but mostly a corporate on site event. Host the thing and London with all the media events and fan events, and you could gauge actual interest in the sport in the European market. Quit sending the Jaguars over to play.

As far as travel, I don't see why a six hour flight to London is much different than a five hour flight to San Diego...

I disagree. How will hosting one of the largest Sports events in the world prove interest in a sport rather than just prove interest in a single Spectacle event?

As far as travel...what is the time difference (not hours flying) from the midwest to Britain? SIX (6) hours.. not 1,2, or 3.... SIX. More from the west coast.

[GEM]

If the NFL wants to really gauge European interest, they need to play a Super Bowl in London, and quit sending these random, mostly useless, regular season games to Wembley.

The Super Bowl is a worldwide television event, but mostly a corporate on site event. Host the thing and London with all the media events and fan events, and you could gauge actual interest in the sport in the European market. Quit sending the Jaguars over to play.

As far as travel, I don't see why a six hour flight to London is much different than a five hour flight to San Diego...

Mo....a flight from San Diego to London takes 15 hours and 53 mins. So, would you just take San Diego off the list of teams to fly to London? Isn't that creating an unfair advantage for San Diego in that they wouldn't have to? If you made them, you are creating an unfair advantage for their opponent who wouldn't have that kind of travel time.

In short....so many logistics that makes this just not work.

[GEM]

I disagree. How will hosting one of the largest Sports events in the world prove interest in a sport rather than just prove interest in a single Spectacle event?

Especially since it will mostly just be Americans traveling over there. I don't see a whole lot of Europeans flying over here for it.

[MOtorboat]

Mo....a flight from San Diego to London takes 15 hours and 53 mins.

San Francisco had back to back east coast games last year so they stayed in Ohio and practiced in Youngstown last year. The teams will adjust for flight times.

[Joel]

So take down the level of the brand where it's working in order to branch out and take some money from a market where it hasn't worked.

Sounds good.

Build an NFL Europe. A real one with real athletes. Then have a couple games a season where a couple of those teams come here and couple of US teams goes there and its international conference play.

Crossing the NFL players across the ocean multiple times during the season will make the product in the US worse. The athletes here will feel the effects of it.
I agree; didn't I say so in my second response to this thread?

[GEM]

I agree; didn't I say so in my second response to this thread?

If you agree...then what is your point?

[Ravage!!!]

If you agree...then what is your point?

That it inevitable despite our displeasure with the idea. As if we dont realize that our "dislike" isn't going to change anything.

[Ravage!!!]

San Francisco had back to back east coast games last year so they stayed in Ohio and practiced in Youngstown last year. The teams will adjust for flight times.

That's different than a 16 hour flight and a 8 hour time change.

[GEM]

Also, if Goodell is planning on building a presence in London and building popularity, the last team he should be doing it with is the Jaguars. They don't even have a face of the franchise on that team. Makes a bad move even worse. Least you could do, if you're going to do it, is put a bonafide winner on the field so the Europeans actually see a great product.

[Ravage!!!]

Also, if Goodell is planning on building a presence in London and building popularity, the last team he should be doing it with is the Jaguars. They don't even have a face of the franchise on that team. Makes a bad move even worse. Least you could do, if you're going to do it, is put a bonafide winner on the field so the Europeans actually see a great product.

No bonifide winner is going to move from the market they are already in.

I think they should move Cleveland.... and just watch that city BLOW UP for having a second team move out from under them!

[MOtorboat]

Also, if Goodell is planning on building a presence in London and building popularity, the last team he should be doing it with is the Jaguars. They don't even have a face of the franchise on that team. Makes a bad move even worse. Least you could do, if you're going to do it, is put a bonafide winner on the field so the Europeans actually see a great product.

That's why I made the point about the Super Bowl. If you keep sending your shittiest team over, because their attendance sucks, you're not building a brand or gauging interest properly.

[GEM]

That's why I made the point about the Super Bowl. If you keep sending your shittiest team over, because their attendance sucks, you're not building a brand or gauging interest properly.

Having a Super Bowl isn't really gauging either. Most of the people there will be Americans who traveled there.

[Timmy!]

Stupid idea is still stupid.

[GEM]

No bonifide winner is going to move from the market they are already in.

I think they should move Cleveland.... and just watch that city BLOW UP for having a second team move out from under them!

I don't agree with moving any of our teams there permanently. Build a real NFL Europe. Then institute international conference play.

[Ravage!!!]

I don't agree with moving any of our teams there permanently. Build a real NFL Europe. Then institute international conference play.

To me, this is the only way. There really is no market in the EU right now for american football. Sure they can fill a stadium once or twice a year. It's "new"..its "different".. and people come. But filling a stadium 8 times a year (or more since we would have to expand the season, thus expand the number of games) is difficult. Ask San Diego, who not only is a large market, not only is already in america, but has had a team for decades. How anyone thinks that the EU fanbase is solid enough to support a team, is beyond me. I don't care how much money is "possible" to tap into.

[Ravage!!!]

The Jags are the only team tha t has shown interest in building a fan bas in London, and has already signed a 4 year deal that will send them to London once a year for a home game. I remember reading that no other team was interested in traveling once a year to London, but the Jags are desperate to build a fan base... somewhere. Maybe adding the London fans will help. Starting 2013, they get one home game a season in London:

http://jacksonville.com/sports/football/jaguars/2012-08-21/story/jaguars-play-one-home-game-year-london-beginning-2013

[OrangeHoof]

Plus, Justin Blackmon will have a legitimate excuse for driving on the wrong side of the road.

[Joel]

What the hell are you talking about? 300% of the athletes for 125% of the teams? The talent pool for GOOD football players is already stretched thin...adding a team in a country that doesn't even PLAY football, will NOT ADD to the talent pool. Get off your high, smug, horse.
I mean EU pop. 500 million+US pop. 310 millio~3XUS pop. 310 million. Combined that's basically one Germany less than THREE TIMES the US alone. C'mon, this is INTEGER math: 1+2=3. Pardon me "smugly" expecting you to be Smarter Than a First Grader. Seriously, what's up with ya'll constantly saying I'm "arrogant" for believing fellow members aren't drooling idiots. Assuming ya'll are stupid would be HUMBLE?! :confused:


Exactly. FIRST, we have to see if a football league would even work in the EU. I mean, they don't have football available to play in schools, they don't have leagues, they don't have their summer "pop warner" leagues...yet we are supposed to believe that they will supply enough interest to interest filling stadiums once a week. Lets see if they can support a summer "canadian" type of team before we waste our time putting a team and ruining what has been built here in the US.
They most certainly DO have leagues; I've linked to the governing body of no less than THREE European gridiron leagues, multiple times. But once again, THIS European league http://www.efaf.info/text.php?Inhalt=competitions has

1) A JV flag league
2) A JV tackle league
3) A V tackle league and
4) An adult pro tackle league

Its site even claims to have a boys AND girls league, though I'm not sure if that's at the pro, teen or both levels. We don't even know if it would work in Europe? It's been working since the mid-eighties. They don't have leagues? Stop saying demonstrably (and repeatedly demonstrated) things.

Honestly, this is why I nearly didn't bother enduring this again: "I personally dislike you, so I'm ignoring everything you said, quoted and linked, and just denying all facts to vent my spleen at you. And you're a stuck up jerk for assuming your ability to count twenty without removing your shoes means EVERYONE can." Never MIND; if it bothers you THAT much, I HUMBLY promise to never dare doubt your ignorance again.


If you agree...then what is your point?
Actually, Jaded's half right about what my point is; my other point is what you said (after I'd already said it here: http://www.broncosforums.com/forums/showthread.php/550585-Roger-Goodell-plans-to-expand-NFL-presence-in-London?p=1976626#post1976626.)

I overcomplicated that, though the basic idea is still good:

Both conferences add a European divison. Each division plays itself double round robin (6 games, same as now.) It also plays the other European division single round robin (2 home and 2 road games, same as current inter-divisional play.) Then they play every current NFL team with the same division finish last year, half at home and half on the road.

That maintains existing NFL teams as primarily American; half would play in Europe ONCE a year, the others would host ONE European team. Likewise, the two European divisions have a decidedly European schedule; 10/18 games would be on their side of the Pond. That means US teams would only be jetlagged for one game a year (or none,) and it European teams just four times.

Yes, it's an 18 game season; Goodell's made it VERY clear he's committed to that, too. So we drop the last preseason game (the one played after virtually all rosters are decided; it's basically just a warm up game for the starters, so why not make it count?) and stop giving the top four division winners a free pass to the divisional round, since they've had a dubious record of "proving" they deserve it.

Look, on the way to mother-in-laws birthday party tonight we passed a guy in a Dodgers cap, and her 13 year old nephew arrived in a Yankess cap prominently emblazoned with that logo and MLBs. The latter was obvious since he wore it like a rally cap even though NO ONE HERE KNOWS WTF A RALLY CAP IS! Because, you see, baseball is even less popular than football; the Yankees and Dodgers caps are everywhere because of a taste for things American (and, admittedly, NYC and L.A. especially.) Does anyone doubt there's money to be made off that with football? No NFL owner does.

Again, that bottom line IS the bottom line here. Every NFL Commissioner since Rozelle retired has been no more nor less than an official rubber stamp and mouthpiece for what the owners collectively dictate via the Competition Committee (which basically consists of all 32 of them, the Commissioner and one VERY frustrated NFL player rep observer.) Why does the Commish push safety? To protect the owners cash cows. Why does he push more games? To make the owners more money. Why does he push European expansion? Same reason.

The NFL can't get any more out of the US. There's no major market left apart from L.A., and a new team/stadium wouldn't increase merchandise, Madden or broadcast sales: It would only add another stadiums revenue, but that doesn't go into the revenue sharing pot so the CURRENT owners wouldn't see a dime of it. There's NOTHING for them in the US and they know it; that's why they're trying so hard to convince us every red-blooded American GIRL loves football: They can't get any more American MEN, and know it.

So they turn their lonely, or rather greedy, eyes to half a billion Europeans sitting on $16 trillion the NFL could vaccum up if they only find a way to sell the game there. They haven't yet because they tried to charge Europe to watch a farm league, which is why that league barely lasted a decade even though a multi-tiered European gridiron league was around a decade before that one and is still around a decade AFTER it. Yet if we build it, they will come, as long as we don't insist no one's invited but US cast offs who couldn't even make a CFL roster.

[Dapper Dan]

I agree with an NFL Europe instead of an NFL team in Europe. How many major sports have teams on different continents in one league?

[Ravage!!!]

I agree with an NFL Europe instead of an NFL team in Europe. How many major sports have teams on different continents in one league?

None.

Baseball and basketball are Sooooo more popular in these countries, yet some think that because they have "rugby" type clubs there that there is enough interest to support american football in the EU.

There is a reason no other sport has ventured to start professiona teams across the ocean. Not to mention, adding up populations of people that don't even play the game, where the sport is not even a part of their culture, does NOT add to the pool of possible players. It's absurd to even do the math, and I expected those that believe themselves to be so much smarter than everyone else to realize this.

Lets look at it the other way around. How many EU players that come from these "leagues" have come to the US and played in the NFL? I would think there should be a HIGH percentage of them that would be able to compete and succeed if we want these very small clubs to be the building base that would change the culture of sports within this 500 million people population.

[Joel]

I agree with an NFL Europe instead of an NFL team in Europe. How many major sports have teams on different continents in one league?
Four: FIFA, MLB, the NBA and NHL. Plus pro tennis and golf have major tournaments on both sides of the Atlantic. Pro rugby (and I believe there are two different forms) has teams all over the world; ours and Canadas just suck because all our best rugby players choose football instead. Same with cricket, at least in Commonwealth nations, except replace "football" with "baseball."

The NFLs restriction to the US is the exception, not the rule, even for the completely US sport of basketball. It's the sporting equivalent of the Imperial measurement system: The Brits invented it but even THEY prefer other things now, making it odd the US is obsessed with something we imported, modified and proudly declare "uniquely ours."

[Ravage!!!]

what MLB team, NHL team, or NBA team, have franchises on different continents?

[Dapper Dan]

“I get to go to overseas places, like Canada.”

- Britney Spears

[Joel]

None.

Baseball and basketball are Sooooo more popular in these countries, yet some think that because they have "rugby" type clubs there that there is enough interest to support american football in the EU.
Basketball maybe, but show me a European country where baseball is remotely as popular as football. Europe has at least THREE gridiron leagues under one governing body (and when I say, "gridiron" I mean "American football," not rugby, just in case that was unclear.) There is NO European baseball league, let alone three, though there are a number of leagues restricted to individual countries.


There is a reason no other sport has ventured to start professiona teams across the ocean. Not to mention, adding up populations of people that don't even play the game, where the sport is not even a part of their culture, does NOT add to the pool of possible players. It's absurd to even do the math, and I expected those that believe themselves to be so much smarter than everyone else to realize this.
Again, I don't think I'm smarter than anyone here; I've repeatedly been very clear I assume everyone here at least as smart as me. Since you strongly insist otherwise, I'll concede otherwise in your case.

No other sport has ventured to start pro teams across the ocean? So you're just ignoring FIFA, Davis Cup and Ryder Cup? Oh, right: You're hellbent on ignoring them.


Lets look at it the other way around. How many EU players that come from these "leagues" have come to the US and played in the NFL? I would think there should be a HIGH percentage of them that would be able to compete and succeed if we want these very small clubs to be the building base that would change the culture of sports within this 500 million people population.
There's a respectable number considering how prevalent the attitude you express is in the NFL, and the consequently negligible effort anyone outside Europe has therefore spent on developing football here. I posted the stats in the last thread that discussed this, but won't waste time digging them up again in some faint foolish hope you'll read them any more than you did then.


what MLB team, NHL team, or NBA team, have franchises on different continents?
You're right, the word was "continents" not "countries," so I stand corrected. There's still FIFA, pro rugby, pro tennis and pro golf though.

[Dapper Dan]

I think we have more players from Africa than Europe. Maybe we should set up shop there. It would help rebuild the continent.

[Simple Jaded]

I think we have more players from Africa than Europe. Maybe we should set up shop there. It would help rebuild the continent.

Africa doesn't wanna give NFL owners 16 zillion dollars.

[Dapper Dan]

Africa doesn't wanna give NFL owners 16 zillion dollars.

Because they're a bunch of old racist white men.

[Simple Jaded]

I don't agree with moving any of our teams there permanently. Build a real NFL Europe. Then institute international conference play.

They need to develope interest over time, they can't expect to put the Jags in Frankfurt tomorrow and expect to light their cigars with Europe's GNP.

[Simple Jaded]

Because they're a bunch of old racist white men.

Sounds like NFL owners.

[Joel]

I think we have more players from Africa than Europe. Maybe we should set up shop there. It would help rebuild the continent.
This list is from 2011, but back then, at least, there were nearly as many players from Germany alone (7) as from all of Africa (8.) http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-international-origins-of-nfl-players-2011-11 I think there are far more foreign, and specifically European, NFL players than most people realize, and they aren't all kickers; many are linemen (e.g. starting Pats LT Sebastian Vollmer.)

And Jaded's right: The League can't sell Sunday Ticket, jerseys and Madden NFL to Rwandan refugees. The owners don't give a dead rats rump who would or wouldn't enjoy football overseas: They want MONEY.


They need to develope interest over time, they can't expect to put the Jags in Frankfurt tomorrow and expect to light their cigars with Europe's GNP.
Yup, but I think the increasing number of London games are geared toward that. If every team played one (and ONLY) on London game a year it would be twice as many games as current NFL stadiums host. If/when the League gets anywhere near that number we'll see European teams.

I just hope there are enough they can play each other more than NFL teams (the only way that would work) and concentrate on local talent for local interest. I still like the idea of an expansion draft that gives European teams a monopoly (or at least right of first refusal) on European players.

[Ravage!!!]

Basketball maybe, but show me a European country where baseball is remotely as popular as football. Europe has at least THREE gridiron leagues under one governing body (and when I say, "gridiron" I mean "American football," not rugby, just in case that was unclear.) There is NO European baseball league, let alone three, though there are a number of leagues restricted to individual countries.
Ahh. Forgive me. I guess I assumed that these leagues counted?

Division Élite (France.. 8 team league)
Bundesliga (Germany ..15 team league)
Irish Baseball League (8 team league)
Italian Baseball League (Italy)
Latvian Baseball League (Latvia)
Honkbal Hoofdklasse ((Dutch for Major League Baseball) is the highest level of professional baseball in the Netherlands. It is an eight-team league that plays a 42-game schedule)
Honkbal Overgangsklasse (Dutch for Baseball Transition League) is the second highest level of professional baseball in the Netherlands.)
Honkbal Rookie League (is a professional baseball league in the Netherlands for rookies from the teams in the Honkbal Hoofdklasse)
División de Honor de Béisbol (is the highest level of baseball in Spain)
Elitserien (is the highest level of professional baseball in Sweden...12 teams)

There are actually more Baseball leagues than there are American Football leagues. In Europe.

No other sport has ventured to start pro teams across the ocean? So you're just ignoring FIFA, Davis Cup and Ryder Cup? Oh, right: You're hellbent on ignoring them.
YES I'm ignoring them. For one, I said a MAJOR sports league, and another we already discussed it being TEAM sports. FIFA is NOT a major sport in the United States.. not even close. I don't care if other countries around the world take their soccer across the ocean. That's not my concern nor care, and certainly aren't in the discussion for moving American Football across the ocean and comparing it to Baseball, and Basketball.

Counting Golf and Tennis, or even sail boating, is pretty pathetic. Those are FA (free agent) sports that the player, alone, can decide to play or NOT to play....depending on how they feel, if they are healthy, if they aren't on vacation...or whatevers. They aren't playing on teams (please, don't try to make Doubles Tennis or the Ryder Cup as "team sports"). The Rider Cup is an EVENT that happens every two years. It's not a league, and the players on those teams not only change, but can REFUSE to participate if they so wish. It's embarrassing that you would even try to bring that EVENT into the conversation. You might as well have counted the Olympics since they happen just as often.



There's a respectable number considering how prevalent the attitude you express is in the NFL, and the consequently negligible effort anyone outside Europe has therefore spent on developing football here. I posted the stats in the last thread that discussed this, but won't waste time digging them up again in some faint foolish hope you'll read them any more than you did then.
Very few. You are right, I probably did not see any stats you posted in your monstrosity of a post. I know you think that your points are so valid that people are going to read your books, but we don't. We skip it because its too long and far too boring to read. So if somewhere in one of your short stories you posted a stat on how many Europeans play in American football, you are correct.... I skipped it.


You're right, the word was "continents" not "countries," so I stand corrected. There's still FIFA, pro rugby, pro tennis and pro golf though.
Yeah.. already talked about those and how they relate. Rugby? :lol:

[aulaza]

None.

Baseball and basketball are Sooooo more popular in these countries, yet some think that because they have "rugby" type clubs there that there is enough interest to support american football in the EU.

There is a reason no other sport has ventured to start professiona teams across the ocean

There is one great example I can think of off the top of my head - The SuperRugby tournament.

It is a tournament between rugby teams from Australia, South Africa and New Zealand (so you regularly get fixtures such as Capetown vs Auckland etc). Its the most important southern hemisphere competition beneath international level. They seem to find ways around the huge time difference (I think its around 10 hours or so) and the massive journey (15 - 20 hours?)

[Dapper Dan]

How do these sports work? Is it only a tournament or is there a regular season and then a tournament at the end. I could see have a simple tournament, but regular season traveling would be hard on a team. Especially the lone team from London. It would be easier for them to stay the season in America. Imagine the traveling costs.

[aulaza]

To me, this is the only way. There really is no market in the EU right now for american football. Sure they can fill a stadium once or twice a year. It's "new"..its "different".. and people come. But filling a stadium 8 times a year (or more since we would have to expand the season, thus expand the number of games) is difficult. Ask San Diego, who not only is a large market, not only is already in america, but has had a team for decades. How anyone thinks that the EU fanbase is solid enough to support a team, is beyond me. I don't care how much money is "possible" to tap into.

My argument here would be that we don't know what the market is capable of. You are stating that there is no market, but this is just speculation. We won't know unless we hold more games here. That is what the NFL is doing, holding more games in London (2 this year, 3 next I believe), to truly assess the market. At the end of the day, we can reason either way but we won't know for sure unless we have the evidence. The NFL is just testing the market, and as long as games keep selling out 9 months early, they'll keep going. Not saying which way it will go, just saying lets wait and see, because you can't know for sure yet.

[aulaza]

How do these sports work? Is it only a tournament or is there a regular season and then a tournament at the end. I could see have a simple tournament, but regular season traveling would be hard on a team. Especially the lone team from London. It would be easier for them to stay the season in America. Imagine the traveling costs.

SupeRugby has a 16 game (per team) regular season like the NFL, followed by playoffs between the top 6 teams (out of 15). Typically, South African teams will go on a 4 game tour of Aus/NZ and vice versa - so they do it in chunks.

[BroncoJoe]

Just put a team in Mexico City and call it a day.

[Ravage!!!]

My argument here would be that we don't know what the market is capable of. You are stating that there is no market, but this is just speculation. We won't know unless we hold more games here. That is what the NFL is doing, holding more games in London (2 this year, 3 next I believe), to truly assess the market. At the end of the day, we can reason either way but we won't know for sure unless we have the evidence. The NFL is just testing the market, and as long as games keep selling out 9 months early, they'll keep going. Not saying which way it will go, just saying lets wait and see, because you can't know for sure yet.

Well, my point is comparing the cultures of the sport. Soccer is NOT popular here in the United States despite having soccer programs, soccer leagues, soccer in nearly all schools, semi-pro teams/leagues, and professional leagues/teams both indoor and outdoor for the last 70 years in the United States. Nearly all kids play soccer at one point of their lives growing up, yet a very small percentage grow up to be FANS of the sport.

Right now, there is no large programs that teach young kids american football. There isn't american football in schools. The reason that is important, is that is the age and how people become FANS of the sport. If they aren't being "Groomed" (for lack of a better word) to love the sport from knowing how to play it, being taught the sport, and appreciating everything involved.... then it's purely a spectacle.

BIG soccer matches in the United States will pull a full stadium when there are only 1 or 2 games a year. But that's not even CLOSE to supporting a team for an entire season, for MULTIPLE years. The MLS has been around since 1997 here (well, this MLS...its started over).. and right now the average crowd is just 18,000 people. MOST of the teams that have started since 1997, have a lower average attendance now than they did in 1997. So the crowds are lessening the more time the teams are around. The teams that have the highest average crowd right now, are the teams that are the newest to their city.. and Seattle is just WAYYYYY above the average (something like 35,000)..and actually skews the numbers.

Point being.... sure there will be crowds for the large EVENTS (like the Ryder Cup that Joel tried to use as an example). That's not really showing enough interest to fill a stadium 10 times a year (I say 10 because if they add teams to the NFL, they will likely increase the number of games per season).

Which is why I would think they need to start a Minor league football system in the EU to increase, and build, a solid FOOTBALL fanbase. Not just a stadium of fans that come to enjoy an event that happens once or twice.

[Dapper Dan]

SupeRugby has a 16 game (per team) regular season like the NFL, followed by playoffs between the top 6 teams (out of 15). Typically, South African teams will go on a 4 game tour of Aus/NZ and vice versa - so they do it in chunks.

It seems like it would be incredibly difficult for the one expansion team in London. They would need to play 8 road games then 8 homes games or vice versa to make things easier. It would be a huge disadvantage regardless. Then a big home field advantage.

I don't mind an NFL presence in the rest of the world. I just think each league having its own continent would be more ideal than having 31 American teams and 1 team across the ocean

[Simple Jaded]

Just put a team in Mexico City and call it a day.

The Mexicans I know actually like American football.

[Dapper Dan]

The Mexicans I know actually like American football.

Cowboys fans.

[ManchesterBroncoLUHG]

Will an NFL football field fit in a European soccer field???

Not all of them, pitches can range between 100-130 yards. In fact I think it's very rare for you to find a football pitch that is above 115 yards.


Yes, soccer fields are bigger then football fields.

Again not all of them. Old Trafford's pitch is 114 yards so would never be able to hold a NFL field. (Thank God). If OT was big enough we would be seeing games there by now with the Glazer$. The size of the pitch rules out a lot of English stadiums at least as often the fans are almost camped onto the pitch so there isn't room to expand the playing area and make it safe. Rugby is played at OT which is a similar size field but its the room needed around the field that would be the problem. It's same for many European stadiums that are solely used for football. Stadiums that have running tracks around them I'm sure would be suitable but you are certainly limited where you would be able to play NFL. Thats not to say work couldn't be done to adjust this but why would they spends millions to make the capacity smaller for the sake of a game here and there?




Anyway besides all that, as an English man who loves American Football I hope that we never see a London or any other non North American team in the NFL. For me personally I love the whole Americanism of the sport. Bring it over here and that disappears. If you want to see America's game go to America. It's like watching United Liverpool game in New York and claiming you have experienced English soccer. You haven't and never will without travelling to England.

As for the notion that we could sell out games over here over a long term basis? I was in London a couple of a weeks ago for a concert and the weekend cost me and my Mrs £500 staying Friday - Monday this includes staying in a cheap shitty hotel out of London. You think people will spend that 8/10 including pre season/12 if number 1 seed times a year? No. So unless they are planning on getting 90,000 cockneys going every other Sunday then forget it.

You can buy a flight to America for £500. London or America? Hmmm hard choice.

[OrangeHoof]

I do think an NFL team in this hemisphere would be a smarter first step. Unfortunately, the CFL has sort of "protected turf" north of the border and they freak out if anything more than the occasional exhibition is played there so that leaves Mexico City as the next step.

[Ravage!!!]

Anyway besides all that, as an English man who loves American Football I hope that we never see a London or any other non North American team in the NFL. For me personally I love the whole Americanism of the sport. Bring it over here and that disappears. If you want to see America's game go to America. It's like watching United Liverpool game in New York and claiming you have experienced English soccer. You haven't and never will without travelling to England.

As for the notion that we could sell out games over here over a long term basis? I was in London a couple of a weeks ago for a concert and the weekend cost me and my Mrs £500 staying Friday - Monday this includes staying in a cheap shitty hotel out of London. You think people will spend that 8/10 including pre season/12 if number 1 seed times a year? No. So unless they are planning on getting 90,000 cockneys going every other Sunday then forget it.

You can buy a flight to America for £500. London or America? Hmmm hard choice.

Great points. I like the comparison to watching United Liverpool in NY and claiming you've experienced English soccer. :beer:

[Simple Jaded]

Not all of them, pitches can range between 100-130 yards. In fact I think it's very rare for you to find a football pitch that is above 115 yards.



Again not all of them. Old Trafford's pitch is 114 yards so would never be able to hold a NFL field. (Thank God). If OT was big enough we would be seeing games there by now with the Glazer$. The size of the pitch rules out a lot of English stadiums at least as often the fans are almost camped onto the pitch so there isn't room to expand the playing area and make it safe. Rugby is played at OT which is a similar size field but its the room needed around the field that would be the problem. It's same for many European stadiums that are solely used for football. Stadiums that have running tracks around them I'm sure would be suitable but you are certainly limited where you would be able to play NFL. Thats not to say work couldn't be done to adjust this but why would they spends millions to make the capacity smaller for the sake of a game here and there?




Anyway besides all that, as an English man who loves American Football I hope that we never see a London or any other non North American team in the NFL. For me personally I love the whole Americanism of the sport. Bring it over here and that disappears. If you want to see America's game go to America. It's like watching United Liverpool game in New York and claiming you have experienced English soccer. You haven't and never will without travelling to England.

As for the notion that we could sell out games over here over a long term basis? I was in London a couple of a weeks ago for a concert and the weekend cost me and my Mrs £500 staying Friday - Monday this includes staying in a cheap shitty hotel out of London. You think people will spend that 8/10 including pre season/12 if number 1 seed times a year? No. So unless they are planning on getting 90,000 cockneys going every other Sunday then forget it.

You can buy a flight to America for £500. London or America? Hmmm hard choice.

Hey, just wondering, do you see any way the Euro's would be willing to send the NFL that $16 trillion anyway?