Super Bowl in London in 2014?

[saden1]

SB outside the U.S. is an unacceptable proposition. No dice!

[Dirtbag59]

I love the idea. Wembly stadium is beautiful. Then again it would be the first cold weather Super Bowl in a long time.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag359

I love the idea. Wembly stadium is beautiful. Then again it would be the first cold weather Super Bowl in a long time.

Hell no. The Super Bowl is one of the greatest AMERICAN events of any kind...to allow a foreign country to host it, to get the revenues from it, and to restrict the availability of tickets to American fans who support the league all season long...it's a horrible idea in EVERY way.

Soccer will always be more popular than real football in Europe. We should just accept that and bolster the fanbase here at home. Doing this would lose many fans in my opinion.

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag359

I love the idea. Wembly stadium is beautiful. Then again it would be the first cold weather Super Bowl in a long time.

Same. Who gives a shit, it's not like the majority of us go to the Super Bowl either. It's way too expensive. This way it helps the UK and the NFL in popularity.

I think it is very closed-minded and conservative to make arguments like "this is OUR game", it is "American not British", etc. Basketball at once was only a game played in the US. But now look at it's popularity all over the world. People are crazy about ball overseas. There is nothing wrong with spreading the game.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by hooskins

Same. Who gives a shit, it's not like the majority of us go to the Super Bowl either. It's way too expensive. This way it helps the UK and the NFL in popularity.

I think it is very closed-minded and conservative to make arguments like "this is OUR game", it is "American not British", etc. Basketball at once was only a game played in the US. But now look at it's popularity all over the world. People are crazy about ball overseas. There is nothing wrong with spreading the game.

Explain how taking the largest sporting event in our nation, from a sport that is supported solely by American fans all season (unless someone flies into the country for a ticket on Sunday) and whose teams are ALL in this country...and outsourcing it to a foreign country that cares more about soccer, doesn't understand the game for the most part, has no real team loyalties and doesn't spend their money all season to pay the players through ticket and merchandise sales...is somehow "close-minded" or even more ridiculous, "conservative"?

Our citizens really love and understand the game, they work hard all year to afford their tickets and merchandise to support their team and even though a lot of corporations do buy the Super Bowl tickets, many fans do save up to get a ticket when their team makes the big game. How can you not understand how it would be insulting to ship the Super Bowl out of the country and cutting out a lot of fans from being able to attend...and probably filling the stadium with many fans who probably have no clue what's going on or who the players even are?

Think of it this way...the Redskins finally make the Super Bowl in a couple of years. It's been 20 years! The game is in London. You could afford a ticket and road trip if the game were in New Orleans, Phoenix or Florida, but not a plane trip and accommodations to Europe, with the added expenses and hassle of getting a passport. Wouldn't you be even the slightest bit disappointed and probably even angry at the league for cutting you out of the most memorable game in your life, that you've waited 20 years to see happen again?

Meanwhile, some guy wearing a Manchester United jersey to the game is sitting in your seat, talking to his buddies how the game is so confusing and is "inferior to futbol".

It would be equally ridiculous to have a championship soccer match between Manchester United and Barcelona in the Pro Bowl stadium in Honolulu for no real reason. They'd be equally and as legitimately angry.

Leave your blind political insults out of this. It's about fairness to the fans who already spend a ton of money to make the NFL the most successful league in the world. Sure, you're right that there's nothing wrong with exposing the rest of the world to the game we love, but to give them the biggest game of the year is quite insulting and will lose more fans than it gains. Give them more preseason games that won't interfere with travel, rest and practices for the next week's games...but regular season games give the teams who are forced to play for foreign fans an unfair disadvantage...to give them postseason games would be unfair to the fans who supported their team all year long.

You'd rather gain a few casual fans overseas who still prefer another sport and probably never see that team play live again in their life than to reward lifelong, faithful fans here at home? I don't understand it.

Diversifying the fan base and expanding it worldwide are worthy goals, but not at the cost of alienating the true fans that made the league large enough, rich enough and successful enough to even considering targeting a worldwide audience.

There's a point where football must realize they'll never reach some fans in some parts of the world...just as soccer must realize the game will never catch on professionally here in the United States. Soccer has failed so many times professionally here...just as the NFL has had lackluster success in their experimental games overseas. The World League bombed, as did NFL-Europe. You can't blame the talent level for the failures, because it was the sport they rejected in favor of soccer.

[53Fan]

Originally Posted by Buster

Explain how taking the largest sporting event in our nation, from a sport that is supported solely by American fans all season (unless someone flies into the country for a ticket on Sunday) and whose teams are ALL in this country...and outsourcing it to a foreign country that cares more about soccer, doesn't understand the game for the most part, has no real team loyalties and doesn't spend their money all season to pay the players through ticket and merchandise sales...is somehow "close-minded" or even more ridiculous, "conservative"?

Our citizens really love and understand the game, they work hard all year to afford their tickets and merchandise to support their team and even though a lot of corporations do buy the Super Bowl tickets, many fans do save up to get a ticket when their team makes the big game. How can you not understand how it would be insulting to ship the Super Bowl out of the country and cutting out a lot of fans from being able to attend...and probably filling the stadium with many fans who probably have no clue what's going on or who the players even are?

Think of it this way...the Redskins finally make the Super Bowl in a couple of years. It's been 20 years! The game is in London. You could afford a ticket and road trip if the game were in New Orleans, Phoenix or Florida, but not a plane trip and accommodations to Europe, with the added expenses and hassle of getting a passport. Wouldn't you be even the slightest bit disappointed and probably even angry at the league for cutting you out of the most memorable game in your life, that you've waited 20 years to see happen again?

Meanwhile, some guy wearing a Manchester United jersey to the game is sitting in your seat, talking to his buddies how the game is so confusing and is "inferior to futbol".

It would be equally ridiculous to have a championship soccer match between Manchester United and Barcelona in the Pro Bowl stadium in Honolulu for no real reason. They'd be equally and as legitimately angry.

Leave your blind political insults out of this. It's about fairness to the fans who already spend a ton of money to make the NFL the most successful league in the world. Sure, you're right that there's nothing wrong with exposing the rest of the world to the game we love, but to give them the biggest game of the year is quite insulting and will lose more fans than it gains. Give them more preseason games that won't interfere with travel, rest and practices for the next week's games...but regular season games give the teams who are forced to play for foreign fans an unfair disadvantage...to give them postseason games would be unfair to the fans who supported their team all year long.

You'd rather gain a few casual fans overseas who still prefer another sport and probably never see that team play live again in their life than to reward lifelong, faithful fans here at home? I don't understand it.

Diversifying the fan base and expanding it worldwide are worthy goals, but not at the cost of alienating the true fans that made the league large enough, rich enough and successful enough to even considering targeting a worldwide audience.

There's a point where football must realize they'll never reach some fans in some parts of the world...just as soccer must realize the game will never catch on professionally here in the United States. Soccer has failed so many times professionally here...just as the NFL has had lackluster success in their experimental games overseas. The World League bombed, as did NFL-Europe. You can't blame the talent level for the failures, because it was the sport they rejected in favor of soccer.

Way to hit it Buster!

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by Buster

Explain how taking the largest sporting event in our nation, from a sport that is supported solely by American fans all season (unless someone flies into the country for a ticket on Sunday) and whose teams are ALL in this country...and outsourcing it to a foreign country that cares more about soccer, doesn't understand the game for the most part, has no real team loyalties and doesn't spend their money all season to pay the players through ticket and merchandise sales...is somehow "close-minded" or even more ridiculous, "conservative"?

Our citizens really love and understand the game, they work hard all year to afford their tickets and merchandise to support their team and even though a lot of corporations do buy the Super Bowl tickets, many fans do save up to get a ticket when their team makes the big game. How can you not understand how it would be insulting to ship the Super Bowl out of the country and cutting out a lot of fans from being able to attend...and probably filling the stadium with many fans who probably have no clue what's going on or who the players even are?

Think of it this way...the Redskins finally make the Super Bowl in a couple of years. It's been 20 years! The game is in London. You could afford a ticket and road trip if the game were in New Orleans, Phoenix or Florida, but not a plane trip and accommodations to Europe, with the added expenses and hassle of getting a passport. Wouldn't you be even the slightest bit disappointed and probably even angry at the league for cutting you out of the most memorable game in your life, that you've waited 20 years to see happen again?

Meanwhile, some guy wearing a Manchester United jersey to the game is sitting in your seat, talking to his buddies how the game is so confusing and is "inferior to futbol".

It would be equally ridiculous to have a championship soccer match between Manchester United and Barcelona in the Pro Bowl stadium in Honolulu for no real reason. They'd be equally and as legitimately angry.

Leave your blind political insults out of this. It's about fairness to the fans who already spend a ton of money to make the NFL the most successful league in the world. Sure, you're right that there's nothing wrong with exposing the rest of the world to the game we love, but to give them the biggest game of the year is quite insulting and will lose more fans than it gains. Give them more preseason games that won't interfere with travel, rest and practices for the next week's games...but regular season games give the teams who are forced to play for foreign fans an unfair disadvantage...to give them postseason games would be unfair to the fans who supported their team all year long.

You'd rather gain a few casual fans overseas who still prefer another sport and probably never see that team play live again in their life than to reward lifelong, faithful fans here at home? I don't understand it.

Diversifying the fan base and expanding it worldwide are worthy goals, but not at the cost of alienating the true fans that made the league large enough, rich enough and successful enough to even considering targeting a worldwide audience.

There's a point where football must realize they'll never reach some fans in some parts of the world...just as soccer must realize the game will never catch on professionally here in the United States. Soccer has failed so many times professionally here...just as the NFL has had lackluster success in their experimental games overseas. The World League bombed, as did NFL-Europe. You can't blame the talent level for the failures, because it was the sport they rejected in favor of soccer.

Handle that

[tryfuhl]

Absolutely horrible idea; the game doesn't have to be prostituted to earn a few more bucks. You're dealing with flying all of the players, coaches, equipment, etc over and dealing with them adjusting to a different schedule and in a lesser way, different customs.

Outsourcing the Super Bowl is just ridiculous, sometimes you have to look at a proposition that would earn more money and say, "Hey, this isn't how we want do do this" but Goodell doesn't seem to understand this.

[WaldSkins]

If we are going to send the game over seas to play in shitty weather, why not just play it here in shitty weather? Who wouldn't love to see a superbowl in Greenbay, Washington, NE, NY, etc?

[TheSmurfs22]

Originally Posted by WaldSkins

If we are going to send the game over seas to play in shitty weather, why not just play it here in shitty weather? Who wouldn't love to see a superbowl in Greenbay, Washington, NE, NY, etc?

~~~~
Love to see a SB played in a cold weather town where the elements come into play.

[skinsfan_nn]

Retarded idea from jump street, that will not happen!

For 2nd Time in a Week, NFL Denies Reports of London Super Bowl --NFL FanHouse

[TheSmurfs22]

Would they use Wembley or another facility that is begin built for the Olympics?
I wonder how many Brits would actually go to the game partly because they typically view American footballers as a bunch of slow fat guys.

[rypper11]

I hate having a regular season game there every year. Why the owners don't complain more about losing a home game is beyond me. The only way I'd like foreign country games is if the NFL switches to a 17 game season and each team has 8 home, 8 away and one overseas game. And no Super Bowls!

[Ruhskins]

Hate the idea. As Bill Simmons put it, the Superbowl should be held in three and only three places: San Diego, New Orleans, and Miami. My personal touch would be to make it Saturday night. I think the SB is big enough that it would draw big ratings on a Saturday night. Or another alternative to hold it the Sunday before a holiday (i.e. MLK Day or something). It sucks to have it on a regular Sunday, b/c it goes on until late and I have to work the next day.

[sportscurmudgeon]

Three points here:


Point #1. The TV Networks are not going to like this idea even a little bit. Assume that you start the game at 9:00 PM in London, that would make it 4:00 PM in the Eastern Time Zone and 1:00 PM on the West Coast. Now since the networks want to have a 5 or 6 hour pre-game extravaganza - - where they make a lot of money on ads - - that means it would have to start at 7:00AM or 8:00AM on the West Coast. Ad rates for beer ads at 7:00AM would have to be "discounted". The adage "Follow the money!" applies here... This is a big hurdle.


Point #2. I believe there is an NFL Rule that the Super Bowl has to be played in a city with an NFL franchise. My recollection is that rule was passed in the mid-90s and that is the reason that the Super Bowl doesn't go back to the Rose Bowl - - where there are 105,000 seats for the league to put fannies in. This is a medium sized hurdle at the moment because if the NFL wants a Super Bowl in London they could put a franchise there - - or they could try to change the rule. Changing the rule requires a positive vote of the owners AND THAT LEADS TO ...


Point #3. An owner with a big stadium in a cold weather city without a dome who REALLY would love to host a Super Bowl - - let's call him "Danny" just for kicks - - MIGHT figure a way to trade his vote and maybe the voting bloc of other like-minded owners for getting some cold weather Super Bowls here in the US in cities such as Boston, NYC, Philly, Washington, Chicago ... Right there you have six teams (2 in NYC) that could be the start of a voting bloc; Toss in Pittsburgh, Cleveland and Cincy and you are starting to develop a powerful voting bloc. Therefore, if you want to have the possibility of seeing a Super Bowl in FedEx, you should support this idea and encourage "Danny" to start politicking and making nice with some of the other owners.


This is still a longshot, but it is better than no shot...