The Super Bowl in London?

[johnnysama]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3065254

Interesting story: A couple years back, I had an idea of a the Super Bowl in Tokyo. Well, with this story, the idea is not as far-fetched as I once thought.

I think it'll be good for the league, as it will raise awareness about the NFL around the world.

Maybe, on a somewhat unrelated note, the Seahawks could host one regular season game at BC Place in Vancouver. Or even have the Super Bowl, there too.

[Mac the Knife]

I think it would be an unmitigated PR disaster unless and until the league has a franchise there. To have what has in essence become an event akin to an American national sports holiday hosted anywhere but within the United States would be viewed, at least by some, as sacreligious.

Personally though, they can hold it wherever they like. Having been to a few Super Bowls (thanks to a cousin who worked in the original Cleveland Browns ticket office), I can honestly say I prefer watching the game itself on television than being there in person.

[KDubK414]

I would NOT support this 110%! When you have cities having or owning NFL franchises getting passed over ALL the time because...

a) It's too cold that time of year, they have an outdoor stadium! See Foxboro MA, Chicago IL, Seattle WA, San Fransisco CA, Oakland CA, Denver CO, New York/Jersey Meadowlands aka Giants Stadium (yeah I know it's gonna be there soon but took a lot of arm twisting), Washington D.C., Nashville TN, Orchard Park/Buffalo NY, and the coupe de gras Green Bay WI, Lambeau Field the MECCA of all Pro Football and the NFL!!!

b)City has a roof over their stadium, but it's too cold of a climate! See Minneapolis MN, Detroit MI(they actually got one last YEAR!), St. Louis MO.

c) If it isn't FAR south it sucks! See Raliegh NC, Kansas City MO.

d) They must be warm! See Miami FL, Tampa Bay FL, Jacksonville FL, Houston TX, Glendale/Phoenix AZ, Los Angeles CA, New Orleans LA, San Diego CA, and the big WTF??? Pasadena CA (they DON'T have a franchise yet get the Super Bowl!)

e) Where's the party at?! See Florida, NO, SoCal, Atlanta GA

f) Based on these findings it seems like there is a complete an obvious rotation goin' on! With the exception of Atlanta. Only one in the last what 20 years??? Or at least since the Georgia Dome was built?

g) MLB seems to WANT to take their show on the road every year. Why not the NFL?

h) If you want a party or nightlife. Why not even Chicago? Oh yeah it's cold??? Isn't that what FOOTBALL is all about? If the hot actresses and musicians you want to attract have to wear the fur coats they own that's cool! Or better yet rent out the entire suite level for the pampered type!

i) If this is the NFL, the NATIONAL Football League we are talking about? Why not hold a Super Bowl at the MECCA of all MECCAS of PRO FOOTBALL, that being Lambeau Field before heading' out of the Country all together for the Biggest Game of the Year??!!?? Yeah it's cold, yeah GB doesn't have most of the things talked about here, Milwaukee does HOWEVER! Hell we've supported the MLB AS GAME with flying colors!

j) Let the US cities state their case before takin it "OVER SEAS!"

A Super Bowl in London EN, would SUCK if you look at all of these. Let's keep it here! If this isn't a Goodell, call your office moments, I don't know what is?

Kyle

[mania]

I think the International Exposure it would receive from the spectacle of the Super Bowl would do more for American football in Europe than most of us could imagine.

[DEAD!]

The Super Bowl is a corporate schmooze anyways so, really, the ordinary fan won't be able to attend, let alone afford to go to a Super Bowl even if it was played anywhere in the US. The main issue, that I see, is the time zone difference. Let's say the Super Bowl is played in London at 8pm, that means it would start at 3pm EDT and 12pm PDT.... and with all the pre-game hype that happens BEFORE the game, I don't think there's enough time for the networks to have the pre-game show the way they want it, and I don't think enough fans would be hyped up about it.

[hormone]

What is with the hard on for London and the NFL? Seriously. Do you think they would want the major soccer playoffs in the LA Colesium? Do you think we would? Leave it be. I think the idea of the SB in domes/warm climates is to make the site the most neutral to both teams and to make the most money for the city and the league. Who wants to visit the SB in Chicago and sit in the snow and watch (let's say) Tampa play Jacksonville who've never played a cold game that year and see it end 3-0? It's easier to leave it than to open all these cans of worms.

[KevinMcD]

Who wants to visit the SB in Chicago and sit in the snow and watch (let's say) Tampa play Jacksonville who've never played a cold game that year and see it end 3-0? It's easier to leave it than to open all these cans of worms.

I would. A Superbowl in any cold weather city with a open stadium would be my number one choice ahead of even Miami, NO, SD, etc.. It gets boring having the Super Bowl in a 5 city rotation. But the NFL will never do that b/c the corporates will not want to be inconvenienced with real football weather, when they could be in Miami or Phoenix.

I think that a Super Bowl in Buffalo or Green Bay could never work. We don't have enough hotel rooms, much like the problems that Jacksonville had a few years back. They could probably put a huge cruise ship on Lake Erie, but I would not want to be right on the lake in early February. Green Bay has the same problem. They could probably ship people down to Milwaukee, or up to Niagara Falls, but that would not be the best. In my mind only Chicago, Philly, New York, or Boston/Foxboro could host a Super Bowl with a open stadium up North.

[WelshSteeler]

If the NFL wants toplay in the UK in winter we've got this little place in Wales

http://www.millenniumstadium.com/197_211.php

[Brian in Boston]

Frankly, I'm all for it. I think that it's a phenomenal opportunity for the National Football League to grow it's brand to an even more global presence than it already enjoys. Further, it would serve as yet another incremental step forward in the league's plans for actual franchise expansion outside of the United States.

We can kick and scream all we want to gang, but major professional sports is fast growing into a global industry. I have no doubt that within my lifetime I will see MLB, NBA, NFL and NHL franchises based outside of the United States. I fully expect that at some point, entire four-to-six team divisions of U.S.-headquartered sports leagues will be established on the European continent. Further, it's not just North America's "Big Four" sports leagues who will push for this globalization. Eventually, I'm convinced that entities such as the Champions League soccer competition will give way to a full-on international league structure featuring the most financially-profitable club sides in the world.

Those fans content with the status quo don't have to like the move towards a globalization of pro sports. Frankly, it's what the leagues want that will drive this equation. That said, you can be sure that the leagues possess research showing them that there is a market for truly meaningful club competition being contested on a global scale or they wouldn't even be broaching the subject.

With advances in technology, the world is growing smaller. Pro sports is going to be a part of the move towards a truly global marketplace.

[McCall]

Sure, putting the Super Bowl overseas will help with the Globalization of the NFL. But your doing it at the cost of the fans of the teams playing here who may otherwise go to the Super Bowl to cheer on their beloved team. If the game is played in London, it's predominately gonna be a British audience, who may be into the game and everything, but may not be the loyal fans who root for their team every week, and who, even though it may still be a bit of a travel, may be able to make it to Miami or Phoenix or somewhere in the U.S. to see their team play in the biggest game in the world. But not if it's held in another country on the other side of the world. It's like saying, "Thanks for supporting this team through the season and the playoffs, as they made it all the way to the Super Bowl. But now, unless you can afford international travel, we're gonna let people in a foreign country have the chance to see your team play, all so we can show them that the NFL plays football. Even though they probably already know that."

It's one thing to put a preseason game or even a regular season game in an international setting. There are more than one of each those played during a season. But there is only one Super Bowl.

[njmeadowlanders]

Sure, putting the Super Bowl overseas will help with the Globalization of the NFL. But your doing it at the cost of the fans of the teams playing here who may otherwise go to the Super Bowl to cheer on their beloved team. If the game is played in London, it's predominately gonna be a British audience, who may be into the game and everything, but may not be the loyal fans who root for their team every week, and who, even though it may still be a bit of a travel, may be able to make it to Miami or Phoenix or somewhere in the U.S. to see their team play in the biggest game in the world. But not if it's held in another country on the other side of the world. It's like saying, "Thanks for supporting this team through the season and the playoffs, as they made it all the way to the Super Bowl. But now, unless you can afford international travel, we're gonna let people in a foreign country have the chance to see your team play, all so we can show them that the NFL plays football. Even though they probably already know that."

It's one thing to put a preseason game or even a regular season game in an international setting. There are more than one of each those played during a season. But there is only one Super Bowl.

Indeed.

It's also one thing for the game to be played in Pasadena or Stanford or wherever (which isn't happening anymore anyway), I could even deal with Vancouver (How big is the dome) or Toronto (How many does the RC seat for football) hosting it...b/c its not much farther from if the game were in say, Buffalo or Seattle, etc.

But England? Tokyo? Come on. Also, the game would have to start at like, 11:30 PM in England to meet the 6:30 East Coast start time...In Tokyo, 8:30 AM (I think...didn't look to see how far it is exactly time zone wise...)

[johnnysama]

Sure, putting the Super Bowl overseas will help with the Globalization of the NFL. But your doing it at the cost of the fans of the teams playing here who may otherwise go to the Super Bowl to cheer on their beloved team. If the game is played in London, it's predominately gonna be a British audience, who may be into the game and everything, but may not be the loyal fans who root for their team every week, and who, even though it may still be a bit of a travel, may be able to make it to Miami or Phoenix or somewhere in the U.S. to see their team play in the biggest game in the world. But not if it's held in another country on the other side of the world. It's like saying, "Thanks for supporting this team through the season and the playoffs, as they made it all the way to the Super Bowl. But now, unless you can afford international travel, we're gonna let people in a foreign country have the chance to see your team play, all so we can show them that the NFL plays football. Even though they probably already know that."

It's one thing to put a preseason game or even a regular season game in an international setting. There are more than one of each those played during a season. But there is only one Super Bowl.

Indeed.

It's also one thing for the game to be played in Pasadena or Stanford or wherever (which isn't happening anymore anyway), I could even deal with Vancouver (How big is the dome) or Toronto (How many does the RC seat for football) hosting it...b/c its not much farther from if the game were in say, Buffalo or Seattle, etc.

But England? Tokyo? Come on. Also, the game would have to start at like, 11:30 PM in England to meet the 6:30 East Coast start time...In Tokyo, 8:30 AM (I think...didn't look to see how far it is exactly time zone wise...)

BC Place Stadium houses roughly 60,000ish.

[wdm1219inpenna]

This troubles me. It's bad enough they're playing a regular season game in Europe, now they want to move the Super Bowl there too? Fine, whatever. I'm so freakin fed up with sports anymore that I'm just about to the point of apathy. If the powers that be don't give a crap about the fans who support them, then let them go shove those Euros up their collective (censored).....

Might as well play it elsewhere, since this country is being infiltrated every day with illegal aliens anyway. The United States as I once knew it and loved it, is over, this news just is the frosting on the battery acid laced cake anyway.

[Brian in Boston]

Sure, putting the Super Bowl overseas will help with the Globalization of the NFL. But your doing it at the cost of the fans of the teams playing here who may otherwise go to the Super Bowl to cheer on their beloved team.

The vast majority of American NFL fans who attend the Super Bowl are deep-pocketed corporate types who are more than capable of affording a trip to London to take in the league's championship game. In fact, said deep-pocketed fans will probably be more intrigued by the possibility of attending a Super Bowl in a world-class city like London than they would be about heading to the likes of New Orleans or South Florida for the umpteenth time.

Beyond that, each and every NFL franchise receives their allotment of tickets for the game which they then distribute as they see fit. The vast majority of them go to team employees, local corporate partners and the wealthiest of season-ticket holders. As for the participating teams, they receive their larger allotments of Super Bowl tickets, which are distributed similarly: to team employees, local corporate partners and those season-ticket holders prepared to meet the cost of attending the Super Bowl, i.e. the wealthiest of the team's fan-base.

If the game is played in London, it's predominately gonna be a British audience...

No, the audience will predominantly be comprised of the same NFL corporate partners and deep-pocketed NFL fans who make up the Super Bowl's audience every year. Certainly, because the game is being played in London, there might be more English employees of the NFL's corporate partners who'll attend, just as some deep-pocketed English fans of the NFL might want to take advantage of attending the game on their home soil. That said, Wembley is a large enough facility to accomodate all of the "usual suspects" who attend the Super Bowl in the United States plus additional fans.

... who may be into the game and everything, but may not be the loyal fans who root for their team every week, and who, even though it may still be a bit of a travel, may be able to make it to Miami or Phoenix or somewhere in the U.S. to see their team play in the biggest game in the world.

All the more reason to rotate the Super Bowl to a foreign site every few years. We've already established that the NFL's corporate partners and deep-pocketed owners can afford to attend the Super Bowl wherever it is played. Further, if - as you seem to imply - American sports fans of more modest means are such die-hard supporters of the NFL, they'll either be so compelled to attend the event that they'll find the means to pay for a trip to London, or - like most American NFL fans now - won't be able to afford to attend the Super Bowl live, regardless. In other words, those two segments of the Super Bowl's live audience will remain unchanged. However, under your argument, for the first time in the game's history there will be overseas fans of more modest means who might just be able to work out a way to attend the game. Beautiful! In reality, a game in London will expand the Super Bowl's live audience.

It's like saying, "Thanks for supporting this team through the season and the playoffs, as they made it all the way to the Super Bowl. But now, unless you can afford international travel, we're gonna let people in a foreign country have the chance to see your team play...

Again, you're kidding yourself if you believe for a moment that the Super Bowl audience at venues in the United States is comprised of average, middle-class, die-hard NFL fans. That's just not the case. The majority of such fans are watching the Super Bowl on TV now, as it is. Moving the game to London once in a great while isn't going to change their ability to enjoy the game in the way that they normally do... in their living rooms.

But there is only one Super Bowl.

Yes, and the vast majority of the NFL's American fans will never attend the Super Bowl live whether it's held in London, an American city or their own home market.

Nobody's talking about moving the Super Bowl to London - or any other foreign market - on a permanent basis. It would be a once-in-a-great-while type event. The NFL's executives are obviously prepared to make adjustments to the live broadcast of the game in the United States (i.e. start time, etc) in order to accomodate a reasonable kick-off time in London. Further, said executives are obviously of a mind that shifting the Super Bowl to an international site on a once-in-a-great-while basis offers enormous upside in terms of global marketing, while having very little - if any - true impact on American viewership of the game. Sure, there are obviously some fans who will bitch and moan about the prospect of such a move taking place. That said, when push comes to shove, the majority of said fans will be tuned-in watching a London-based Super Bowl when it is played. Further, those few fans who won't tune-in out of "principle" constitute so small a percentage of the NFL's potential audience that league executives aren't concerned.

Bottom line? It's not that big a deal. If it were, the NFL wouldn't even be considering it.

[McCall]

Sure, putting the Super Bowl overseas will help with the Globalization of the NFL. But your doing it at the cost of the fans of the teams playing here who may otherwise go to the Super Bowl to cheer on their beloved team.

The vast majority of American NFL fans who attend the Super Bowl are deep-pocketed corporate types who are more than capable of affording a trip to London to take in the league's championship game. In fact, said deep-pocketed fans will probably be more intrigued by the possibility of attending a Super Bowl in a world-class city like London than they would be about heading to the likes of New Orleans or South Florida for the umpteenth time.

Beyond that, each and every NFL franchise receives their allotment of tickets for the game which they then distribute as they see fit. The vast majority of them go to team employees, local corporate partners and the wealthiest of season-ticket holders. As for the participating teams, they receive their larger allotments of Super Bowl tickets, which are distributed similarly: to team employees, local corporate partners and those season-ticket holders prepared to meet the cost of attending the Super Bowl, i.e. the wealthiest of the team's fan-base.

If the game is played in London, it's predominately gonna be a British audience...

No, the audience will predominantly be comprised of the same NFL corporate partners and deep-pocketed NFL fans who make up the Super Bowl's audience every year. Certainly, because the game is being played in London, there might be more English employees of the NFL's corporate partners who'll attend, just as some deep-pocketed English fans of the NFL might want to take advantage of attending the game on their home soil. That said, Wembley is a large enough facility to accomodate all of the "usual suspects" who attend the Super Bowl in the United States plus additional fans.

... who may be into the game and everything, but may not be the loyal fans who root for their team every week, and who, even though it may still be a bit of a travel, may be able to make it to Miami or Phoenix or somewhere in the U.S. to see their team play in the biggest game in the world.

All the more reason to rotate the Super Bowl to a foreign site every few years. We've already established that the NFL's corporate partners and deep-pocketed owners can afford to attend the Super Bowl wherever it is played. Further, if - as you seem to imply - American sports fans of more modest means are such die-hard supporters of the NFL, they'll either be so compelled to attend the event that they'll find the means to pay for a trip to London, or - like most American NFL fans now - won't be able to afford to attend the Super Bowl live, regardless. In other words, those two segments of the Super Bowl's live audience will remain unchanged. However, under your argument, for the first time in the game's history there will be overseas fans of more modest means who might just be able to work out a way to attend the game. Beautiful! In reality, a game in London will expand the Super Bowl's live audience.

It's like saying, "Thanks for supporting this team through the season and the playoffs, as they made it all the way to the Super Bowl. But now, unless you can afford international travel, we're gonna let people in a foreign country have the chance to see your team play...

Again, you're kidding yourself if you believe for a moment that the Super Bowl audience at venues in the United States is comprised of average, middle-class, die-hard NFL fans. That's just not the case. The majority of such fans are watching the Super Bowl on TV now, as it is. Moving the game to London once in a great while isn't going to change their ability to enjoy the game in the way that they normally do... in their living rooms.

But there is only one Super Bowl.

Yes, and the vast majority of the NFL's American fans will never attend the Super Bowl live whether it's held in London, an American city or their own home market.

Nobody's talking about moving the Super Bowl to London - or any other foreign market - on a permanent basis. It would be a once-in-a-great-while type event. The NFL's executives are obviously prepared to make adjustments to the live broadcast of the game in the United States (i.e. start time, etc) in order to accomodate a reasonable kick-off time in London. Further, said executives are obviously of a mind that shifting the Super Bowl to an international site on a once-in-a-great-while basis offers enormous upside in terms of global marketing, while having very little - if any - true impact on American viewership of the game. Sure, there are obviously some fans who will bitch and moan about the prospect of such a move taking place. That said, when push comes to shove, the majority of said fans will be tuned-in watching a London-based Super Bowl when it is played. Further, those few fans who won't tune-in out of "principle" constitute so small a percentage of the NFL's potential audience that league executives aren't concerned.

Bottom line? It's not that big a deal. If it were, the NFL wouldn't even be considering it.

By trying to disprove me, you actually kind of proved my point. Yes a lot of the current Super Bowl audience is Corporate Big Shots, but not all of them. There are still a lot of fans there who are just everyday fans of a particualr team, albeit the ones who have enough money to make it to the game. But by moving it to a foreign city, they are basically saying, "we only care about those big shots who only go to the game because it's a social status event and don't care who's playing in the game itself." That right there, would in turn, turn away most of the everyday fans who watch or attend the games throughout the season. And when the Super Bowl is in a place like Miami or New Orleans, it turns the whole week into one giant Super Bowl party for anyone there or who makes a trip to the city, even if it's just to enjoy the festivities and watch the game at a sports bar or something. In London, it'd be those Corporate Big Shots and stuck-up celebrities. London would not have the same high energy Super Bowl week that one of the American cities would have.

Couple all this with the previously mentioned time zone factors, and it just doesn't equal a positive move.

[DEAD!]

By trying to disprove me, you actually kind of proved my point. Yes a lot of the current Super Bowl audience is Corporate Big Shots, but not all of them. There are still a lot of fans there who are just everyday fans of a particualr team, albeit the ones who have enough money to make it to the game. But by moving it to a foreign city, they are basically saying, "we only care about those big shots who only go to the game because it's a social status event and don't care who's playing in the game itself." That right there, would in turn, turn away most of the everyday fans who watch or attend the games throughout the season. And when the Super Bowl is in a place like Miami or New Orleans, it turns the whole week into one giant Super Bowl party for anyone there or who makes a trip to the city, even if it's just to enjoy the festivities and watch the game at a sports bar or something. In London, it'd be those Corporate Big Shots and stuck-up celebrities. London would not have the same high energy Super Bowl week that one of the American cities would have.

Couple all this with the previously mentioned time zone factors, and it just doesn't equal a positive move.

I did mention about the time-zone, if only because I view an NFL game and the Super Bowl, in particular, as a TV event. The NFL and it's teams makes most of it's money from TV revenue and sponsorships, not ticket sales. I personally don't know if the NFL and the network that is covering the game can maximise it's TV revenue by putting a game in London. Also, I'm not sure if the temperature and climate in London on a January February would be that appealing.

I would tend to agree that the festivities in say Miami and New Orleans might have more "energy", however, the NFL doesn't make money from the sports bars and parties during Super Bowl week, the city does. Cities bid for the game, not the NFL just arbitrary decides to go to Tampa or New Orleans just for the heck of it.

Also, London is much bigger city than most cities that have hosted the Super Bowl, and there is a lot money to be made there. It is also a major financial centre, but then again, so is New York. I do think the NFL is finding way to attract the European fan base with the falling US dollar against the Euro and pound. So maybe if they can exploit that, they could still end up making as much money from a London Super Bowl than say a Houston one.

My opinion is that there are pros and cons to hosting an Super Bowl in London. If the NFL feels they can make money out of it, then they have every right to do so and I think it's an experiment worth trying. The NFL has never been shy about trying something new.

[PeytonManningRocks]

Yea I think I'm in agreement with everyone here... I'm okay with the current one or two games a year overseas thing, but the Super Bowl should be played where all the biggest fans are, and that's here in the states. And besides, they already broadcast the Super Bowl in other countries, so what's the point of actually playing it there?

[Fred T. Jane]

Couple all this with the previously mentioned time zone factors, and it just doesn't equal a positive move.

Poppycock.

This year's UEFA Champions League Final, held in Moscow, will be at 2300 local time. Not too many folks are complaining about that.

If kickoff is held at the same time as Monday Night Football used to on the East Coast (9 PM or 2100), that would mean a 4:21 PM kickoff on the East Coast and a 1:21 PM kickoff on the West Coast, or not too far behind the time most Super Bowls start.

(Fixed math. Twas thinking about my own time zone.)

[PeytonManningRocks]

Couple all this with the previously mentioned time zone factors, and it just doesn't equal a positive move.

Poppycock.

This year's UEFA Champions League Final, held in Moscow, will be at 2300 local time. Not too many folks are complaining about that.

If kickoff is held at the same time as Monday Night Football used to on the East Coast (9 PM or 2100), that would mean a 4:21 PM kickoff on the East Coast and a 1:21 PM kickoff on the West Coast, or not too far behind the time most Super Bowls start.

(Fixed math. Twas thinking about my own time zone.)

Actually the Super Bowl usually starts around 6:30 et or 3:30 pacific, but what's the difference really?

[Fred T. Jane]

Actually the Super Bowl usually starts around 6:30 et or 3:30 pacific, but what's the difference really?

That's my point. It isn't as though the game will be a lunchtime kickoff in London. There are much more important things to take care of at that time in London, like the Barclay's Premier League!