NFL franchise in the UK: Jags? Bucs? Battle Royale!

[nash61]

The London Monarchs averaged 40,000 fans for their first 5 games of existence. Then the novelty wore off. By the time they left London (8 years later), they could barely draw 5,000.

[DustDevil61]

All this time and no mention of the London Silly Nannies?

But yea, I have no reason why the NFL is so insistent on a London team. They need to get back to LA first.

[Saintsfan]

If it does happen, so far as the team's name is concerned I like wildwing64's suggestion of the London Whatevers.

What I am sure a lot of people also don't realise is, that 99% of NFL fans in the UK already strongly support a certain team. There are a lot of Raiders and Dolphins fans from when the NFL became a huge hit when it was started to be shown on mainstream TV in the '80s and then also an absolute bucketload of Patriots fans from the resurgence in the '00s. Will all these fans jump ship and back a new team enough for it to succeed financially?

Spot on.

I know a number of NFL fans - mostly Brits but a couple of ex-pat Americans - and they all have teams they've supported for years. I've not canvassed opinion but I honestly couldn't see any of them switching allegiances to a new London team simply because it's based in this country - it's just not something supporters tend to do, you stick with your team.

Also, Bucfan56 mentioned the time issue - when would games be played? At the moment, NFL games are shown live on the telly here on Sunday evening. Getting to and from Wembley from anywhere other than the south-east can be horrible enough at the best of times, so if the Whatevers followed suit and played Sunday nights there's going to be a large chunk of potential fans who would struggle to get home post-game, unless they're prepared to take the expense and hassle of stopping over in London and travelling back home the next day.

I generally agree with this, however I think that a lot of UK based NFL fans could support a second, London based team. I think British NFL fans could easily root for both the Whatevers and their favourite US team.

The logistical issues are the more serious objections. A 3,000 mile road trip to your local rivals? Not happening anytime soon.

I think most NFL fans in the UK like it because its somewhat exotic. Having a London based team may in fact weaken its appeal. Whether or not Wembley would sell out 8 games a year or not I don't know. That's a tall order.

[Cosmic]

If the whole "the fans there already have their favorite teams" argument was true, no league would ever be able to expand. If you are a good candidate for expansion, then you already have fans of that sport in your city. If the people are already watching your sport on TV, they're going to develop favorite teams... I don't really see any way around this.

[Gothamite]

If the whole "the fans there already have their favorite teams" argument was true, no league would ever be able to expand.

Actually, that has been a problem in some American cities. There was a poll several years ago showing that among self-professed baseball fans, the Rays were the third-favorite team in the Tampa Bay area. Baseball was popular there, but the market was already saturated before they had "their" team.

So yes, a market like the UK should be viewed with some skepticism. Maybe the NFL will end up like baseball, in a failed market that once seemed good but couldn't actually take in a new team.

[IceCap]

If the whole "the fans there already have their favorite teams" argument was true, no league would ever be able to expand.

Actually, that has been a problem in some American cities. There was a poll several years ago showing that among self-professed baseball fans, the Rays were the third-favorite team in the Tampa Bay area. Baseball was popular there, but the market was already saturated before they had "their" team.

Yeah, and it's just not baseball. The NHL's run into this problem as well. The "people will support a new team and abandon past loyalties" assumption doesn't always pan out.

Not that it really matters here. There are plenty of reasons to dismiss any "NFL to London" plan before having to resort to it.

[Gothamite]

I can think of two of them:

1. Eleven hour flights; and

2. An eight-hour time difference.

All of the articles supporting a team in London (or at least explaining that it wouldn't be so bad) seem to presume that the London _________s would only face East Coast teams. Just the thought of facing AFC West clubs, during the regular season or the playoffs, ought to kill the conversation rather quickly.

[IceCap]

I can think of two of them:

1. Eleven hour flights; and

2. An eight-hour time difference.

All of the articles supporting a team in London (or at least explaining that it wouldn't be so bad) seem to presume that the London _________s would only face East Coast teams. Just the thought of facing AFC West clubs, during the regular season or the playoffs, ought to kill the conversation rather quickly.

Yeah, they'd have to jerry-rig a schedule for them, which should be a non-starter.

In addition to the two you listed they'd have to figure out a way to work British networks in the existing NFL tv deals. I'm not sure who airs the games in the UK as-is, but it wouldn't surprise me if putting a team in London permanently meant that whoever airs the games would want a bigger piece of the pie.

[Kramerica Industries]

If the whole "the fans there already have their favorite teams" argument was true, no league would ever be able to expand.

Actually, that has been a problem in some American cities. There was a poll several years ago showing that among self-professed baseball fans, the Rays were the third-favorite team in the Tampa Bay area. Baseball was popular there, but the market was already saturated before they had "their" team.

So yes, a market like the UK should be viewed with some skepticism. Maybe the NFL will end up like baseball, in a failed market that once seemed good but couldn't actually take in a new team.

And the reason is two-fold, the second on relating to the first:

1. Florida has long been a hotbed for spring training, including the Central Florida region (I generously assess this to be the area between Orlando and Lake Okeechobee) and around the Tampa Bay area.

2. Three of baseball's most powerful teams either have or still train in the area. The NY Mets trained in St. Petersburg until 1987 (and now in Port St. Lucie) and the St. Louis Cardinals until 1997 (now in Jupiter), and the Yankees still train in Tampa.

The Tampa Bay area is about the picture-perfect definition of a pre-saturated market. Couple that with economic difficulties in recent years, and no wonder the Rays always have sucky attendance.

[DarkJourney]

Anything Pete Prisco says I ignore.

[Cosmic]

If the whole "the fans there already have their favorite teams" argument was true, no league would ever be able to expand.

Actually, that has been a problem in some American cities. There was a poll several years ago showing that among self-professed baseball fans, the Rays were the third-favorite team in the Tampa Bay area. Baseball was popular there, but the market was already saturated before they had "their" team.

So yes, a market like the UK should be viewed with some skepticism. Maybe the NFL will end up like baseball, in a failed market that once seemed good but couldn't actually take in a new team.

I don't mean to dismiss the idea completely; I could see that being a problem in certain areas, like the second Toronto team (although I think that might be worth a shot if it's in Markham), but would that really apply in London? Isn't NFL fandom in Europe somewhat recent? Did these people really become such diehard Bills fans from 3,000 miles away that they could never root for the London Whatevers?

P.S. I don't really think an NFL team in London is a good idea, but the NFL is best-suited out of the big US leagues to try, so I think it will be fun to see what happens.

[Saintsfan]

If the whole "the fans there already have their favorite teams" argument was true, no league would ever be able to expand.

Actually, that has been a problem in some American cities. There was a poll several years ago showing that among self-professed baseball fans, the Rays were the third-favorite team in the Tampa Bay area. Baseball was popular there, but the market was already saturated before they had "their" team.

So yes, a market like the UK should be viewed with some skepticism. Maybe the NFL will end up like baseball, in a failed market that once seemed good but couldn't actually take in a new team.

I don't mean to dismiss the idea completely; I could see that being a problem in certain areas, like the second Toronto team (although I think that might be worth a shot if it's in Markham), but would that really apply in London? Isn't NFL fandom in Europe somewhat recent? Did these people really become such diehard Bills fans from 3,000 miles away that they could never root for the London Whatevers?

P.S. I don't really think an NFL team in London is a good idea, but the NFL is best-suited out of the big US leagues to try, so I think it will be fun to see what happens.

There are plenty of NFL fans of my age and similar (35-45 age range) who grew up watching the NFL of Montana and Elway and Marino and Payton so on. The NFL is trying to plug into a well established, if not old in US terms, market. A lot of fans of that generation are diehard 49ers or Giants or Bears or Broncos fans. (Even teams like the Chiefs a small number of fans from those days.)

If it were me, and I was looking to see if an NFL franchise in London could work, I'd pick a smaller stadium, like the Emirates, and see what happens. Of course that's impossible given the clash between the soccer calendar and the NFL season, but the problem is that 50 or 60,000 inside Wembley can still create a flat atmosphere, and you aren't guaranteed an 80,000 sell out.

[Gothamite]

That's an excellent point. Wembley is the ultimate big-ticket venue. How many will come out to see a last place Jags/Chiefs matchup in their ninth year of games?

[gosioux76]

I also don't think targeting a smaller venue fits the business model. Isn't one of the value propositions of an NFL franchise is that it's a destination event capable of filling a major stadium week after week? Filling Wembley with 80,000-plus for each game should be the benchmark of success for any London-based franchise. The fact that it seems unlikely is just another reason this is a bad idea.

[Gothamite]

I don't think even the NFL would hold a brand-new market in development to the same standards as an American one.

Wembley is the most likely destination, only because it doesn't already have a regular tenant during the season. Still doesn't mean it's a good idea.

[Saintsfan]

Wembley is the only sensible destination, maybe except for Twickenham Stadium, the national rugby stadium, but there would be scheduling clashes there as well. And the relationship between the NFL and Wembley Stadium has always been pretty good. It's pretty much Wembley or bust.

[Evil G]

How about just moving the Jags to L.A.? It's simple, really, just move into L.A Coliseum for the years until Farmers Field is complete.

[Gothamite]

That's a different thread.

http://boards.sportslogos.net/topic/84270-nfl-merry-go-round/page__st__2200#entry2025580

But be careful; some of the Jags fans we have here get a mite touchy when you suggest their market isn't the second coming of Green Bay.

[Island_Style]

That's a different thread.

http://boards.sports...00#entry2025580

But be careful; some of the Jags fans we have here get a mite touchy when you suggest their market isn't the second coming of Green Bay.

Been way more right on the situation than you have. We have been at it for like 5 years. (Where has the time gone)You are whiff nation. I wonder why? My guess is because you don't know what you are talking about.

[Gothamite]

I never named any names...

But you guys start selling out games with playoff implications, and the teasing will subside. I have hopes that your new owner can turn the market around.