Goodell says NFL to look into playing Super Bowl in London

Associated Press

 

Updated: October 15, 2007, 7:20 PM ET

Comment

Email

Print

SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. -- A future Super Bowl champion may someday be crowned overseas in a game witnessed predominantly by a foreign audience, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell said.

 

"There's a great deal of interest in holding a Super Bowl in London," Goodell told reporters Monday. "So we'll be looking at that."

 

The commissioner said London's new Wembley Stadium would make a great candidate for pro football's biggest matchup, given the enthusiasm overseas for the game.

 

The NFL has been expanding its overseas presence for years by televising games around the world. It's held preseason games in numerous countries in Europe, Asia, Mexico and Canada, and in 2005, the Arizona Cardinals and San Francisco 49ers played the first regular-season match outside the United States.

 

The game at Azteca Stadium in Mexico City drew the league's largest crowd to date, 103,467.

 

On Oct. 28, Wembley will host the first regular-season NFL game outside North America. It took just 90 minutes to sell the first 40,000 tickets for the game between the Miami Dolphins and New York Giants. Goodell said event organizers have sold 95,000 tickets in all.

 

Goodell spoke about the possibility of a British Super Bowl after a luncheon Monday in Scottsdale sponsored by the host committee for the 2008 Super Bowl in Arizona.

 

i hate the idea of a regular season game over there cause you lose a home game and for travel reasons (gotta make some long trips to then come back to play in the US) but this idea actually intrigues me. i figure the stadium has a roof since it gets cold over there and Goodell's thinking about it.

Why would you outsource the biggest money maker in the league?

 

Unless the NFL gets a cut of plane tickets or some such I see no reason to do something of this nature.

 

You deflate the value of luxury suite sales in cities like Miami and Tampa, you run the risk of alienating corporate clients much the way the Detroit Super Bowl did, and, most importantly, you stick the biggest football game in a non-football facility. It'd be like voluntarily arranging an A's-Marlins World Series to "showcase" the game.

Initial reaction: you suck, Goodell

 

10 seconds later reaction: What effect would this have on me or the game? Probably none. Do whatever you want, Roger.

Why would you outsource the biggest money maker in the league?

 

Unless the NFL gets a cut of plane tickets or some such I see no reason to do something of this nature.

 

You deflate the value of luxury suite sales in cities like Miami and Tampa, you run the risk of alienating corporate clients much the way the Detroit Super Bowl did, and, most importantly, you stick the biggest football game in a non-football facility. It'd be like voluntarily arranging an A's-Marlins World Series to "showcase" the game.

 

 

 

 

You mentioned everything but the fact that putting the biggest NFL game of the year in London would do wonders for exposing the game to a new audience and therefore inching closer to the ultimate goal (and money maker) of the NFL going global.

Why would you outsource the biggest money maker in the league?

 

Unless the NFL gets a cut of plane tickets or some such I see no reason to do something of this nature.

 

You deflate the value of luxury suite sales in cities like Miami and Tampa, you run the risk of alienating corporate clients much the way the Detroit Super Bowl did, and, most importantly, you stick the biggest football game in a non-football facility. It'd be like voluntarily arranging an A's-Marlins World Series to "showcase" the game.

 

 

 

 

You mentioned everything but the fact that putting the biggest NFL game of the year in London would do wonders for exposing the game to a new audience and therefore inching closer to the ultimate goal (and money maker) of the NFL going global.

 

So it's not making money in the US?

 

$600 upper deck seats aren't instantly sold out?

 

Like I said, unless the NFL partners with Virgin Atlantic or some other "party" airline to offer $15,000 round trip packages with seats to the game and gets a big cut of that action, I don't see the surefire economic wind-fall.

 

Putting the Pro-Bowl or something there? Sure. Great idea.

And here's another thing, it's obviously going to be broadcast in the 9 o'clock timeslot for the east-coast. Are you going to start the game at 4 PM in London?

 

Are you going to put it on tape-delay? Jesus, it's such a retarded idea as it can't stand to benefit America and still get a "true" Super Bowl experience for Europe.

Going to the game for the regular fan is hard enough. This would just add to the complexity and cost of attending a Super Bowl.

 

The Super Bowl is such a joke from a fan's perspective.

And here's another thing, it's obviously going to be broadcast in the 9 o'clock timeslot for the east-coast. Are you going to start the game at 4 PM in London?

 

Are you going to put it on tape-delay? Jesus, it's such a retarded idea as it can't stand to benefit America and still get a "true" Super Bowl experience for Europe.

 

you got me with the time difference. ill be damned if i gotta wake up early on a sunday or monday to watch the super bowl (although i will).

 

the other stuff really doesnt matter to me, i could care less about raymond james, university of pheonix stadium or even Dolphins stadium missing out on luxury suite sales. its not like the super bowl is played so consistently in the same cities. The NFL knows what its doing, theyre not gonna do something that will cost them. this article wasnt saying its gonna happen, it was just an idea that Goodell's looking into. i doubt theyve worked out the details.

Going to the game for the regular fan is hard enough. This would just add to the complexity and cost of attending a Super Bowl.

 

The Super Bowl is such a joke from a fan's perspective.

 

what avg fan can make it to the game anyway? its almost impossible so this really doesnt do anything to change that.

Going to the game for the regular fan is hard enough. This would just add to the complexity and cost of attending a Super Bowl.

 

The Super Bowl is such a joke from a fan's perspective.

 

what avg fan can make it to the game anyway? its almost impossible so this really doesnt do anything to change that.

 

But why continue to screw the average fan in the ass and make it even more expensive and even more difficult to attend?

 

It sucks that the "single greatest event" in American sport has such a low participation rate by the very people who live and die with the teams playing in the game.

Why would you outsource the biggest money maker in the league?

 

Unless the NFL gets a cut of plane tickets or some such I see no reason to do something of this nature.

 

You deflate the value of luxury suite sales in cities like Miami and Tampa, you run the risk of alienating corporate clients much the way the Detroit Super Bowl did, and, most importantly, you stick the biggest football game in a non-football facility. It'd be like voluntarily arranging an A's-Marlins World Series to "showcase" the game.

 

 

 

 

You mentioned everything but the fact that putting the biggest NFL game of the year in London would do wonders for exposing the game to a new audience and therefore inching closer to the ultimate goal (and money maker) of the NFL going global.

 

So it's not making money in the US?

 

$600 upper deck seats aren't instantly sold out?

 

Like I said, unless the NFL partners with Virgin Atlantic or some other "party" airline to offer $15,000 round trip packages with seats to the game and gets a big cut of that action, I don't see the surefire economic wind-fall.

 

Putting the Pro-Bowl or something there? Sure. Great idea.

 

 

 

 

 

Your talking about the NFL making money NOW.

 

 

Im talking about the NFL making more money LATER.

Going to the game for the regular fan is hard enough. This would just add to the complexity and cost of attending a Super Bowl.

 

The Super Bowl is such a joke from a fan's perspective.

 

what avg fan can make it to the game anyway? its almost impossible so this really doesnt do anything to change that.

 

But why continue to screw the average fan in the ass and make it even more expensive and even more difficult to attend?

 

It sucks that the "single greatest event" in American sport has such a low participation rate by the very people who live and die with the teams playing in the game.

 

its a good point, it does suck but thats how it is.

 

im not saying take the game over there, it is our sport but i cant lie about the fact that trying it out seems pretty cool to me to see how the english would react to it and the League could make the sport more popular worldwide like the NBA did.

Goodell needs to look into making the games 3hrs instead of 4 , each year the games seem to last longer and longer pretty soon it will be 1-7 for one freaking game, as for the Super Bowl in London ......NO

Why would you outsource the biggest money maker in the league?

 

Unless the NFL gets a cut of plane tickets or some such I see no reason to do something of this nature.

 

You deflate the value of luxury suite sales in cities like Miami and Tampa, you run the risk of alienating corporate clients much the way the Detroit Super Bowl did, and, most importantly, you stick the biggest football game in a non-football facility. It'd be like voluntarily arranging an A's-Marlins World Series to "showcase" the game.

 

 

 

 

You mentioned everything but the fact that putting the biggest NFL game of the year in London would do wonders for exposing the game to a new audience and therefore inching closer to the ultimate goal (and money maker) of the NFL going global.

 

So it's not making money in the US?

 

$600 upper deck seats aren't instantly sold out?

 

Like I said, unless the NFL partners with Virgin Atlantic or some other "party" airline to offer $15,000 round trip packages with seats to the game and gets a big cut of that action, I don't see the surefire economic wind-fall.

 

Putting the Pro-Bowl or something there? Sure. Great idea.

 

 

 

 

 

Your talking about the NFL making money NOW.

 

 

Im talking about the NFL making more money LATER.

 

The NFL doesn't make money LATER unless they expand to Europe. A franchise is the only thing that will create a continued and sustained cash flow from over-seas.

bad idea. it turns the super bowl into some aristocratic holiday for the rich (not that it already isn't), and you risk alienating your biggest fans for new fans that may not like it. and i think it's a bad idea too, it's almost like flipping the fans off in this case by moving the super bowl out of the country. i'm starting to think goodell/the nfl is anti-fan with the 4 hour games because of all the ads, wanting to take away crowd noise during games, and the such. it's making me like college more.

 

pro bowl, i would be okay with though.

I have no idea why you people care. Who here has been to a Super Bowl?

 

Also, I don't see the problem with the time slot thing. If they play it at, say, 9 PM in London, it will be a 4 PM broadcast on the East Coast, and 1 PM on the West Coast.

Why exactly does the NFL need to expand? Europeans have their own version of football, and the sport already makes plenty of money here.

I have no idea why you people care. Who here has been to a Super Bowl?

 

I have.

I have no idea why you people care. Who here has been to a Super Bowl?

 

Also, I don't see the problem with the time slot thing. If they play it at, say, 9 PM in London, it will be a 4 PM broadcast on the East Coast, and 1 PM on the West Coast.

 

it would only be about 2 hours earlier than its normally played (EST)

Also, I don't see the problem with the time slot thing. If they play it at, say, 9 PM in London, it will be a 4 PM broadcast on the East Coast, and 1 PM on the West Coast.

 

The Super Bowl MUST be in prime time. It's the definition of PRIME TIME. The ad revenue lost alone would be in 8 figures.

Also, I don't see the problem with the time slot thing. If they play it at, say, 9 PM in London, it will be a 4 PM broadcast on the East Coast, and 1 PM on the West Coast.

 

The Super Bowl MUST be in prime time. It's the definition of PRIME TIME. The ad revenue lost alone would be in 8 figures.

 

I think the superbowl would get huge ratings on a sunday regardless of what time its played. The will not be that big of a difference in tv audience at 4pm or 6:30pm

Why would you outsource the biggest money maker in the league?

 

Unless the NFL gets a cut of plane tickets or some such I see no reason to do something of this nature.

 

You deflate the value of luxury suite sales in cities like Miami and Tampa, you run the risk of alienating corporate clients much the way the Detroit Super Bowl did, and, most importantly, you stick the biggest football game in a non-football facility. It'd be like voluntarily arranging an A's-Marlins World Series to "showcase" the game.

 

 

 

 

You mentioned everything but the fact that putting the biggest NFL game of the year in London would do wonders for exposing the game to a new audience and therefore inching closer to the ultimate goal (and money maker) of the NFL going global.

 

So it's not making money in the US?

 

$600 upper deck seats aren't instantly sold out?

 

Like I said, unless the NFL partners with Virgin Atlantic or some other "party" airline to offer $15,000 round trip packages with seats to the game and gets a big cut of that action, I don't see the surefire economic wind-fall.

 

Putting the Pro-Bowl or something there? Sure. Great idea.

 

 

 

 

 

Your talking about the NFL making money NOW.

 

 

Im talking about the NFL making more money LATER.

 

But is that even guaranteed?

 

The biggest reasons baseball, hockey and basketball have been able to grow an international following is because of participation. Outside of the US, how many kids play football? Football does not have an international following amongst kids that is necessary to breed fandom. Baseball's seed in the current baseball hotspots such as the Caribbean and East Asia were planted a century ago. Playing one game every five or six years abroad will not do anything for the sport. Football is a good 20-25 years behind the other sports in terms of globalizing participation.

 

Societies as a whole around the world are not open to new sports (and ideas) that are similar or against to the sports (and ideas) they grew up playing (and believing). That is why baseball never caught on over cricket in England or Australia and soccer is having such a difficult time catching on here in the US. It is seen as "theirs" versus "ours."

I agree for the most part.

 

Im just presenting what the NFL's intent with this is.

 

 

The NFL probably believes it can concur the earth. The sport is ridiculously popular here in the States (I was at a casino the other night and they had 5 football games on and I couldnt find the NLCS on any of the TV's) so they may think anything is possible.

I can understand the NFL's take on this and I think it's a solid strategy, but I don't know if the end goal is feasible. Who's going to get into American football around the world? Anybody that would is either in love with football, rugby, or both. Baseball and basketball at least had potential to expand because they were already global sports and they are relatively easy to play for the poor.

 

I don't know if football has any sort of big time potential outside of the United States, so it may be a one time thing just to have a Super Bowl in Old Trafford or whatever and that's it.

I didn't read this thread, but please tell me there is outrage over this???