Conventional Wisdom Scoffs at NFL in London. Why?
Ignorance, NFL October 26th. 2009, 4:45pm
Americans understand the English. Bob Glauber rode the tube two years ago. Dan Shaughnessy can unleash an arsenal of ethnic stereotypes. Greg Walsh knows his “tea and crumpets.” With our perfect knowledge, we know an NFL franchise will never work in London. We just know. It’s obvious. Why bother to analyze it?
There’s a common element to this type of ungrounded, conventional wisdom. It’s stupid.
Americans are often ignorant of other countries. That does not mean other countries are equally ignorant of us. The NFL has been televised in the U.K. since the 1980s. In the last year, NFL ratings have risen 55 percent on Sky and 75 percent on Channel Five. As Paolo Bandini of the Guardian writes, it is no longer just a curiosity.
But, if one common complaint does not stand up, it is the suggestion that the league’s ability to sell out these games rests solely on, as Pasquarelli put it, “curiosity” among Britons. There is a core of knowledgeable American football fans in Britain that existed before 2007 and who have continued to ensure that – as a one-off at least – this game sells out.
The NFL won’t supplant the English Premier League. It doesn’t need to. A London franchise needs to sell tickets to eight games and earn a television deal.
Common wisdom says “the English” will never take to the NFL. Who are the English? London is one of the most ethnically diverse cities in the world. Forty-two percent of the population are nonwhite or non-English. Niche populations number in the hundreds of thousands. Characterizing millions of people under Victorian stereotypes is callous and unfair.
Need Americans? There are 182,000 Americans living in Britain, nearly double the population of Green Bay, Wisconsin. There are 57,000 Americans stationed a short trip away in Germany and thousands more stationed throughout Europe.
Football can be esoteric. Britons may struggle to break down the Cover 2 defense. So would most American fans. So would most American writers paid to cover the sport. It affects neither entertainment value, nor opportunities for drinking and gambling.
Football can be simple. The idea of carrying a ball across a line or kicking it through an upright is understandable. It’s especially understandable for the English, since they invented the sport, Rugby, American football directly descends from. Much of the terminology, “Halfback, fullback, flanker” still exists.
English media have been covering the London NFL games. The only thing they seemed perplexed by was why post-game interviews must be conducted naked, which is a valid question.
An NFL franchise in London may be a failure. It may fail dismally. But, it’s worth examining. However unfeasible expansion to Britain may be, it will be easier than getting public funding for a stadium in Los Angeles.
97 Responses to “Conventional Wisdom Scoffs at NFL in London. Why?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.


October 26th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Larry Johnson has more splaining to do. Probably never a good idea to call a reporter a faggot when there are a bunch of other reporters in the locker room.
October 26th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
I grew up in England (Air Force brat). It won’t work.
October 26th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
http://www.kansascity.com/703/story/1530957.html
October 26th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Interesting because someone was talking about the zero level of build-up the Pats/Bucs game was getting. Oh, and sorry for the double post, I meant to combine these.
October 26th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
FAIL
October 26th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Don’t go lumping me in with Bob Griese
October 26th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Why?
October 26th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
No, shouldn’t happen and won’t. Try LA first. Just a bad idea.
October 26th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
No, shouldn’t happen and won’t. Try LA first. Just a bad idea.
That’s been done about three times already.
October 26th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
There isn’t going to be an NFL team in Los Angeles. Even if the environmental laws are lifted, which someone will challenge, you still have to build a stadium with private funding because California’s government does not have money.
NFL teams make most of their money from the TV contract, which is collective. The relatively small increase in money a team might make in Los Angeles won’t be enough to entice a team to move and pay for the stadium.
October 26th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
They’re too busy eating bangers and mash to watch.
/Bog Griese’d
October 26th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Acknowledged. 4th-10th time is the charm.
I haven’t spoken with 1 football fan who even thinks the singular game over there is good.
/in person
//you guys are fake
October 26th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
It has nothing to do with selling the NFL product to people who live in England. It has to do with logistics. It’s simply not feasible.
October 26th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Again, why?
October 26th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
The biggest reason the NFL should never EVER go to London has nothing to do with culture, fan base or soccer —-> time difference.
October 26th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
It has no place in their society. They’ve been showing the NFL in England since the mid 80s and the fact the demand has NOT increased whatsoever kinda shows that, doesn’t it? When I was there, the NFL would send a preseason game over there and the majority of the fans who went were American military personnel.
Do you honestly think Ian from Manchester is going to give up his love for United so he can root for a displaced San Diego Chargers team, a team he has absolutely no natural connection to? I don’t.
October 26th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
A couple things.
1) That LA stadium is about an hour with traffic out of LA. It’s no different than putting a team in Anaheim. The distance and time factor are about equal. I just can’t see people willing to drive out there and spend gobs of money on pro football when you cna sit and watch at home. If the team is very very very good (see USC football and not UCLA) though then it will be a huge boom. If not it is bust a rama.
2.) The economics of putting a team in London have to be outrageous. I don’t know about taxes and everything but right now the American dollar is only worth .6 British pounds. Combine that with the fact that an England team will have to travel at least 3 time zones 8 times a year, it just seems unfeasible. I don’t even know how this would work.
October 26th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Oh, and are you honestly asking another team to take a 16-hour round trip plane ride (no more Concorde) just to satisfy Roger Goodell’s morbid, misplaced curiosity is logistically feasible, not to mention fair?
October 26th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
It’s not zero sum. There’s no need to radically altar your perceptions. Time wouldn’t conflict with any Manchester United games. People here watch English soccer. Just de facto saying it won’t work and justifying that by saying it won’t work isn’t an argument.
October 26th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
They need a place to play, and Wembley’s not it. Then there’s the matter of having 10 teams travel overseas to play, and the 10 away games that the London team would play. Travel would be a nightmare. Also, what would the tax implications be for the London based players? That’s probably something the NFLPA would be interested in.
October 26th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
I had no idea you had to give up love for teams in different sports.
October 26th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
There’s nowhere in the inhabited world that is a 16-hour plane ride from London. It takes roughly as long to fly from the east coast (6 hours) to play Seattle or San Diego as it does to fly to London. Not that hard to fly out on a Sunday Night and have a week to acclimate.
October 26th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Sorry, multitasking here (poorly, I might add). What I meant to say is is it fair to ask different teams to take weekly 16-hour round trips just to satisfy Goodell’s weird obsession with England? Is it economically intelligent?
October 26th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
8 hours there + 8 hours back = 16 hours.
October 26th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
NFL teams can’t afford to charter planes now?
October 26th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
Where would the NFL team get dental care in England?
/Bob Greise’d
October 26th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Ed Roski would lile a word with you. He seems pretty serious about it, and he’s apparently spent a good deal of money to make that Industry site work. He also intends on building the stadium with 100% private money.
October 26th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
When they compete during the same calendar period? You are asking a person who has watched footie their entire life to take some of that passion and root for a bunch of Yanks with no natural geographical connection.
Smells like failure and disinterest to me.
October 26th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Serious question regarding Visas and travel. Lets be honest there are plenty of NFL players with rap sheets. Would this be a snag of any type?
October 26th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Yeah but what are you going to do if you put a team in London and their schedule is something like, At the Giants, home to the Redskins, At Seattle, At San Francisco, home to Dallas. I mean doesn’t that put that team at a competitive disadvantage? 6 hour flight, then 6 hour flight home, then 11 hour flight to Seattle stay for two weeks, then 11 hour flight home? I’m no human body expert but combine that travel with the physicality of football I could see these teams breaking down and getting injured more often.
October 26th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
The logistics alone are a nightmare. Any London opponent would most likely have to get a bye the following week to compensate for the travel time and time difference… there’s almost no way you’d be able to have any west coast teams play the london team… and how the F would the London team travel week after week to America and not have their sleep schedules completely out of wack?
October 26th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Perfectly put. Teams now do everything they can to maintain some sort of normal schedule just going from coast to coast, never mind across the pond. Can you imagine the Seahawks traveling to London one week, then coming back and playing on the East Coast, then heading home? The team would be beat. Or the London team flying to the West Coast? It’s a 10+ hour flight from London to San Diego. It’s just a bad idea.
October 26th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
So wasting all that expensive jet fuel just to satisfy Goodell’s misguided obsession is smart business for a league that’s already bitched about the economy? Asking players to do the same is fair?
Just so London, which already has about 30 million soccer teams, can have an NFL team no one outside of Goodell’s office is asking for? I’d concentrate on LA a LOT sooner than going across the pond.
October 26th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
There’s no issue with the NBA and Canada so I don’t think it’s that big of a deal. Of course, I don’t know if London is as easy to get in and out of as Canada.
October 26th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
No NFL team in London.
Travel,lack of interest(see how well MLS is doing here), and socialized medicine.
If Leon Washington was playing for a London team he would be in front of a death panel right now.
October 26th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
As Paolo Bandini of the Guardian writes,
I didn’t realize that the phrase bojack ninny circlejerker was part of the Queen’s English
October 26th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Dan Shaughnessy can unleash an arsenal of ethnic stereotypes.
His last name is Shaughnessy. He’s Irish, so of course he’s going to use ethnic stereotypes to make fun of the English. They did rape his mother country for centuries.
Even if the environmental laws are lifted, which someone will challenge,
The bill that Schwarzenegger (don’t care if that spelling wasn’t close) signed last week essentially sidesteps these lawsuits by exempting the stadium from these environmental laws you are referring to. So that’s already been done. LA wants this to happen and you can bank on LA getting a team before London ever does.
October 26th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
The tax issue is a very real one in Toronto though. I can only imagine it would be similar in London.
October 26th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
I, for one, look forward to a Monday Night game in London. Would that game start at 8pm London time (4pm eastern) or 8pm eastern while midnight in London?
October 26th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
What about if some team plays in England in Week 17 and has to return home then for a playoff game the next week…that’s not very fair now is it?
October 26th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
update on LA stadium and ownership from SI
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/jon_wertheim/10/22/nfl.la/index.html
LA Cougars perhaps instead of Jaguars to be all trendy and hipsterish?
October 26th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
What does that have to do with the amount of time it takes to fly from Place A to Place B? Do charter planes fly through some special worm hole that makes their flights shorter than the normal flight?
October 26th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Three questions, TBL:
1. Who builds this NFL stadium for this franchise? You’re not getting free access to Wembley Stadium for every Sunday from September through December. And the London government isn’t going to add a cent or cut a break in the costs for this team. They’re going to have to pay for premium real estate — as trying to build in London is akin to building in NYC — just as Chelsea or Tottenham would have to if they want to build new stadiums.
2. How would local/state governments here in the US respond to the NFL bending over backwards to help this team in a foreign land while having their owners demand every red cent they can find?
3. The NFL has fans in England. But given the high cost of living in London, would they be willing to spend what would be high cost tickets for what would be a novelty act at first? You’re asking Arsenal fans and Spurs fans and West Ham fans and so on to not spend their cash on those teams and put it onto a bad NFL team?
October 26th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
1. You fly out on a Sunday Night or a Monday rather than the Friday before the game. That day is an off-day anyway.
2. You can stagger the games so that the London team doesn’t go home – away – home – away
October 26th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Its funny how everyone here is a logistic expert… These concerns seem way overblown (except the visa one).
For sake of discussion lets say logistically its not an issue.
I think more fans of England would take it up based on a nationalistic spirit as well. All can come together to be fans of the London team.
Do people think if there was a single USA premier league team (maybe even rotated ‘home stadiums’) that it would not do well?
October 26th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Sorry…meant my questions for Ty.
October 26th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Teams don’t get Monday off if they a) Lose on Sunday or b) have a game Monday night.
You’re still not addressing the problem with the 10+ hour flight for West Coast teams, the bye week, or the time difference issues for a team living in a time zone five or more hours ahead of all the teams they’ll be playing.
October 26th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
1. They can play at Wembley. There’s nothing going on there. They would pay for access to it. The English FA wants as much money as possible.
2. That’s already an issue. Nothing to do with a London team.
3. It’s eight games a year and Wembley is enormous so you can stagger seating prices. Most of those fans can’t afford to go to games there anyway.
October 26th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
That’s sort of right. Saturday is travel day for Sunday games, and Sunday is travel day for Monday nighters. Even though it’s a travel day, there is still some work done, with meetings and film study. Tuesday is the only league-wide off day, and something the NFLPA fought very hard to get, so I doubt that they’d be willing to give that unless the owners gave up something substantial.
October 26th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
I haven’t been there in a few years, but when I was there the NFL coverage you describe was in place. And to describe it as anything more than niche and kitch is a real stretch.
There is just a different mentality there than here as to what place sport has in society. In England, professional sport more closely resembles college sports here. Identity, history, heritage are all important in how they view sport. Just having high level athleticism without local or national identity doesn’t figure to be real sticky with the locals.
October 26th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
I didn’t realize anyone here was claiming to be a logistics expert. You don’t have to be a genius to realize a 5-10 hour one way flight to play a football game might be a nightmare. Especially when you could possibly be doing it every couple of weeks (for the London team).
October 26th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
The only to do it is to have the London team play in blocks of 3 or 4. 3 home games in a row, followed by 3 road games and such. But if they did that then the London team is living on the road for weeks at a time. I know it can work, but I don’t think that is in any way fair to those players.
Here’s a quick look at the the tax situation for Americans working in London.
“Britain plans a 50 percent tax rate for those who earn more than 150,000 pounds ($248,000) a year and employers cut benefits for workers living abroad, reducing the allure of London. That comes a year after the U.K. said foreigners who have lived in the country for more than seven years must pay 30,000 pounds annually or give up the special status that shields overseas income from British taxes”
October 26th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
I’m sure their Muslim population will greet American sports and their athletes with much fanfare and appreciation.
October 26th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Are people permanently disabled when they travel overseas? Even if they, for some mystical reason, could not adjust to jet-lag after 5-6 days. The game would still be played at night on American time.
Soccer players often fly back for a national team match in Central or South America on Wednesday, fly back to Europe and play for their club team on Saturday.
October 26th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Why are these issues? (one solution west coast team could do a east coast, london, bye week trip)
Even if it played out as you stated why does it matter?
October 26th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Legitimate question: how does Hawaii do it in college football? I thought I had read that if they have two or three road games in a row, that they stay in the Continential U.S. for that period of time with university tutors keeping them up on the school work and lectures they’re missing. Can’t be easy, but it’s a solution of sorts.
That being said, I still don’t think it’s feasible to have a team in London. I think lefty has been the only one to bring up the entity which would resist this the most: the Players Association.
October 26th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
1. They can play at Wembley. There’s nothing going on there. They would pay for access to it. The English FA wants as much money as possible.
As I said, the NFL is not getting into Wembley for free. They’ll be paying a high price for the privilege to playing there. And given how used and abused that pitch is after every concert and friendly (which will still take place there) you’re looking at a repeat of the game 2 years back and a horrible playing field.
Actually, I take that back. I can’t imagine the FA (needing money as they are) would offer up Wembley like that for every year to an NFL franchise. Not if it would sacrifice the pitch and cost the England NT a game there.
October 26th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
It seems like 9 out of every 10 tyduffy write-ups read like a high school debate team assignment. “Pick an issue everyone generally thinks one way about and go the other direction.”
The NFL has too many problems on their home soil to consider more than one game over there, let alone a
.
October 26th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
You’ve just increased the travel cost of a west coast team substantially over what it would normally cost for two road games back to back. The team usually flies in the day before the game, and spends one night in a hotel, as the bus goes straight from the stadium to the airport. Instead of 2 nights in pretty nice hotels, they’re spending what, 8? Oh, and there’s per diem. And all of the staff that aren’t full time employees.
October 26th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
crumpets SUCK
October 26th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Can’t believe it took 35 comments for someone to mention that.
October 26th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Remember the games they played in Tokyo a few years back? Interesting how there aren’t any more of those. This is something that will have to be negotiated, and the asking price will be far too high.
October 26th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Nice.
October 26th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Is there some sort of evidence that there is any desire on London’s part to have a team? The one off games are completley driven by corporate novelty and ex-pats. Neither of which could sustain a franchise without significant local support.
A quick scan of the London papers today shows the game summary to be no higher than the 5th story in the sport section. That’s 5th the day after the very special and only live game of the year.
October 26th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
you’re pathetic. you would give your left nut to be from europe wouldnt you? there is only one channel on duffy’s cable box …the bbc. it isnt that americans are ignorant to other countries we just dont give a fuck. you read a few columns from over there and spent a couple months in europe and think they give a shit about what is going on over here?
October 26th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Have you ever adjusted from jet lag AND participated in full out football practice, then play a football game 6-7 days later?
The NHL travels to Europe at the beginning of the season and plays two games there. It takes the guys over a week to get adjusted, and they don’t play any games once they’re back for at least a week.
Imagine being the guys on the team in London and having to adjust to the time difference 8 weeks over the season. You really don’t think that’s going to fuck with your body?
I don’t know why you’re so easily dismissing the time difference. Sure, it might not be so bad for one week, but you’re completely forgetting about the London team that will have to travel more than any other team in the league.
October 26th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Still, no one is crankier than Mike Mussina after playing overseas.
October 26th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Is there some sort of evidence that there is any desire on London’s part to have a team? The one off games are completley driven by corporate novelty and ex-pats. Neither of which could sustain a franchise without significant local support.
A quick scan of the London papers today shows the game summary to be no higher than the 5th story in the sport section. That’s 5th the day after the very special and only live game of the year.
This.
They have their sports and their traditions. One NFL game a year is an attraction — like the circus coming to town. You’re not supplanting soccer, rugby or cricket in their collective hearts and minds.
October 26th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Hawaii football has been mentioned. So has soccer players. Do tennis players get bothered? rugby? cricket?
Hockey teams in Russia?
October 26th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
So you’re saying the London team would have to play blocks of games in the States? Are they gonna rent out practice venues and everything else that comes with housing an NFL franchise? Ask the 2005 Saints how that worked out.
October 26th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
If you don’t think jet lag is a problem, wait to you see how the Bucs play for the rest of the season.
Compromise, put a team outside of London…Ontario.
Toronto would be good a choice, move Jags there and Rams back to L.A and let’s never have to discuss St Louis and Jacksonville again.
October 26th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Ask the 2005 Saints how that worked out.
And the 2005 Tulane Green Wave. Oh yeah they sucked anyway.
/low blow.
//they still beat my team that year though.
October 26th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
I also forgot F1, those guys (and crews?) go all over the world too.
October 26th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
So has soccer players. Do tennis players get bothered? rugby? cricket?
Hockey teams in Russia?
How far apart–in terms of time–are the games in each of those sports?
October 26th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
I also forgot F1, those guys (and crews?) go all over the world too.
Pretty sure F1 is every two weeks. And even then it is in some sort of geographic order.
Tennis usually has warm up tourneys in locales around the major events to solve this problem. Soccer players usually try to avoid this situation and often get rested when flying back from South American internationals.
I’m not saying that the logistics would be impossible to get around, but they would be fairly unique.
October 26th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
Hawaii is in a little different boat because teams that willingly travel to Hawaii get an extra game (played at home to recoup the loss taken to go to Hawaii). Also they manage the schedule to help them out. Hawaii went to Lousiana Tech and played on Wednesday so they had 10 days to get ready. Every other road game is in the Pacific Time Zone so its a set 5 hour flight which isn’t horrible. A London team would play 3 road games in an EST then it’s a toss up based on the rotational schedule.
I’m not saying the time zone thing is a killer but to me it seems like guys would break down quicker with the travel and such.
October 26th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
1. it’s AMERICAN football. it’s ours and ours alone (shut up, canada). there are no real japanese teams, no real australian teams, no real etc. teams…do we go gaga over aussie rules? over rugby or cricket? no.
2. why not try canada or mexico first? they played games there with some success and the logistics are probably a whole lot better than having to fly to london.
personally, i’d like to see them really go after germany, poland and scandinavia…how awesome would a line full of hans’ and magnus’ be? fucking awesome you say? i agree!
lets be honest, where’s a game going to grow more…a multi-ethnic metropolis or the midwest of europe chock full of smoked salmon and kielbasa eatin’ aryans who like seeing how high they can throw baby grand pianos?
October 26th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
I’m late to this post, but here is what I’m seeing.
1) Ty Duffy is trying to jam down out throats the idea of a UK team
2) Everyone and their mother has called him out on this stupid idea
October 26th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
Everyone and their mother has called him out on this stupid idea
Welcome to a normal Duffy post. I’ll say this, he gets commenters talking and, for the most part, expressing intelligent ideas. But the lengths he goes to do it…..
October 26th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
Just say “No” to football in England.
http://www.joebucsfan.com/?p=18693
October 26th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
like this piece by Duffy.
Peter king on NBC last night – NFL tinkering with having the same team (not sure which one) in London 3-4 years in a row to build a fanbase.
October 26th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
As Paolo Bandini of the Guardian writes,
I didn’t realize that the phrase bojack ninny circlejerker was part of the Queen’s English
Can’t believe it took 35 comments for someone to mention that.
not enough commenters have a Thesaurus next to their CPU, so nobody reads tyduffys posts very closely
October 26th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
NFL tinkering with having the same team (not sure which one) in London 3-4 years in a row to build a fanbase
Going to take more than 3-4 years. How long has Jacksonville had? If Detroit is only a 15 year old franchise rather than an 80 year old franchise, you think they draw anywhere near want they do now with the same record?
The NFL is just getting greedy and as a consequence is not thinking this through.
October 26th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
Peter king on NBC last night – NFL tinkering with having the same team (not sure which one) in London 3-4 years in a row to build a fanbase.
I think this is probably a better way to go about it, but
a) unless it is that franchise which moves it won’t really matter and
b) whatever that fanchise is will basically be dead at home
Not sure how accurate the figures I just saw are, but it looks like the most recent ratings for the 6:00 PM Sky Sports game (1:00 EST) was about 57,000 TVs. This was around 11,000 TVs less than an episode of Murder She Wrote on Alibi TV. I really do hope I am wrong about this because even though I disagree with Duffy, that is just depressing.
October 26th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Glad people are still commenting here, I didn’t want to pull a Paolo.
I think all the issues for a team in London could be worked out. The big point is the competitive disadvantage that team would have compared to the rest of the league. Sure, they could get used to the travel and jet lag and sort out a stadium. But don’t you think it’s unfair when the other 29 teams wouldn’t have to deal with these issues?
October 26th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
I don’t care what the NFL does. I just don’t like people being xenophobic, stupid, arguing without making arguments, and then winning because people are like-minded in their idiocy.
October 26th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
That’s how people act towards other Americans (i.e. college football). What makes you think they’d treat foreigners the same?
October 26th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
didnt scan the comments but, what about the travel? add em to nfc east its not SO bad hourwise minus dallas, buts its worse than a coast to coast trip. AFC east, miami and buffalo, thats a long trip. Expand to mexico, expand to canada, just keep it in north america.
October 26th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
Jesus, Duffy, it would be nice to see some American pride from you just once.
Spencer hit the nail on the head — it’s our sport.
Fuck ‘em.
October 26th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
okay, if thats your logic then whats more american than infecting other countries with our pop culture? Pushing it into England should be right up your Amurrican alley.
October 26th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
I’d say taxes would be the single biggest issue facing this potential development. The NFL thrives on parity and part of this is having fairly similar revenue streams. Yes, Dallas, Washington, NY, NE, etc have better fanbases (i.e. more lucrative) than other franchises, but they have revenue sharing and more or less the same tax structures to deal with. If you go to a foreign country with different tax laws and tax rates there is going to be a huge issue that could only be resolved with subsidization of the move by the other owners (assuming that the UK has a higher tax rate) to make up for the loss. I don’t see this happening especially with how difficult it is to get revenue sharing through in the first place. Are they going to subsidize all the travel costs as well? In the end, it just doesn’t make sense in the bottom line unless you are willing to throw millions of dollars trying to build up the sport in Europe. What’s that? They already did and it didn’t work? What’s changed?
Additionally, player income tax rates would be incredibly disparate. Just look at all the players wanting to go from England to Spain in soccer, thanks in large part to the new higher tax rates the UK will impose and the reduced rates the Spanish will give them. Let’s not forget that the US tax system would also probably get them as well. The Players Association would not like this.
Ultimately, the tax laws are what is going to submarine this whole deal.
October 26th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
It’s a 6 hour flight one way and an 8 hour flight the other. Expanding the NFL to England is one of the dumbest ideas you’ll ever hear.
October 26th, 2009 at 11:13 pm
A few points.
The travel isn’t an issue. The guys aren’t tucking testicles in coach. They play one game a week. They could stagger games to give teams time to acclimate.
Yes, there is a higher tax rate in the UK, though it’s not drastically higher than the top tax rate here. If you’re paying state taxes. Keep in mind that team would be taking in money in £ and paying in $.
Also, the “they need to get kids playing the sport” argument is complete BS. Professional soccer was popular in Britain long before it became a popular recreational sport, because of pools and gambling. The NFL has an appeal in this country because it is entertaining and you can play fantasy and gamble on it, not because people play football.
If that argument held weight, soccer would have broken through 20 years ago.
October 26th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
Duffy – I think you’re a decent writer, but you are far too sensitive to conflicting views. I would suggest that you just publish what is on your mind in full–even if it’s going to take another 1000 words. Doing so would, for the most part, minimize the need to engage commenters, justifying and/or expounding on your stance.
And I say “stance” because you so obviously feel the need to provoke the commenters. That’s not necessarily a bad thing but, again, if you have a decided point of view the place for it is in the body of the paper–not in the comments.
Also, resist the need to constantly call Americans stupid, xenophobic, idiotic, etc. It’s unbecoming and doesn’t do anything to strengthen your argument.
October 27th, 2009 at 12:18 am
Missed this great discussion today …still say a team will be in LA long before there will be anything of the sort in London, and there ought to be an NFL team in Canada well before London as well and I’m not talking about moving the Bills.
October 27th, 2009 at 8:40 am
good post
October 27th, 2009 at 9:38 am
You still refuse to acknowledge that it would be a competitive disadvantage for any team to go to London and a competitive advantage for any team that doesn’t play a game in London.
Say the London team is put into one of the East divisions (let’s say AFC East). Then NE, NY, Buffalo, and Miami have to go to London once a year and are at a disadvantage compared to the rest of the conference, who don’t have to travel to Europe. It’s obvious that that division’s chances for a wildcard would be hurt compared to the other divisions.