PDA

View Full Version : Possible Superbowl in London?


skinzzfan25
10-15-2007, 05:18 PM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/football/nfl/10/15/super.bowl.ap/index.html


SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. (AP) -- NFL commissioner Roger Goodell says that a future Super Bowl may someday be played in London.

Goodell made the comments to reporters after a luncheon Monday in Scottsdale sponsored by the host committee for the 2008 Super Bowl in Arizona.

The commissioner says that London's Wembley Stadium would make a great candidate for pro football's biggest matchup, given a recent renovation and enthusiasm overseas for the game.

Wembley Stadium will host the first regular season NFL game outside North America later this month.

It took just 90 minutes to sell the first 40,000 tickets for the October 28 game between the Miami Dolphins and New York Giants.

Goodell says that event organizers have sold 95,000 tickets in all.

Copyright 2007 Associated Press

Having a game overseas is bad enough already (I don't mind the occasional Canadian or Mexican game). Why would you ever move the biggest sporting event out of US soil.

UKfan
10-15-2007, 05:20 PM
There's all kind of talk going on over here leading up to the Wembley game, up to and including having a franchise based in London. I dunno, I can see games coming over here, but not a franchise or Superbowl, in fact as cool as it would be for us Brits to see a Superbowl here, it just would not be the same I don't think.

Geo
10-15-2007, 05:23 PM
I'm not really sure how I feel about that, but all said, the Super Bowl is the Super Bowl no matter where the game is played.

I'm looking forward to SB XLII being hosted at the Cardinals' new stadium this season, and I wouldn't mind seeing a future Super Bowl at Lucas Oil Field aka The Luke (The Colts' new stadium that will open next year).

I'm also really looking forward to the London game this year between the Giants and Dolphins, to see how that develops. I'm anticipating very good energy in that game.

soybean
10-15-2007, 05:29 PM
it's not really fair. why should the diehard fans have to pay/travel that much to see their favorite team go at it in the most important game of the year? so the nfl can expand internationally?

having a couple games across borders/seas is ok, because there are at least 15 more games in the year.

UKfan
10-15-2007, 05:30 PM
I'm not really sure how I feel about that, but all said, the Super Bowl is the Super Bowl no matter where the game is played.

I'm looking forward to SB XLII being hosted at the Cardinals' new stadium this season, and I wouldn't mind seeing a future Super Bowl at Lucas Oil Field aka The Luke (The Colts' new stadium that will open next year).

I'm also really looking forward to the London game this year between the Giants and Dolphins, to see how that develops. I'm anticipating very good energy in that game.

The reaction of the Americans seems to be really positive towards the London game in general, I'm quite surprised by that really. I can't wait for it, got hotels and train tickets sorted and game tickets the other day!

Anyway if a superbowl came to London, it'd depend who attended the game as to if it was a real success, there are a lot of knowledgeable people who follow the game week in week out, but Superbowl weekend brings out everyone who just want to see what the fuss is all about, if tickets ended up mainly with those folk the atmosphere might suffer a bit. Also the Dolphins and Giants are big names over here, but if something like the Seahawks and Cleveland happened (just an example), they don't have the name recognition. That shouldn't a be a problem for the Giants v Dolphins. game I expect as everyone knows Miami Dolphins here.

skinzzfan25
10-15-2007, 05:43 PM
Plus, in Febuary isn't it like 40 degrees (F) in London? And I believe Wembly doesn't have a dome.

UKfan
10-15-2007, 05:46 PM
Wembley doesn't have a dome, and it's winter over here in Feb, you are right, the Millennium Stadium in Wales is probably a better bet for hosting a bowl I would think as it has a retractable roof.

Caddy
10-15-2007, 05:47 PM
Who cares about a Superbowl in England. Bring one to Sydney!

ShutDwn
10-15-2007, 05:55 PM
I don't know, its an American game, the regular season is in America. I don't like it much, takes away the possibility for a lot of the teams fans to see them. I mean, sure there are fans that watch games, but they aren't going to be as, a majority, attached to the teams. Fans from London would never be able to replicate what the fans from Pittsburgh do for example. The teams play for the fans, mostly the fans in the US.

Also, I don't like the time zone changes.

619
10-15-2007, 06:00 PM
I don't know, its an American game, the regular season is in America. I don't like it much, takes away the possibility for a lot of the teams fans to see them. I mean, sure there are fans that watch games, but they aren't going to be as, a majority, attached to the teams. Fans from London would never be able to replicate what the fans from Pittsburgh do for example. The teams play for the fans, mostly the fans in the US.

Also, I don't like the time zone changes.

yea the superbowl would start here prob at 12 PST:(

skinzzfan25
10-15-2007, 06:02 PM
I don't know, its an American game, the regular season is in America. I don't like it much, takes away the possibility for a lot of the teams fans to see them. I mean, sure there are fans that watch games, but they aren't going to be as, a majority, attached to the teams. Fans from London would never be able to replicate what the fans from Pittsburgh do for example. The teams play for the fans, mostly the fans in the US.

Also, I don't like the time zone changes.

Plus, bringing a superbowl to an American city does wonders for it. Detroit was a perfect example of that. So much media and commerce going on gives the city new life.

princefielder28
10-15-2007, 06:20 PM
London w/ 100,000 people = $$$$$$$$$$

Geo
10-15-2007, 06:26 PM
The reaction of the Americans seems to be really positive towards the London game in general, I'm quite surprised by that really. I can't wait for it, got hotels and train tickets sorted and game tickets the other day!
That's cool, hope you have fun.

Paranoidmoonduck
10-15-2007, 06:30 PM
I'd believe this a lot more if the NFL hadn't already stated that they'd like Superbowl whether to be as neutral a factor as possible (something I don't agree with at all).

That said, I think it'd be great for the NFL to try having the Superbowl in London. I definitely think there's a market, and London is a great city. Personally, as a man who can neither afford nor is terribly interested in actually going to the Superbowl, I don't really care where it is held. If holding it outside the country can expand the market and bring it to Europe, then all the better.

Moses
10-15-2007, 06:36 PM
Realistically, how many people can afford Super Bowl tickets anyway? They're thousands of dollars and extremely hard to get. This will have little no effect on your average fan.

Twiddler
10-15-2007, 06:55 PM
Realistically, how many people can afford Super Bowl tickets anyway? They're thousands of dollars and extremely hard to get. This will have little no effect on your average fan.

Very true, but from a tradition standpoint I'm just not sold that a Super Bowl in London is a good thing. I mean I understand that Goodell wants to spread the NFL to a more worldwide audience but does it really have to be the biggest game of the year?

Canadian_kid16
10-15-2007, 06:55 PM
Realistically, how many people can afford Super Bowl tickets anyway? They're thousands of dollars and extremely hard to get. This will have little no effect on your average fan.

I read somewhere that 90% of Super Bowl tickets are purchased by corporations months prior to the game...so only 10% are on sale for the general public....

IDK, sometihng I read a while back

Moses
10-15-2007, 06:56 PM
Very true, but from a tradition standpoint I'm just not sold that a Super Bowl in London is a good thing. I mean I understand that Gooddell wants to spread the NFL to a more worldwide audience but does it really have to be the biggest game of the year?

I agree that they should try out some smaller games first before putting the Holy Grail overseas.

Moses
10-15-2007, 06:57 PM
I read somewhere that 90% of Super Bowl tickets are purchased by corporations months prior to the game...so only 10% are on sale for the general public....

IDK, sometihng I read a while back

It wouldn't surprise me at all. You have to account for all the celebrities and rich people who are going to nab tickets to the biggest sporting event in the world. Then there's businesses, contests, etc. and the remaining number of tickets is very small. Throw scalpers into the mix and the chance of even getting the opportunity to buy a Super Bowl ticket is slim to none.

skinzzfan25
10-15-2007, 07:01 PM
London w/ 100,000 people = $$$$$$$$$$

Washington DC with ~92,000 people = $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

J52
10-15-2007, 08:07 PM
I just don't like the idea of greedy ass owners just trying to milk every dollar they can out of the NFL.

I could care less if NFL share holders make more money by going to London, I'd rather see US cities flourish from the amount of income that the Super Bowl yields.

255979119
10-15-2007, 08:29 PM
It wouldn't surprise me at all. You have to account for all the celebrities and rich people who are going to nab tickets to the biggest sporting event in the world. Then there's businesses, contests, etc. and the remaining number of tickets is very small. Throw scalpers into the mix and the chance of even getting the opportunity to buy a Super Bowl ticket is slim to none.

Biggest sporting event in the States yes, there is something called the Fifa World cup and the Olympics that are just ever so slightly more popular. ;)

Jvig43
10-15-2007, 10:18 PM
F THAT! 1. american sport, why should we go accross sea to watch our game be played, plus expenses. 2. time, that wouldnt effect the players at all (rolls eyes) 3. I think if games were to be played over there, they should have a team of their own competing with the other nfl teams. thatd be cool.

Ewing
10-15-2007, 11:32 PM
Never going to happen. London is five hours ahead of the east coast of the USA. If they wanted the game to start at dusk like it does here they would have to start it at 2 PM East Coast time; which means poeple would have to cut a lot of stuff out of their schedule to watch it. The next idea would be to start it at dusk time here. Well that means it's going to be 11 PM in London. People have work the next day and it would conflict with what they are doing on Monday.

gstock05
10-15-2007, 11:35 PM
I dont mind this at all. In fact, if it improves oversea exposure of the best sport in the world, perhaps we will eventually see REAL european leagues start to form with some semblance of talent.

Secondly, they could get an idea of how a real man's sport is played, not a wimpy game like soccer. (okay, I enjoy soccer too, but football is simply better...)

And as it's been said. Anybody who is going to attend the superbowl has a ton of money, so it's not as if going to London is a big problem. The only thing I don't like about this is the american commerce type thing, but the overall exposure to the NFL could boost ratings overseas, and have an overall greater economic impact on the NFL, and thus the rest of the country.

Paul
10-15-2007, 11:52 PM
Secondly, they could get an idea of how a real man's sport is played, not a wimpy game like soccer. (okay, I enjoy soccer too, but football is simply better...)

Pretty sure they play this sport called Rugby across the pond as well. That's a pretty violent sport itself.

Mr. Stiller
10-16-2007, 12:13 AM
I just think it's a little unfair.

Only about 10 stadiums could realistically get to host a Superbowl (Florida, Texas, Arizona, and Domes).

With the other 20-22 teams, never given an opportunity to host a superbowl, is it really fair to them, for the NFL to host one in London?

The Northern teams will never get to host a superbowl. I don't like the fact that these teams have to pony up for a new Stadium every so many years, but can't get an opportunity to host a superbowl. Yet lets send one to England..

Good Idea.

SuperKevin
10-16-2007, 01:23 AM
I think it's a good move to globalize the sport but it will be a poor move for television since they are like 4 hours ahead of EST. The game would be played at like 11 AM on the west coast

255979119
10-16-2007, 01:31 AM
I think it's a good move to globalize the sport but it will be a poor move for television since they are like 4 hours ahead of EST. The game would be played at like 11 AM on the west coast

....It really is not so bad.

I am on the west coast so the Pats usually start at 10. It helps having a fantastic internal body clock that automatically wakes me up before 9:30 on Sundays though...

SuperKevin
10-16-2007, 01:44 AM
....It really is not so bad.

I am on the west coast so the Pats usually start at 10. It helps having a fantastic internal body clock that automatically wakes me up before 9:30 on Sundays though...

Yes but it would be bad for advertising seeing how beer commercials are rarely played so early in the day due to exposure to children

Jakey
10-16-2007, 04:56 AM
I dont think its fair on the American fans (who far outweigh the UK) to have to travel all that distance. I think the ppl in the UK (me) should have to travel to America and watch the game! I know it would be good for global exposure, and it would make the NFL more money (not that they need it), but it would ruin the atmosphere. Say there is 100,000 capacity, and say it was the Titans/Saints in the superbowl (?), im not even sure there would be 50,000 Saints or Titans fans who could even afford to go and watch anyway, it would be a waste of time.

zoinks
10-16-2007, 06:00 AM
Don't fool yourself into believing the NFL cares about the fans.

Hawk
10-16-2007, 07:43 AM
Terrible idea, why would you move arguably the biggest sporting event in American history overseas?

stephenson86
10-16-2007, 09:10 AM
so so stupid, never gonna happen

Jakey
10-16-2007, 10:21 AM
which would be about 50,000 more saints/titans fans than would be able to attend were the game in the US.

you people really come up with some of the most inane "reasoning" i've ever heard.

Reasoning for what??? Im saying its a bad idea. If you aint got anything worth saying bro thats fine with me, but dont just rip my posts just because we have a difference of opinion. My post was no more 'insane' than anyone elses.

p.s I didnt know how much tickets cost for the average fan, so looking back now i'd probably agree with you that the average fan wouldnt be able to afford it anyways. So i appolagise for that. Jakey.

Jakey
10-16-2007, 10:36 AM
the point was not that you thought it was a bad idea. the point was that you used a bas reason to explain why. i don't care if people don't like it, but some of the reasoning they've given in this thread is completely moronic. and yes, i realize you said you got it, but i posted anyway to pre-empt someone else being annoyed that they can't have their own opinion.

Thats fine with me bro, im all for different opinions.

Scotty D
10-16-2007, 10:44 AM
I think its been said, but it doesn't really matter to me if the game is in London. I would have never attended the game anyway. Maybe this can open up the game in Europe. I was thinking awhile ago about all the prospects that we are missing out in Europe. When you think about it there are is a huge pool of humans that isn't producing prospects. The next Dan Marino could live and die in Belgium and never touch a football. :(

Jakey
10-16-2007, 10:54 AM
^ Belgium!... I live in the UK ;)