One of our readers in one of those European countries that we can’t really tell apart has sent us a link from the NFL’s official U.K. site regarding the long-term possibilities for NFL football in England.
In an interview with Reuters, NFL V.P. Mark Waller says that England eventually could have four regular-season games per year.
To make it happen, however, the regular season would have to be extended by one full week. This would allow the NFL to play 16 total games per year at neutral sites without forcing any teams to give up one of their eight regular-season homes games. (However, because a move to 17 regular-season games would likely be accompanied by a reduction in the preseason from four games to three, half of the teams would play only one home preseason game each year, cutting in half the windfall that comes from forcing folks who want to buy tickets to the eight “real” games to also purchase the tickets for phony games that cost the owners far less to produce because the players get paid far less money to participate in them.)
So what of the other 12 games neutral-site games? The NFL would have great flexibility in that regard. One or two could be sent to Mexico. One or two could be exported to Canada.
And, as we’ve previously suggested, several games could be played each year at neutral sites in the United States that have the facilities for big-time football but no local NFL teams.
Alternatively, the Los Angeles problem could be solved via a slate of eight neutral-site games played each year in a new or existing venue there. In our view, that approach might be even more intriguing and compelling than giving L.A. its own team.
But expanding the regular season will require the consent of the union, and it’s likely an issue that will be on the table if/when the league and the NFLPA decide to engage in meaningful talks aimed at extending a CBA that is on course for an uncapped season in 2010, a chaotic “last capped year” in 2009, and expiration in 2011.
For 2008, the Saints and the Chargers will play in London. Ticket demand reportedly is very high. Even so, we still think that the Saints shouldn’t have been asked to give up a home game in 2008, given that New Orleans gave up eight of them only three years ago.
_2.gif)





March 26th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Does anyone else get the feeling franchises and ticketholders are being used for quasi-political purposes here?
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 26th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
I hope this doesn’t happen. I really feel strongly that this is a bad idea, and will cause more harm than good for the league.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 3 / 5 with 2 rating(s)
March 26th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
More money for the league means more money for the owners. More interest the league has abroad the better for everyone. The possibilities are endless, and those that can only see to the ends of their noses might have trouble understanding the concept of the global vision.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 3 / 5 with 2 rating(s)
March 26th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Soccer is still the most popular sport worldwide. Talk about this type of move is specifically designed to close that gap.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 26th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
I like the idea of the NFL playing in LA without actually having a team here…
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 26th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
So how is this going to affect the NFL’s scheduling formula?
Right now, with the exception of two games per year it’s possible to predict indefinitely into the future who a team will play and whether the game will be home or away.
Even for those two exceptions, it’s pre-determined which one’s going to be at home and which will be away in a given year.
So how is the opponent for this seventeenth game going to be selected?
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
March 26th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
How about we try to get a cable contract done here at home first before trying to accommodate “fans” overseas first.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 26th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
I really hate the idea of the NFL going abroad. If they wanted football in those places, I’m sure some rich guys would put together some kind of league to get richer. It’s taking away a home game advantage and taking away one more chance for the true football fans to see their team. NFL teams obviously only have 8 home games guaranteed, with 2 more coming with pre-season that no one cares about. chances are limited with chances to see your team at their home. taking them abroad for even 1/8th of their home regular season schedule would be bad for american fans.
how about we move the jacksonville jaguars to london, then they can have a football team and the jags can actually sell out a home game and won’t have to put tarps over half their stadium so the tv doesn’t show all the empty seats.
hell, just give em our arena football league, no one gives a crap about that. it would let the “fans” abroad get to see football, and the most exciting parts with 60-59 score games. if they want football, they can support that and go to see the rejects from the NFL.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 3 / 5 with 2 rating(s)
March 26th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
I wonder if the Brits will have to go to a bar to see the games? I know I do every Sunday.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 26th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
The Jags will have plenty of sellouts this coming season, particularly if they show early signs of another strong playoff push.
A 17th game is foolish. There are enough injuries and wear and tear on the players as it is without adding another regular season game. With only 16 games, those teams that lose that home game revenue are going to take a hit, especially the small market low revenue teams. This is even more of a bad idea when in the next couple years, we’re going to be about two stubborn jerk-offs away from a strike over revenues.
Revenues aside, you’re screwing over your local fans - the heart of your fan base - by cutting out a home game. Again, for a team like the Jags that has had troubles developing a strong fan base, that hurts.
Bottom line, though, is that the NFL will do whatever it wants, and we, as the fans, will continue to be fans. What other choice do we have? Switch to arena league? College? Our outrage will get us nowhere, because deep down, everybody knows that whatever the outcome, we’re still going to be sitting there on Sunday afternoons watching the games.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 26th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
I can’t see the NFL playing 8 games a year in LA. The only teams who will play in LA are NFC and AFC West teams. There’s no way east coast teams would make the journey out west, just to go to a city with no NFL football. Imagine the AFC East playing the AFC/NFC west, ohh and in addition to the 2 west coast game you play another game in LA. Enjoy boyz. Won’t happen. East coast teams will stay on the east coast or go overseas, but not to LA.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 26th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
It might not be four games in England - the NFL was talking about other locations in the UK, including the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff (i.e. Wales) and Murrayfield in Edinburgh (Scotland). Four games every season in London might actually be too much - it might make more sense to spread them around the country.
Still, it would be easier for me to get to anywhere in Britain than it would be for me to get to Oakland, so I’m going to be pleased. Possibly the American media (or for that matter the British media) doesn’t quite appreciate how hard-core or how knowledgeable many British fans are. Sure, you won’t see us in December at Rich Stadium shivering in nothing but a pair of boxers and blue and red body paint, but you’ll find plenty of us able to quote 40-yard dash times from the combine or debate the merits of the Tampa-2.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
March 26th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
mpoles good point nice to have you here. How do you see the games DircTV?
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 26th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
As a Browns Fan, I’ve seen a perdy good amount of Limeys posting in our boards…(we were at one time, very huge as far as football goes). I’m not at all perplexed by this latest development. And I’ll say this, let’s give ‘em what they want!
Yeah, we’ll all pay in the meantime, but a True SuperBowl, a “World Cup” wouldn’t bother me at all.
It’s the biggest night of the year for the World, why not invite the World?
And that goes for you, too, baseball/basketball.
F you, socker.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 27th, 2008 at 6:00 am
Thanks. Actually, TV coverage in the UK is pretty good now - Sky Sports (subscription satellite service owned by Mr Murdoch) shows three live games every Sunday (including the Sunday night game, which for us is in the early hours of Monday morning), and one of the other channels will usually show the Monday Night game. Sky also shows every postseason game live, including even the Pro Bowl. And, since last year and a Sky deal with NFL Network, we get NFL Total Access every day and a few other NFL Films type shows at the weekend.
The only thing we don’t get now is liver coverage of the Draft. Setanta NASN (a different subscription satellite service, which shows college games) used to show every single pick live, but since Sky now has the rights, all we got last year was a highlights show a week later (and where’s the point in that). So last year for UK draftniks was a case of streaming video from nfl.com.
The thing that we did miss out on in the past compared to you guys was the sort of news stories that you would get in your newspapers. Scandals, players acting like divas - that sort of thing. Praise be for the internet, and this site in particular.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated