Should the NFL Make the Leap?

So, with the Giants and Dolphins set to play tomorrow, Sunday, in London the question has been asked: Should the NFL move full time to foreign counties? They could have expansion teams, play certain games, hell, maybe even move a team or two.

From my understanding, over 60% of the Buffalo Bills season ticket holders are from Canada. So moving a franchise, or starting one in Canada doesn't seem all that crazy. But, there was this little thing called NFL Europe, that recently went kaput. But they were second rate teams, with a bunch of NFL reject players. A minor league for the NFL, if you will. Now, there will be more than 80,000 fans filling Wembley Stadium on Sunday, so that says that there is a demand for the sport. But, what would the numbers look like if there were teams there full time? Would 80,000 people show up consitantly, if the talent level was the same as in the States? Would even half of that number show up on a regular basis? Here's my outlook on it. I think it's a great idea to to play a couple games a season abroad. But let's not move a team there. It would be too much of a hastle to have a team travel that far every week. Whether a team would be going to play there, or that team would be coming to play it's away games over here.

Europe has it's futball, and America has it's football. When the World Cup came to USA, a lot of people showed up, because it was a rare occasion. But then they started the MLS, and the stadiums are near empty every night. Why is that? Because it has become too regular. It doesn't fit in to the mold of American sports. It's the same reason that in a lot of cities, the hockey teams don't draw big crowds. Because we weren't raised playing that sport. Even if you play soccer when you're a kid, most of the time, it's only until you're big enough to play football.

The NFL is talking about having every team play at least one game in a different country, starting within the next couple of years. The cities I have been hearing who would play host would be Toronto, Mexico City, and London. Not a bad idea. But one team has to give up a home game in order to make it happen, and owners aren't thrilled about that. The price of season tickets would go down, and imagine losing an entire week of revenue. That's ticket sales, concession sales, the cost of parking, the different shops inside the stadium. It's also taking a game away from the fans in that city. Then they have to think of the market size of the team who's losing the home game. It's not a bad thing for Miami this year, because Miami is a fairweather city, and since the Dolphins are terrible, no one goes to the games. But would the NFL dare to take a home game away from Dallas? New England? Either of the New York teams (who actually play in New Jersey)? I bet they'll try it for a couple of years. The owners will then cause so much of a fuss, that it will be back to normal.

But should the rest of the world not get to experience an NFL game, in person? I think they should. I think it's a lot more realistic to have a franchise in southern Canada or Northern Mexico, so it wouldn't be much of a traveling difference than playing in Buffalo, or southern L.A., or Texas. A game every once in a while in Europe isn't a bad idea, but there's so much that has to go in to it, that it almost seems out of reach to have more than one game a year.



An ignorant, yet hilarious quote from Dolphines LB Channing Crowder is, "I couldn’t find London on a map if they didn’t have the names of the countries. I swear to God. I don’t know what nothing is. I know Italy looks like a boot. I know London Fletcher (a linebacker on the Redskins). We did a football camp together. So I know him. That’s the closest thing I know to London. He’s black, so I’m sure he’s not from London. I’m sure that’s a coincidental name."