To set the stage let me say that I'm currently resident in Europe. I married into an American family in Arizona, deceiving my poor wife with a British accent that promised more class than I could deliver. I then whisked the poor lady away to the 'other side of the pond'. During the NFL season I enjoy Sunday games and, although I didn't choose to follow the Dolphins for this reason, I'm grateful that they play on the East Coast and have mostly 1pm games. Depending on the summertime clock we have around a 6 hour delay and that means 1pm EST games run from 7pm-10pm here. That's just about perfect for me. If they play a 4pm game then we're looking at a 10pm-1am game time. And since Monday is a work day I don't always get to finish those games. Fans throughout Europe will be on similar schedules. So as a resident of Europe that's my scenario. Every year there's talk of starting an international franchise. And now, every year, there are some games played in London. Whilst that might seem like good news to me as a fan on this side of the world, I want to take this opportunity to say that I don't like it. I enjoy the NFL because of what it is. The quality of the gameplay, the rivalries, even the 'exotic' and American elements of the game as compared with other international sports. Things like the helmets, colours, cheerleaders*, and even the weather. I love that there are sunny Florida games and snowy Detroit games. I'm not going to attend many live games for obvious reasons, but that's okay. Where I live there aren't any big league sports events anyway. Playing games in London holds no value for me - I don't care to see a team in London, there's no special appeal there, and I'm not much more likely to go to a live game there than one in the USA. Travel to the UK is cheaper and easier, but it's still a flight away, not next door. Worst of all, if anything, the international games take away from the sport. It's no longer a home game or an away game. The stadium is likely to be neutral. And the travel plans often mean a shortened week for the teams. I know that some cross country flights in the USA are similar to a flight to London from the East Coast. But why should only EC teams make the trip? An LA to London flight can be 12 hours long. I'm sorry, I'm just not interested. In fact, I'd prefer the international games ended. And if I could, I'd challenge the league on this. You see, it's inconsistent and can't really follow through. There are other aspects to the NFL that the league wants to grow that run against international fandom. Prime time games, for example. I hate them. Why? Because I can't watch the Dolphins live. Those late games start in the early morning hours here, heading into the start of the working week - Sunday night, Monday night, Thursday night. Horrible! If one were on Friday night I could just sleep in on Saturday. But that's not the case. So whereas American fans want to see their teams in prime time, I don't. How does that fit in with an international NFL? I'm not sure the league has thought this through. Or how about this... the Superbowl. It's the culmination of the season. The big game. It's the biggest TV event of the year. And it's not watchable by lots of international fans. Another late start and it runs long. How would it be for an international fan to see their team reach the Superbowl and then know that watching the championship game will cost them a night's sleep? Look, I've done it before, and not even for the Dolphins. I actually watched two whole late night series of NBA finals games back in 2013 and 2014. As a fan living in Europe it's the price I accept I have to pay for following an American sport. However, does that result gel with the league's pursuit of an NFL franchise in Europe? What if that European team reached the Superbowl but loads of local fans couldn't watch it? It makes no sense. Would the NFL consider moving a game to Friday night? Would it consider moving the Superbowl to a 1pm EST slot? I'd love that! (But still not want a European team for the previous reasons). I doubt the NFL makes those moves though. And so that being the case I don't think there's any point in pursuing international games. If they wanted to do something then I'd be up for some international special events. Meet and greet. Maybe a football camp. A tour of some sort. During the offseason of course. Or just promote a separate European or other league. Whatever the case, end the international games please, NFL. Be what you are and have been, a great American, football league. And if you want to do something for international fans, consider adding more friendly international TV scheduling. That's my perspective.
To me, the answer is making an NFL Europe and starting a league over there. If it takes off, great...maybe a decade down the road, we can change the Super Bowl from a US contest to a global one (sort of like when the two US leagues merged into today's NFL). Maybe that means another merger...or maybe it's just an extra game where the two champs face off from different leagues after their seasons end. That's a win/win to me either way and it gets global attention as a wave of new skill players start emerging from multiple continents. However, it has to be actually adopted in Europe from pee-wee to high school and college- that's the only way to get real athletes that are dedicated to the sport. Otherwise, you're just getting players who couldn't land a roster spot in the US going to play somewhere else- its almost like semi-pro ball. Because if true pros are not the eventual goal, then why have games overseas at all? I guess that's where I'm torn since the NFL can't do this on its own. It's never going to surpass soccer in popularity and fans from Europe will never become a major revenue stream for US teams. I just don't get the current approach- why make four NFL teams travel halfway around the world once a year? What are we actually trying to do with all this? And why not China, Japan, South America, etc? Why just Europe and Mexico? It just doesn't make a lot of sense to me without a bigger action plan in place.
Well it was tried on and off through the 90s and up until 2007 as a minor league or spring league. Some teams were supported by US based NFL teams as a developmental opportunity as a sort of expanded practice squad. Problem was that attendance was low and so were salaries. The quality of the product on the field suffered as a result. After losing millions a month the NFL pulled their support. The concept is not unlike the inability of professional soccer leagues to get a toehold in the US.
MLS is doing extremely well. Attendance has steadily risen over the last 20 years and it has expanded now to 27 teams (the goal is 30) from the original 10. Financially they succeeded in large part because they haven't allowed teams to pay whatever they want for players, which has naturally limited quality of play (still 2nd rate). Irony is that the guy responsible for the success, Don Garber, was in charge of NFL Europe. Anyway, to the OP, if they ever have a NFL franchise in London (most likely it'll be the Jaguars), you won't need to worry about scheduling issues. There's no way they'll make the SB or playoffs take place during a time slot where fans of the team can't watch it. As far as why the NFL is considering it, well.. money obviously. Jags make money playing in London, they've built up a nice fanbase over there, and they're not that profitable here in the States. I think it will be very interesting to see how that potentially changes with Lawrence.
As a Dolphins fan and NFL/NCAA fan living in the UK, I agree with a lot of what the OP says. While I love any opportunity to see my Dolphins in the flesh and would never miss a Fins game on home turf, I wouldn't weep if they cancelled the international series tomorrow. The clue is in the title. It's 'American' football. That's where it started, that's where it grew and that's where it should stay in my opinion. I know lots of UK based fans of all teams feel the same. I knew what I was getting into when I signed up and that's fine. For me, part of the romance is the 'stupid o'clock' games and the 3am bedtimes. I guess I'm lucky in that I can function on minimal sleep and have no trouble power napping at any time to catch up. As for a potential London franchise - No! No! No! NO! How many more times can I say the word?
Good thread. I had no idea you were a Brit too, @Galant . I do like the London international games but probably no more than 1 or 2 a year. I have mixed feelings about a London franchise - they could never replace the Dolphins in my affections, and consequently I doubt I'd buy a season ticket. For those who haven't attended a game in London, it's not like any NFL game you'll have been to elsewhere. Fans of all teams turn up, different caps/jerseys etc are everywhere to be seen. You've got a smattering of people from the US, North American ex-pats, loads of NFL fans from France, Germany, Holland etc - that dynamic would probably change significantly if one franchise permanently relocated. I also think it'd be bizarre if it was the Jags who moved to London: the one franchise where the nickname is pronounced very differently depending on which side of the pond you're from...
Dolphins @ Jaguars, Tottenham Hotspur stadium (has that thing got a name yet?) London; 17th October 2021. I'll be there!
I think from the players' perspective, this is a lot more pragmatic than it first appears. For one, most players enter the league via the draft where they ultimately do not get to decide their own location. Yes, guys can wind up far from home or in cities that they are not particularly fond of, but I am not so sure if I am particularly fond of the notion of someone being forced to play in a city that is in an entirely different continent. I also do not know if a team like London could realistically be competitive. I don't think attracting top talent would be the problem. I think in a sense, they would face problems similar to Cleveland, Detroit, Green Bay, etc. when signing top free agents. It may be more difficult, but it is doable. It is also likely that some players could see playing Europe as a plus and may be willing to take less to play there. I think the problem really is the bottom part of their roster. Imagine you are a guy like Gerrid Doaks, our 7th round pick with very little roster security. He could very likely make the team, play for a few weeks, and wind up getting cut once injuries start piling up for the team. He is the type of guy who could get claimed on waivers by another team and not miss a single paycheck. Now, imagine a guy like Doaks played for London, and you are a team like the Bengals. Joe Mixon gets hurt and will be out for 1-3 weeks, so you need a RB. Let's say, Doaks was released by London, and you like him. Let's say, Miami released Patrick Laird for similar reasons, but you think Doaks is a better RB. Do you claim Doaks? I think that is quite likely that you wouldn't. it is going to take a significant amount of time to get Doaks stateside, he will likely have jet lag, and he will be behind in learning the offense. Laird could be at your facilities and essentially ready to go the next day. With these 1-3 week injuries, is it really worth it to bring a guy like Doaks in who could conceivably be cut when a guy like Mixon returns in as little as one week? Is it worth it for Doaks to hop across the pond, or is he better served going on London's practice squad or hanging around to see if he gets resigned. I think that there are a ton of guys in this position, and I think a place like London would be the last place I would want to go. If I was a late round pick, I would even consider asking a team like London to not draft me. I think there is some truth to the preseason adage that it's a workout for 31 other teams as well. Just think about all the TEs we have. I gotta believe that a few of them have a pretty good idea that they won't be playing for Miami, but they might have a chance to play elsewhere. Finally, I think these bottom of the roster guys are really important. Hitting on these guys is quite the bonus, and some of these guys do develop. Think about guys like Davon Bess or Rishard Matthews. These guys can be important parts of a team.
Some really good points. To put the distances in context, let alone all the cultural and practical points you have highlighted, Miami to Seattle (the longest distance between 2 franchises currently) is 2,724 miles and 3 time zones. New England, which would be the closest franchise to London, is 3,265 miles and 5 time zones away from London. London to Los Angeles is 5,500 miles and 8 time zones, so any visit to the West Coast would need to cover several games to make it viable.
