Handel

Should be Canada first. Go Montréal!

__________________
To rent.

moosekill

It always amazes me how some of you people go completely nuts whenever anyone talks about changing the current set up of the NFL. This isn't baseball.

1. Who cares if there is enough interest currently to support American football in Europe, it could easily be subsidized by the rest of the league. The NFL isn't looking short term, it is looking long term. Short term losses mean nothing to them, they see a huge untapped market.

2. Travel time, this to me is the only bugaboo in the plan, how do you get the US teams in the division with the European team over there easily. The cost, as some of you have mentioned, is no object..DUH! it is the travel time. It would be no problem for the American teams, just put the teams buy week after the game, as was mentioned earlier. The problem would be the European team coming over here, eight games, they would probably have to schedule it for them to be over here for two weeks, then back home for two weeks. In the end though, how difficult is the extra flight time really?

3. A league over there. Maybe eventually, but for now there isn't the talent to do that. It would have to be a single team, probably in England to start off with. If it became successful you could start expanding, but for now just the one team.

4. Understanding football, game length etc. Football is really quite similar to rugby, which is very popular in Europe,it certainly isn't rocket science to figure out. We had a English soccer coach stay with us this summer for a week. He and the other coaches all came over and watched a preseason Patriots game with me and my brothers. They enjoyed it, and understood it for the most part. They asked a few questions, now they loved soccer and rugby, but if those matches weren't on they had no problem watching football, especially if I was buying the beer.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if they decided to try it, and truthfully, it would be interesting.

Peachhead

The NFL tried it for years with the NFLE it was a big money pit (I know, inferior talent, but, same principle).

JoeSixPat

It's not a crazy idea... pick any one of the pitiful teams that seems to be facing blackout threats each week, plunk 'em in London and they'd probably sell out each game.

The flight from the east coast to Britain isn't as bad as some seem to think.

Heck - the NFL could pull a Concorde out of retirement for that matter.

PatsFanSince74

yeah, it's really more like a big lake...Walden's a pond, the Atlantic's gotta be at least a lake...

__________________
"How many times has Wes made that cut in his career? But his foot just doesn't land right. How many times have I stood in the pocket with a blitzer coming at me?" Tom Brady. January 4, 2010.

Covert

The thing which could scuttle it, actually, would be the green argument. Not that the impact of one team is enormous, but it could turn into really bad PR.

I'd love a team over here, though. Love it. I wouldn't stop being a Pats fan, but of course I'd go to the games.

Greatriots

You're off on a whole other tangent.

Of course I know about the implications of what a game could mean, and the "passion" of the sport.

You're lying to yourself if you say the viability of the game isn't mainly rooted in the fact that it cost next to nothing to play. Just because anybody can make a crude ball and play the game, doesn't make the game lesser than if that's what you are assuming that I'm implying.

That "passion" has to root from somewhere. Regardless of any other implication, it makes sense that its so popular in many other countries when its been around for a long time, and it cost nothing at all to get a game started.

I don't exactly think its a coincidence that its not huge in the United States, but is in many other places, when the United States is still in infancy compared to many other countries. Lacrosse was played here before anything else, and for reasons unknown to me(Maybe I'll research this later). We still have Lacrosse which evolved into Hockey over time. Baseball and Football really took off at the turn of the century in the United States. Of course there was Basketball invented by Naismith. Prior to these Sports, no idea what was the passtime in the United States, but if Soccer/Football wanted to root in the United States, its time to do so was when the rest of these sports were taking off, and that never happened for some reason. The United State is a young country, that plays its own sports(Or slight variations of other sports). Apparently before this time, other countries were playing it(We were too), just for whatever reason it may have been a victim of time(US craze of Baseball, Football, and to a lesser extent Basketball).

SeanBruschi54

Im completely for expanding the brand. i think it a great business move and it creates better competition with a larger pool of players.

patsinthesnow

I think it would be cool to have an NFL expansion team from Canada or Mexico, but EUROPE?!?! Flying to and from America would be a pain for that team and the opposing teams...

__________________
.

Scouse Patriot

Not saying your were trying to knock the game, I just dissagreed with the part in the post that nothing else makes soccer popular but purely the fact it's an fun, easy to play game. What I was trying to get across is soccer has an aura about it that has been created by so many great players, stadiums and events that makes it so popular now and that now carries the sport into new minds. When you go and ask a kid in Ghana what he wants to do now, he doesn't say I want to play because it's fun, he'll tell you he wants to be Pele or Maradona, Gerrard or Messi, players who made soccer an art. They took the game to the next level and made kids all over the world take notice. Then you have the many competitions and rivalries to get lost in, the traditions and cultures that make it the monster it is. Like I say, this now generates it's power around the world.

It actualy isn't cheap to play soccer, thats why I don't think it's survivability is rooted to that fact. Going back to what I was saying in very early stages yes, you buy a ball and go and play in the street but if you want to play organised amatuer soccer (which kids and adults will do at some point) it costs money. If you run a team it costs alot of money but yet even in poorer countries they still pay. They need boots, a kit, shinpads. If you run a team here it costs atleast £800 just to get a team started. You have to pay for team kits, which you need two of, home and change strip. You have to pay for nets, corner flags and match balls. Then you have to pay your league entry fees and then you have to pay the referee and linesmen for the game and per game. Then you have to pay for training venues during the winter if you want to train as local pitches aren't floodlit. On top of that you pay for any replacement kit and your fuel for travel during the season. It's a struggle just to break even at the best of times and thats in developed countries. This is for youngsters at the very basic level of soccer.

Soccer's easyness to play made it accessible, I think thats the key word. Of course being accessible with generate popularity but to the extent the game is at today it's become alot more than just being cheap and fun to play.