Welcome to PatsFans.com

10 reasons why the Superbowl should be staged in London

Discussion in 'NFL Football Forum' started by Rossmci90, May 10, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Rossmci90

    Rossmci90 Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Messages:
    933
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Opinion: London Super Bowl not bad idea - NFL- nbcsports.msnbc.com

    A bad article at best, and at worst it seems like a soccer-bashing article in places.

    The NFL needs to give up the idea of international expansion, it isn't going to work. Like the article says, a Superbowl would be a one off. Once its over Brits would go back to watching soccer again. It simply isn't going to create the same level of interest that soccer holds over here.
  2. efin98

    efin98 Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2009
    Messages:
    5,090
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    How is it a bad article? It's well written and his thoughts are laid out and justifiable.

    I don't see any soccer bashing anywhere in the article so I don't see how you get that from it.
    Last edited: May 10, 2009
  3. Rossmci90

    Rossmci90 Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Messages:
    933
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0


    If folks can get worked up about a bunch of guys in shorts chasing a white ball with not much scoring, they'd be downright rabid about football once they give it a full and fair chance.


    It's a very disguised little bash, plus it also shows he doesn't watch much soccer in Britain because we play with a yellow ball in Winter. :D

    The point im making really though is what does the Superbowl have to do with soccer? Why does there need to be a link? Is the NFL's agenda to try and overtake soccer as the world's most popular sport? Because its got a looooooong way to go.
  4. Scouse Patriot

    Scouse Patriot Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,957
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Whilst I wouldn't say it was a bad article theres definately alot of wishful thinking and I also picked up on the slight soccer agenda. Getting over the fact soccer is king would definately helps these media guys sleep at night.



    I've posted many a time and still maintain theres a hardcore percentage of NFL fans in the UK with knowledgable and enthusiastic fans a plenty, aswell as open minded sports nuts in general but it will never take off into a full blown sport and start taking a wedge out the "soccer obsession" the way he speculates it could. Outside of America it has a giant mountain to climb, you have soccer where favourite players and managers are bigger than gods, and then you have Rugby which alot don't seem to mention. Rugby is easily the second sport in the UK and other countries around the world. Rugby is an explosive, non stop contact sport which appeals heavily to the rough British culture already. Most hardcore Rugby fans would tell you football is for girls.

    Theres enough foriegn interest to sustain regular season games in the UK but not foriegn franchises and "global expansion". For every one of those ten reasons there one reason that overwhelms them all and that is the fact it's America's game and America's show piece, the event football fans all watch and to take that out of the country would be abandoning the very people who make it a succesful sport domestically.
  5. PatsBoy12

    PatsBoy12 Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    Messages:
    6,247
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +12 / 0 / -0

    As someone who watches and loves soccer, I have a big problem with reason #5.:mad:
  6. efin98

    efin98 Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2009
    Messages:
    5,090
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0


    It's hyperbole and a bad choice of words but it's not bashing the game- it's stating the truth though, albeit in snide manner. If it was insulting the fans or the game directly it would be bashing.

    It doesn't have anything to do with soccer, except being played in a soccer stadium. They don't need to compete against it, they won't win.
  7. misterdsdan

    misterdsdan Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2008
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    There's one thing I'm not sure anybody has mentioned yet....the weather!

    There are very good reasons why the SB is almost invariably played in the South and on artificial turf (increasingly nowadays inside too just to really make sure).

    Wembley is 'proper' turf, and is also an open stadium. London in February....not ideal weather! The only option would be returfing somewhere like the millenium stadium in Cardiff.

    For the record, I'm English and am dead-set against having the superbowl over here....it would only be feasible if we had an expansion team and even then the weather will rule us out for the same reasons as it does NY, Pittsburgh and of course Foxboro for the SB!!
  8. PatriotsInGA

    PatriotsInGA Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2008
    Messages:
    2,291
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +15 / 0 / -0

    #11 Jersey

    I don't think anyone has mentioned this also, but

    why would we want 40 teams? It just seems like to much. And especially in Mexico, Canada, and England. I dont think the Pats would enjoy flying to Mexico or London, jsut for a Week 3 matchup
  9. reflexblue

    reflexblue PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2006
    Messages:
    17,242
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +20 / 3 / -0

    #91 Jersey

    What would be he difference betwwen flying to London or Mexico City vs flying to Cali......none. Its 3000 miles to london, and 3000 miles to Cali. Personally i think both Toronto and Mexico city would be very good candidates for a franchise albeit one already in existance.
    Last edited: May 15, 2009
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>