Games outside the US?

[14thDragon]

Since it was a topic of conversation at the owners meetings, I thought I would bring it up here.

More games, regular season games, played outside the US. (Japan, China, Mexico etc...) I know the reasoning is that the NFL wants to expand its viewership to the international audience. The counter is that the local fans get screwed by losing a home game, and the team gets screwed by losing a home game.

So which do you think is more important, keeping the local fan bases happy or internationalizing the game of football?

My opnion is that I doubt one game, even a regular season visit from defending championship teams, every few years is really going to build a fan base. I can certainly understand the impetus to send the preseason games abroad. (Yes the game plans are vannilla and the star players sit most of the time.) It does generate some intrest. But by yearly stealing a home game from a crowd that comes and cheers no matter what, it really is a disservice to those that generate all that giant revenue for the leauge.

 

[JR4]

Well if it is only one game a year and if take away that home game equally
among all teams then
.. every team only has to give up a home game once every 32 years.
As for the other team playing .... it's like an away game.
The only thing they need to insure is that both teams do not have to play
another game in less than 7 days. Maybe the schedulers make a wise move
and scheule both teams playing for a bye week the following week.

If they really think it will build fan base in other countries then why not.
But it is a goodwill gesture and once every 32 years isn't a real tough
sacrifice.

 

[BelichickFan]

It's terrible. Too much travel, screwed up playing times, jet lag. It makes no sense and I hate it.

 

[Mike the Brit]

It makes no sense to me

because there are LOTs of things the NFL could do to market itself internationally that would be just as effective, if not more so (number one: package games in such a way that it gets them shown on terrestrial TV) but which would not compromise the competition or disadvantage U.S. fans.

 

[Pats726]

There is no question it is disruptive to the team to play in another country and it would be FAIR to have a bye week the next week if it is in a far off place..many time zones away. It IS no doubt a big problem that a home game is lost...but what impact would that have??? I am not sure how I feel about this..yes, it is important to expand, but if it disruptive...how fair is that?? ANd how fair is it to those season ticket holders?? Preseason is one thing..but reg season??

 

[JR4]

....... I am not sure how I feel about this..yes, it is important to expand, but if it disruptive...how fair is that?? ANd how fair is it to those season ticket holders?? Preseason is one thing..but reg season??

Again if it is done right it is only 1 home game every 32 YEARS. Fans can't
cough up 1 home game every 32 years for the sake of goodwill?????

A strong international following can't help but make it better for all 32 teams.
More international revenues is a good thing. NO?

 

[QuiGon]

I don't believe they scheduled any such game this year, which I consider to be a very good thing. Last year's Mexico game was SF-AZ, a game which would probably have drawn 10,000 people anyway.

But I tell ya this... One of the costs of being a season ticket holder is you must buy 2 exhibition games. I would be damn pissed if I was a season ticket holder for the Pats or Giants or Cowboys or whatever and they took my 8 game package and made it 7 (while still forcing me to buy both exhibition games).

 

[italian pat patriot]

at a certain point this year (we discussed it a couple of months ago) it was expected-planned a regular season game to be playied this autumn in Europe (Wembley Stadium, UK) but then with the CBA 'problems' nothing happened...

for us, NFL fans in Europe, it should have been extremely nice to see alive one game (i should have bought ticket for any game...) and i do not think that 1 game / year is a big sacrifice for a US fan.

the two teams playing could 'rotate'...

but this year there will be no game outside US (last year there was one in MEX and the stadium was sold out between Arz and Sf)

of course (for obvious reasons) i would like 1 game playied EVERY year but...in Europe ! Not in Asia or Mexico or...

 

[milwaukeebeers44]

Only if we can send the Colts to Japan to play, like the Yankees did a couple of years ago. . .Manning might come back with Giambi's "intestinal parasite!"

 

[Pats726]

Again if it is done right it is only 1 home game every 32 YEARS. Fans can't
cough up 1 home game every 32 years for the sake of goodwill?????

A strong international following can't help but make it better for all 32 teams.
More international revenues is a good thing. NO?

It does make sense to earn more revenue..IN the long run.
I don't believe it will be just one game though; that is the thing. It MAY be one game for a few years and then MORE...and that will not be good.Slippery slope of many more.
It doesn't effect me personally as I am not a season ticket holder..and would be interested to see how they feel and think.
I have a problem if it is later in the year and is done in way that will really penalize a team.

 

[pats1]

at a certain point this year (we discussed it a couple of months ago) it was expected-planned a regular season game to be playied this autumn in Europe (Wembley Stadium, UK) but then with the CBA 'problems' nothing happened...

for us, NFL fans in Europe, it should have been extremely nice to see alive one game (i should have bought ticket for any game...) and i do not think that 1 game / year is a big sacrifice for a US fan.

the two teams playing could 'rotate'...

but this year there will be no game outside US (last year there was one in MEX and the stadium was sold out between Arz and Sf)

of course (for obvious reasons) i would like 1 game playied EVERY year but...in Europe ! Not in Asia or Mexico or...

Again, the jet lag and the extra planning that goes into the game could screw a team's season. Nevermind some loss of revenue.

Would you rather watch the Pats play one game in Europe or win the Super Bowl?

 

[JR4]

......
Would you rather watch the Pats play one game in Europe or win the Super Bowl?

Sorry, I fail to see the connection or missed your meaning. Did you mean
If the PATs played a game in Europe and then had a bye week following
that game that they would fail to win a Super Bowl?
If that is what you meant I'd like to know how you could come to that
conclusion.

 

[italian pat patriot]

Again, the jet lag and the extra planning that goes into the game could screw a team's season. Nevermind some loss of revenue.

Would you rather watch the Pats play one game in Europe or win the Super Bowl?

sorry my friend pats1 but this time i do not follows you

if there will be one game every year in Europe and if the teams will 'rotate' the Pats will play in Europe approx every 16 years...

as a passionate Patriot fan i would L O V E to see the Pats play in Europe one game and will prefere of course it will be a ' road game.

and i would L O V E that the Pats of course will win too the Super Bowl.

 

[italian pat patriot]

so...it 'seems' that from 2008 n.2 games/NFL regular season per year will be playied not in the Us

Can, Mex, Uk and De should be involved on it...

for me not so bad...

England and Germany are quite near...

 

[VJCPatriot]

Why not keep it to pre-season. That seems to have worked fine in the past.

Pre-season games don't affect records and the fans around the world would still get to see the nfl pro teams although more the guys the teams are evaluating than the established stars.

In fact why not make it so that 4 pre-season games are played abroad each year. That's a good way to make use of the exhibition season imo.

Regular season, I don't see that happening though.

 

[Patjew]

Again, the jet lag and the extra planning that goes into the game could screw a team's season. Nevermind some loss of revenue.

Would you rather watch the Pats play one game in Europe or win the Super Bowl?

That's ridiculous. I don't suggest they go to Asia, but England is little further from Logan than California or Seattle is, and the Pats fly out there for games without complaint. An evening game in England, France, Germany, Spain, Italy or any other western European country would be the same as an afternoon game here time-wise, so that's no issue.

Take it from someone who travels alot (I'm in Japan now and was in China 2 days ago), going to Europe is nothing and if you plan it right the jet lag doesn't even catch up to you until you come home. Give them a bye after the game and they're all set. If they didn't win the SB that year, it wouldn't be because of the extra hour or 2 in the air.

Maybe they should have the games in Iceland. That's even closer than the west coast.

 

[madmike77]

I guess it could work if the teams flew out early and left Europe/Asia as soon as their game was over. I'd still be worried about the effects of the time change and jet lag, but I don't think it would be too big an issue.

Canada and Mexico are obvious candidates since they wouldn't really require any more travel or time change than a U.S. destination.

Toronto obviously makes some sense, although I'm sure the Bills would raise a stink about any potential Toronto games since the Bills get anywhere from 10,000-20,000 Canadian fans a game and wouldn't want a Toronto game cutting into that number. I'm also not sure how much extra marketing the NFL needs in Canada. It's already pretty big up here.

 

[italian pat patriot]

NEMstrodamus predicts....

In the 2007 NFL season, or the 2008 NFL season, I envision the New ENGLAND Patriots will play a home game in OLD ENGLAND. It sppears to be the most logical choice.

and i hope NEM you are right...
i will be there surely

 

[lutontown_fc]

From a purely selfish standpoint, I would love to see the Patriots play in Europe, or even better in the UK.

Logistically, it is going to be a nightmare - I dont see how you can pre-plan 16 years into the future when it comes to who plays who and where, everyone is going to want to be the teams thats plays in 16 years time.

Some team is going to lose a home game advantage and there is more then likely going to be direct consequences regarding qualification for the post season.

I do think that playing games in Europe and Asia will promote interest in the game - but realistically none of these countries is ever going to be able to contribute a team to the World Championship that is the NFL.

NFL Europe worked for 6/7 years in the UK - but after a while people get tired of paying good money to watch what is very obviously a second class product.

I think the previous game in Mexico was tolerated becasue of the fact that both teams were massive no-hopers in terms of post season prospects.

NM

 

[italian pat patriot]

anyway i hope that from 2008 there will be 1 regular season game playied in Europe

sorry my US friends but...pls understand us (NFL fans in Europe...)

pls give us ONE game-year...