italian pat patriot
Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal
2021 Weekly Picks Winner
2023 Weekly Picks Winner
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2005
- Messages
- 9,120
- Reaction score
- 6,671
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.The NFL will never catch on in the European mainstream with its current business model based on TV revenues. Most television in Europe is publicly funded and commercial free. My Anglo/Euro friends all ask me the same thing: why does the Super Bowl take 4 hours to play a game of 60 minutes? Sky TV doesn't air the adverts when they broadcast, they cut to washed up players to analyze recent happenings, even less entertaining (really, I've never been so bored by football strategy...) The only way for the NFL to market overseas is to allow uniform and on-field advertisements, or have the advertisements super-imposed onto the field for TV viewers like they do in rugby. No publicly funded TV station in Europe will pay the massive rights fees the NFL demands.
Brits/Europeans also prefer sports that flow (like soccer, rugby, hockey, and [to a lesser extent] basketball), hence the mainstream popularity of rugby union versus the niche interest in rugby league (I think I got those right!) and also the steady decline in mainstream British cricket interest.
NBA and NHL have the best shots at expanding into European markets because so many players are European these days. When I lived in Czech, everyone displayed the Rangers logo because of Jaromir Jagr and even the smallest neighborhood pub played NHL games on its TV. The NBA also has a good shot because of its flowing style and the popularity of the sport abroad.
I'm all for adverts on uniforms if it meant no more commercials during broadcasts. I don't care if the Pats put a Gillette logo on their shoulder or chest, my blind allegiance to a revolving-door roster holding only a uniform and logo in common already exists. (The sanctity of the game itself, IMO, has already been infringed on by the NFL with its ubiquitous and unending attempts to market itself to the casual viewer as THE only form of football, in collusion with the TV networks. Analysts cater to average and unknowledgeable fans and there is an unending parade of crap you can buy with a logo on it. The NFL wants your identity to be completely wrapped up in the team you support, thus its licensed golf club covers and barbecue grills.) I'd love to watch a game uninterrupted by adverts, in under 3 hours, so that I don't buy as much beer at the bar and don't burn out on watching more football later. The other solution, besides adverts on uniforms, would be having each team elect an official sponsor of its games and during broadcasts that company/product is the only corporate logo viewers are allowed to see (like 1950s television). If you don't think Budweiser would pay for this sort of carpet-bomb advertising, you underestimate their advertising budget.
So as soon as the NFL acquiesces to the demands of the BBC and other publicly funded European television networks, they will have a market there. Until then, it will only be a minnow in a sea of soccer fans.
Not true. Yes, there are publicly funded TV channels in most European countries, few of those are commercial free. However, without advertising revenue, the public channels are increasingly unable to compete with the commercial networks (predominantly Sky), so increasingly, if you are serious about sport, you need to subscribe to satellite or cable (which still has a far lower uptake in Europe to NA).Most television in Europe is publicly funded and commercial free
That's the heart of it. Note that football is only ever shownThe adverts and the stop-start thing ARE a big problem for the game.
I think, as Pats fans, we're unfair on the Sky presenters, especially Nick Halling. Sure, he makes no secret of the fact that he's a Squealers fan, and hates the Pats, but he does respect them. And I think he's certainly got the best football knowledge of any indigenous presenter. The others on Sky are worst than useless. If Sky could poach Carlson as anchor man with support from Halling, I think we'd have a team I might want to listen to on a Sunday night.I haven't seen the Sky analysts, but they don't have the best rep in the world. I do like Mike Carlson, though. He's a Wesleyan alumnus and is really knowledgeable about the game. However, he is stuck away on Channel 5 (a channel that has less than 100% reception across the UK, for technical reasons) and is on the graveyard slots mentioned previously.
True (except that the onfield ads in Rugby and Cricket are actually painted on the turf at an angle where they will appear undistorted on TV). Perimeter advertising around the field as well. Although I like the concept of jerseys without sponsors names, in truth every NFL jersey is a Reebok ad. And I find sponsored stadium names more offensive than uniform advertising (especially as I would expect the NFL to have the good sense not to follow the path of the English premiership, where 20% of teams are sponsored by online betting firms). Since franchises would probably not be in a position to negotiate individual sponsors, I'm guessing that the NFL would have to find a single global sponsor. Almost inevitably A/B.The only way for the NFL to market overseas is to allow uniform and on-field advertisements, or have the advertisements super-imposed onto the field for TV viewers like they do in rugby. No publicly funded TV station in Europe will pay the massive rights fees the NFL demands.
Still too long. With the exception of cricket (which is more of a minority sport than most Americans would assume - and even there most of the biggest crowds come for the shortened baseball style night games which last about 3 hours) we are used to games that take less than 2 hours. Soccer and Rugby games last 90 & 80 minutes. With time added on for injuries and a 15 minute break at half time, we're used to a 3.00pm kick off, and heading for the exits at 4.40-4.50pm finish. British fans just don't get how a 90 minute game takes less thn 2 hours, whilst a 60 minute game lasts closer to 3.I'd love to watch a game uninterrupted by adverts, in under 3 hours, so that I don't buy as much beer at the bar and don't burn out on watching more football later.
Apart from a dodgy choice of soccer and cricket team Gomez, you're a man of taste.Rugby League...is stop-start and I don't enjoy it as much as Union (I say that as a Northerner).
And back on topic, although of course I would go, I would be sorely disappointed if, having been promised an NFL game in London, we got stuck with the meaningless mess that is Pro Bowl.
And back on topic, although of course I would go, I would be sorely disappointed if, having been promised an NFL game in London, we got stuck with the meaningless mess that is Pro Bowl. You are not going to win over new fans by showing them a meaningless warm down with multiple substitutions (hey, that starting Quarterback is really good...Oh, they substituted him )
Besides, a week in London in February? What sort of reward is that for a Pro Bowl selection?