SuperBowl to head out of US?

[LadyStanley]

Holding a Super Bowl outside the US is a possibility, NFL Commissioner Goodell says

The NFL's aggressive international growth plan could include holding a Super Bowl outside the United States for the first time, Commissioner Roger Goodell said Saturday. Goodell has shot down the idea in the past, but he told a fan forum in London that it's a possibility. “We’ve always...

sports.yahoo.com

Goodell says maybe

Have to wonder how sponsors feel about that.

Click to read more...

 

[HisIceness]

I have a feeling that wouldn't go over well.

 

[CTHabsfan]

Holding a Super Bowl outside the US is a possibility, NFL Commissioner Goodell says

The NFL's aggressive international growth plan could include holding a Super Bowl outside the United States for the first time, Commissioner Roger Goodell said Saturday. Goodell has shot down the idea in the past, but he told a fan forum in London that it's a possibility. “We’ve always...

sports.yahoo.com

Goodell says maybe

Have to wonder how sponsors feel about that.

I can't imagine sponsors being on-board. Official kickoff time is 6:30 PM Eastern and gameplay typically starts about 20 minutes later due to pre-game ceremonies. A game starting 6:50 PM in London starts at 1:50 PM in New York and 10:50 AM in Los Angeles (or 12:50 PM and 9:50 AM if in Germany or France). There's no way you could have a game in Europe where fans would want to attend while being shown in primetime in the States.

 

[Brodie]

There is no way to televise a game whose primary audience is in the United States at a reasonable time from the UK. You would have to shift kickoff to 1 pm EST at the latest, which is 10 am PST. You'd tank the ratings and the value to advertisers.

Like every other idea Goodell has on the next phase of international growth, this is riddled with logistical issues and will perpetually remain a "maybe in 10 years..." concept. The simple reality is that Goodell is continually out over his skis on this issue and he will likely have retired long before any of the fundamental problems with further integrating overseas markets can be resolved (and it isn't clear to me that the next person in his chair will have the same gung-ho obsession with growing the game that he does). Expanding the schedule to 18 games will allow for additional European games per season, which will likely remain lucrative for the league. That will probably be enough for the foreseeable future.

 

[GKJ]

The US sponsors won’t care, whichever ones do will lose their place. The game will lose zero ratings by starting earlier. Might even do better since people won’t have to stay up as late, and whichever fans win can celebrate earlier. Fans getting from the US to the game, that will be a pain. But they won’t be when they’re sitting on the plane headed for Europe.

 

[Bjorn Le]

If Godell is saying this, it’s a pretty good chance the NFL already knows what years they will want to try a London Super Bowl. Could even be in the first year of a London expansion team or the year before a London expansion team starts playing.

Since the Super Bowl is on Sunday, it is not really a problem to have the game start midday.

Anyways, the NFL seems to have very long timelines for things they’re interested in. This is likely something, if it were to happen, were to occur in the early 2030s.

 

[CTHabsfan]

The US sponsors won’t care, whichever ones do will lose their place. The game will lose zero ratings by starting earlier. Might even do better since people won’t have to stay up as late, and whichever fans win can celebrate earlier. Fans getting from the US to the game, that will be a pain. But they won’t be when they’re sitting on the plane headed for Europe.

The Super Bowl is typically the most-watched TV program in the U.S., and it has consistently been the most-watched U.S. TV program, year after year. The NFL would make kick-off earlier if they thought it would result in even better ratings, since they would be able to command even higher ad rates. Fair to say, the NFL doesn't agree with your opinion on game time.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

I doubt it. The NFL loves flexing their muscles with the Super Bowl and exerting extremely generous deals out of local municipalities to host them. London is way too big and the NFL is way too far down on their radar for the city to give enough of a **** to give anything to the NFL more than an affirmative nod. The NFL suits aren't going to get the royal treatment they've gotten accustomed to from American cities that want to host.

 

[GKJ]

The Super Bowl is typically the most-watched TV program in the U.S., and it has consistently been the most-watched U.S. TV program, year after year. The NFL would make kick-off earlier if they thought it would result in even better ratings, since they would be able to command even higher ad rates. Fair to say, the NFL doesn't agree with your opinion on game time.

The networks want to do 8 hours of pregame and have a strong lead out. If airing the game earlier, with an international audience engaged, because they’re at an international site, they’re going to do what they are going to do. They could air this game at 4am, and it will still be the highest rated program in the US. Doing something like this is an investment, and would likely be worth it in growing an international audience.

 

[Takuto Maruki]

Like every other idea Goodell has on the next phase of international growth, this is riddled with logistical issues and will perpetually remain a "maybe in 10 years..." concept. The simple reality is that Goodell is continually out over his skis on this issue and he will likely have retired long before any of the fundamental problems with further integrating overseas markets can be resolved (and it isn't clear to me that the next person in his chair will have the same gung-ho obsession with growing the game that he does). Expanding the schedule to 18 games will allow for additional European games per season, which will likely remain lucrative for the league. That will probably be enough for the foreseeable future.

And this is what gets me about the 'international growth' aspect of it all. Forgetting that most of the 'international growth' comes from American servicemen and their families in specific hot spots with US bases (so specifically Germany, South Korea, etc) or states that are defacto American colonies (American Samoa, etc) how much more do you realistically think you can grow in these places, considering that Canada and Australia already have their own forms of football, and don't exactly want to have the mothership utterly trample and make those forms of football moot?

So much of the NFL's desires for international growth just seems to me like trying to fight God (or in this case, actual logistics and time zones) and also sequestering the Jags to London twice a year because Shad Khan has his fingers in the pie of Fulham.

 

[Brodie]

After reading some of these replies, I went back to the archives to find lots of posters in this very thread credulously discussing how the NFL was *guaranteed* to have a team in London by 2022... in threads more than a decade old. None of this stuff is new, and it's frankly hilarious that some of you have thought this was imminent for the past 15 years. Here is what I said 9 years ago(!) on the subject:

there is only way for the NFL to grow the sport and it's power internationally: spread these regular season games around, like the American Bowl was spread around (this was the original plan for the International Series before Goodell became obsessed with London) and invest like hell in developing infrastructure. But that isn't sexy and it doesn't allow you to dream up a scenario where football is in the Olympics within your lifetime, so it doesn't fit with Goodell's egomania.

Lo and behold! There is no London NFL team, there has been no movement toward a London NFL team. There has been no London Super Bowl, there has been no movement toward a London Super Bowl. Instead the boring, logical and extremely practical idea of more games overseas in more markets is, indeed, proving to be the best path toward increasing revenue and slowly growing the sport.

 

[Brodie]

So much of the NFL's desires for international growth just seems to me like trying to fight God (or in this case, actual logistics and time zones) and also sequestering the Jags to London twice a year because Shad Khan has his fingers in the pie of Fulham.

There were reports a long time ago that Goodell's pitch to owners had more or less boiled down to "see how English soccer teams are the most well known and valuable sports brands outside of the NFL? Well, if we get into the English market, that'll open us up to China and Africa and the Middle East by proxy!"... it was a silly idea then, it's an even sillier idea now. I've always maintained it was only a matter of time before the owners wised up and started asking why they should pin all their international growth hopes and dreams on one city in one country when evidence already suggested there were markets in Latin America and Germany. And here we are... with the NFL finally doing the thing they should've done a decade ago and tapping those markets.

At the end of the day, getting to see a cavalcade of teams come through London and Berlin and Mexico City and Rio every single year is a better bet than saying "hey London, ready to get hype for your big rivalry game with Indianapolis and a full slate of AFC matchups?!" ever would be. This way, you can get Packers fans on the continent to spur demand when they're overseas, Steelers fans when they are, Patriots fans when they are, etc. The value is MUCH greater.

 

[CTHabsfan]

The networks want to do 8 hours of pregame and have a strong lead out. If airing the game earlier, with an international audience engaged, because they’re at an international site, they’re going to do what they are going to do. They could air this game at 4am, and it will still be the highest rated program in the US. Doing something like this is an investment, and would likely be worth it in growing an international audience.

The NFL would require a huge increase of international viewers and advertising revenue to offset the significant loss of U.S. revenue. Since this isn't going to happen, there's no way owners will approve.

The Super Bowl TV audience would be much less if the game were played at 4:00 AM. Nobody is hosting a Super Bowl party at 4:00 AM. Casual fans and people who only watch football when it's the Super Bowl are viewing for the pregame entertainment, halftime show and commercials; they won't be waking up early to catch a game that really doesn't interest them. I suspect there would be a large number of people who, like me, wouldn't bother watching unless their favorite team were playing. Even at a less absurd 10:00 AM, there would be few people having parties. You'd also have a problem with bars and restaurants currently showing the game who are not open in the morning, do not serve breakfast, and who would make much less money on alcohol sales if the game took place so early in the day.

 

[GKJ]

The NFL would require a huge increase of international viewers and advertising revenue to offset the significant loss of U.S. revenue. Since this isn't going to happen, there's no way owners will approve.

The Super Bowl TV audience would be much less if the game were played at 4:00 AM. Nobody is hosting a Super Bowl party at 4:00 AM. Casual fans and people who only watch football when it's the Super Bowl are viewing for the pregame entertainment, halftime show and commercials; they won't be waking up early to catch a game that really doesn't interest them. I suspect there would be a large number of people who, like me, wouldn't bother watching unless their favorite team were playing. Even at a less absurd 10:00 AM, there would be few people having parties. You'd also have a problem with bars and restaurants currently showing the game who are not open in the morning, do not serve breakfast, and who would make much less money on alcohol sales if the game took place so early in the day.

I didn’t say it wouldn’t be less, I said it would still be the highest rated program of the year.

Bars and parties and restaurants and whatnot is not the NFL’s problem. They’re worried about it airing games at 9:30 ET. A certain number will open anyways.

 

[CTHabsfan]

I didn’t say it wouldn’t be less, I said it would still be the highest rated program of the year.

Bars and parties and restaurants and whatnot is not the NFL’s problem. They’re worried about it airing games at 9:30 ET. A certain number will open anyways.

A 4:00 AM Super Bowl would absolutely not be the highest rated TV show of the year, even a 10:00 AM start would make that doubtful. Only the most hardcore fans would watch a 4:00 AM game. A 10:00 AM game doesn't lose nearly as many viewers, but there would still be a drastic reduction due to the loss of casual viewers.

 

[Takuto Maruki]

"see how English soccer teams are the most well known and valuable sports brands outside of the NFL? Well, if we get into the English market, that'll open us up to China and Africa and the Middle East by proxy!"

Even at that point, the landed gentry of European soccer clubs (Real Madrid especially, as presented here) eventually stopped that strategy of directly appealing to Gulf states as a bridge to Asia because it actively pissed off the fanbases that they were being used as pawns in the development of the region by way of sport. What makes Goodell think that could happen by continually playing Jacksonville and the rest of the league in England, not even doing the deed of going to Gulf states to bat eyelashes with oil men and sovereign wealth funds?

 

[blueandgoldguy]

A little OT to the topic, but I don't see how that game in Brazil in a 45,000 seat stadium provided additional revenue to the NFL forgoing a 65,000 seat stadium in the US...unless the tickets were double the average price of a typical NFL game.

 

[GKJ]

A 4:00 AM Super Bowl would absolutely not be the highest rated TV show of the year, even a 10:00 AM start would make that doubtful. Only the most hardcore fans would watch a 4:00 AM game. A 10:00 AM game doesn't lose nearly as many viewers, but there would still be a drastic reduction due to the loss of casual viewers.

Yes it would. The NFL is king.

A little OT to the topic, but I don't see how that game in Brazil in a 45,000 seat stadium provided additional revenue to the NFL forgoing a 65,000 seat stadium in the US...unless the tickets were double the average price of a typical NFL game.

It’s not a moneymaker, it’s an investment.

 

[tucker3434]

Yes it would. The NFL is king.



It’s not a moneymaker, it’s an investment.

It would be the best 4am broadcast of all time. But most of the US would absolutely not watch that live. The Super Bowl is a spectacle because of its ability to draw casual and non-fans. Those people (I’m one of them) aren’t setting their alarms for a 4am game.

And I’d agree with the earlier posts that I don’t even think noon would be a great idea. I expect they like having a full day of pregame content and advertising revenue.

They could get away with playing the game Toronto. I’m just not sure that benefits anybody.

 

[SoundAndFury]

I don't really understand what the big win here is for the NFL. It's not like it lacks exposure, most people in Europe (and I suppose around the world) know pretty well what American football is, just don't really care for it much.

Regular logic in sports is that if you want to do something like this, you start by playing preseason games in some other locations, not by moving your most marketable grand finale event to the place where people don't care and attend it (if it's reasonably priced) out of share curiosity or for a mid-game show.

So all in all, seems like the move that could possibly hurt a lot while having little to gain.

 

[joelef]

I don't really understand what the big win here is for the NFL. It's not like it lacks exposure, most people in Europe (and I suppose around the world) know pretty well what American football is, just don't really care for it much.

Regular logic in sports is that if you want to do something like this, you start by playing preseason games in some other locations, not by moving your most marketable grand finale event to the place where people don't care and attend it (if it's reasonably priced) out of share curiosity or for a mid-game show.

So all in all, seems like the move that could possibly hurt a lot while having little to gain.

They did that in 1994 with the World Cup and it was a massive success

 

[SoundAndFury]

They did that in 1994 with the World Cup and it was a massive success

There are very significant differences between those events.

World Cup is dozens of games so if somebody gets "hooked" it offers immediate follow-up action. It doesn't rely on a single market so no matter where it is, somebody is getting the time zone benefit and someone is at an inconvenience. It also has those smaller matchups where you benefit simply from being in a city/market with a big population because there won't be enough "real" fans to fill the stadium, etc.

Also, I'd wager football in America has so much less exposure than American football does in Europe.