Likely because the league/owners get revenue sharing from all the additional Euro sponsorships and broadcast rights along with the same U.S. dollars?
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
NFL pondering possibility of playing Super Bowl in London
- Thread starter Y2kTheNewOldies
- Start date
They get those things regardless of where it's held. I wouldn't say there are "additional Euro sponsorships." They'd be alternative sponsorships.
Getting a share of it and actually having it in your house are very different things. We see teams building new stadiums specifically to attract a SB. There must be a reason.
Why wouldn't those be multiplied? You have U.S. broadcast rights and sponsors plus European broadcast rights and sponsors.
If a town/team is going to build a stadium in a large market, you'd be foolish not to design it with the potential for Superbowl in mind. Where any professional team makes major bonus revenue, is when their team enters the playoffs. It's like a second season starts. Superbowl from a revenue perspective, is like a third season for the two teams involved.
Why would "Europe" be more interested in a competition between two US teams just because it's held in London?
Were there Europeans rights and sponsors at last week's Ravens-Titans game?
Eventually, the assumption is London will be granted a team as part of the NFL's international expansion. The home team doesn't need to be part of the Superbowl to host in their stadium.
Because they haven't been granted an expansion team yet.
Then there's no point having this conversation until that happens, and the team owner will be part of the decision.
Perhaps, unless one objects to the NFL expanding overseas.
Exactly. Any decision for having the SB in another country would be contingent on that happening.
Which is why chances as between slim and none. But as Roger says, it's not out of the question.
You are ignoring the as-yet-to-be-documented subject of how American football fans will react to their sport playing its championship game in a foreign country.
They are Buffalo Wings, not Liverpool Wings.
Truthfully, they're not part of the decision. This is strictly a business decision.
But the business side will look at how such a move will effect everything from viewership to the sale of branded team merchandise.
Most people watch the Super Bowl on TV. I would wager that many who are watching have no idea what city the game is being played in.
The Toronto Blue Jays won the World Series in 1992 and 1993. The American Pastime in Canada, Eh.!! Americans had to accept that. They'll just have to keep a stiff upper lip if a London Super Bowl happens...
Last edited:
And other than the time differences, I've not read any fan objections when NFL teams do play in London. That, and there's a ocean acting as a divider between types of bar foods. Buffalo wings will still be served in bars during an NFL game in the U.S., while fish and chips might be served at a pub in Liverpool. It isn't called expansion for no reason.
Have you spoken with season ticket holders?
I fail to see how a local team's season ticket holders would have any objection to their team playing an away game overseas.
They hold tickets in their home stadium.
That's not exactly true. One team is still identified as the home team, and their uniform reflects that. What this does is it removes a home game from one of the two teams, and that's revenue lost by that home team, and entertainment lost by the season ticket holders.
That is true for the designated visiting team. The fans of the Home team may have a legitimate grievance. Miami is playing Kansas City in a couple weeks in Germany. That's one of the top shelf matchups of the season. Chiefs season ticket holders have to book a flight if they want to attend. That won't be cheap.
The NFL has rotated different teams for the Europe games.
Only the Jaguars have been scheduled every year. That had to do with poor attendance in Jacksonville...
As tbolt already mentioned, teams traveling to Europe for games has been going on for a few years. If season ticket holders were so outraged, don't you think they would have objected by now? Also, season ticket holders are roughly 75% of league ticket sales. Adding an overseas team like London isn't going to dilute total numbers of games much more than is already been happening.
They (we) have objected but no one listens. If you want to give up your seats, they have a waiting list who want them.
Then home venue loses, and since many of these venues are owned by local governments, the taxpayers lose. All for what?