Saturday, January 13, 2007

NFL In London.

I'm alittle surprised I haven't read more about this. The NFL is going to play another regular season game outside the U.S. This time it will be in London, most likely at Wembley Stadium.

Doesn't this suck?

Aren't stadiums built with taxpayer dollars? Was the game played in Mexico City that big a success? Isn't this a big, fuck-you, to the fans of these teams?

The report says that every team will be required to play a date outside the U.S. over the next 16 seasons.

Why? I mean, aside from the extra money that the NFL can earn, probing every orifice the world has to offer.

It won't be the best product. Both the Giants and Dolphins have a very good chance of sucking next season. Are they really planning on selling the game on the skill of Cleo Lemon's arm, or Tom Coughlin's coaching? I suppose it might be fun seeing which player can get arrested in London? Any early guesses? Gun possession? Drug possession? Drunk driving, on the wrong side of the street, while nude?

But why a regular season game? The fans only get eight a year.

Why not, oh, I don't know, the Pro Bowl? Fan's never attend the game. It doesn't matter in the standings. It's a paid vacation for the players anyway, plus you would have many an NFL star available for pimping. Every year it can be in a different international city abroad. It might even spark more interest here for a game largely irrelevant.

9 comments:

Dave said...

I would not look forward to the jet lag. As if playing pro football wasn't hard enough.

Jerious Norwood said...

Yeah, stadiums in America are paid for with tax payer dollars. Thats the point. Somehow this is not the case in Europe, but stunningly they manage to build new structures to play games in which are financed by the billionaires that make a profit on them. So ultimately, maybe the point that Americans are big fat dummies isn't the most compelling reason in the world. Maybe thats why the teams don't seem to respect them... cause they have no reason to.

Phil said...

I have no doubt that NFL owners could pay for their own stadiums, but comparing the two, don't they play alot more games of soccer per year in those stadiums. Does this lead to more money from fans, less in t.v., leading to more money for stadium construction?

Also, do soccer ownders ever threaten to move to a different city. My limited knowledge of european football tell me that they cram a soccer team in ever square inch they can. Does that make it harder to move, since there's no place to go that doesn't already have a team?

Just thinking out loud, I have no point.

Jerious Norwood said...

I don't think they can threaten to move in part because they have what is know in some circles as a 'representative government' which would prevent these oligopolies from exploiting the ruthlessly extorting the public.

I'm not quite sure what your point is about 'money for stadiums'. The NFL is the most lucrative sport league in America, and therefore the World. Unless your really fond of their made up accounting practices, I'm not sure how you can see your way clear to thinking that they could, in any way, have less money for stadiums.

Phil said...

I rarely have a point, so don't bother looking for one.

Again, just thinking out loud, wasn't there a big to-do about some guy that bought Manchester-United not being British? Was he American? This seemed contrary to fans wishes. Where was their precious 'representative government' that day?

(This comes from a complete ignorance of European government; policies or practice.

Jerious Norwood said...

The guy that bought Man U is Malcolm Glazer, the owner of the TB Buccaneers. Actually, the reason the fans balked is that they were worried, for good reason, that the Americans would prioritize the bottom line over loyalty, and competition on the field.

Phil said...

Has that been the case?

Jerious Norwood said...

Ask Clipper fans, Royals fans, Twins fans, Bengal fans (until very recently, and Viking fans and if we put our back into it, it wouldn't be too hard to come up with lots more. The Vikings is a particularly clear case. They've been consistantly well under the cap over the past few years (perhaps not right now, I don't know) Yet the team wouldn't pay to get more talent. And if you're thinking that they were protecting future cap space, that wasn't the case.z

Phil said...

I meant Manchester-United. Has Glazer confirmed their initial fears?