A future Super Bowl in London??

[Reds Fanatic]

This idea is ridiculous to me but the NFL is actually thinking about holding a Super Bowl in London

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3065254

SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. -- A future Super Bowl champion may someday be crowned overseas in a game witnessed predominantly by a foreign audience, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell said.

"There's a great deal of interest in holding a Super Bowl in London," Goodell told reporters Monday. "So we'll be looking at that."

The commissioner said London's new Wembley Stadium would make a great candidate for pro football's biggest matchup, given the enthusiasm overseas for the game.

The NFL has been expanding its overseas presence for years by televising games around the world. It's held preseason games in numerous countries in Europe, Asia, Mexico and Canada, and in 2005, the Arizona Cardinals and San Francisco 49ers played the first regular-season match outside the United States.

The game at Azteca Stadium in Mexico City drew the league's largest crowd to date, 103,467.

On Oct. 28, Wembley will host the first regular-season NFL game outside North America. It took just 90 minutes to sell the first 40,000 tickets for the game between the Miami Dolphins and New York Giants. Goodell said event organizers have sold 95,000 tickets in all.

Goodell spoke about the possibility of a British Super Bowl after a luncheon Monday in Scottsdale sponsored by the host committee for the 2008 Super Bowl in Arizona.

[paintmered]

Make the UEFA Cup championship game come here first.

[MrCinatit]

If I am not mistaken, London is six hours ahead of us in the time zone.
If the game were to be held at its usual 8 p.m. Easter time (doubtful), it would start at 2 a.m. Greenwich time (extremely doubtful).
Should the game be held at 8 p.m. Greenwich, it will start at 2 p.m. Eastern, 11 a.m. west coast. This would mean the hours upon hours of pre-game shows - and pre-Super Bowl parties - would be obsolete. Again, not a popular move. (My times might be slightly off on all of this).

[WMR]

Make the UEFA Cup championship game come here first.

Nah, Champion's League Final. AND FA Cup final.

AND Regular season EPL matches: Chelsea v. ManU & Liverpool v. Arsenal

[Yachtzee]

If I am not mistaken, London is six hours ahead of us in the time zone.
If the game were to be held at its usual 8 p.m. Easter time (doubtful), it would start at 2 a.m. Greenwich time (extremely doubtful).
Should the game be held at 8 p.m. Greenwich, it will start at 2 p.m. Eastern, 11 a.m. west coast. This would mean the hours upon hours of pre-game shows - and pre-Super Bowl parties - would be obsolete. Again, not a popular move. (My times might be slightly off on all of this).

Nah, the party would just shift to become an after-party. Who needs pre-game shows anyway. Imagine if they held one in Japan.

[KronoRed]

Awful awful idea, I'm sure it would sell out but the SB would sell out if it was held in Guam.

With the failure of NFL Europe you would think the NFL would realize that US football just isn't that popular over there.

[WMR]

If they're going to hold one outside the US, it should at least be in a stadium that can hold a couple hundred thousand people. Make it really crazy.

[RedFanAlways1966]

Never going to happen. Goodell is just talking b/c of the upcoming NYG-Dolphins game.

Think of the primetime advertising dollars made by the network covering the game... afternoon slots aren't as worthy for the $$$ paid. Same reason almost all the baseball playoff games are started in primetime slots.

Football is an American game and will always have the big game played here. Never going to be different.

[GoReds33]

My view is very simple. If Cincinnati can't get one, London definitly can't.

[Reds Fanatic]

If I am not mistaken, London is six hours ahead of us in the time zone.
If the game were to be held at its usual 8 p.m. Easter time (doubtful), it would start at 2 a.m. Greenwich time (extremely doubtful).
Should the game be held at 8 p.m. Greenwich, it will start at 2 p.m. Eastern, 11 a.m. west coast. This would mean the hours upon hours of pre-game shows - and pre-Super Bowl parties - would be obsolete. Again, not a popular move. (My times might be slightly off on all of this).

I think it may be 5 hours but that is a good point why this will never actually happen. Plus the commissioner mentions Wembley Stadium as the possible location. I have seen big concert events televised from Wembley before and they have a very strict law in that area that says all Wembley events have to be done by I think 11 PM local time so they game would have to be completely done by 6 PM eastern time. There is no way the networks would ever take their highest rated event of the year and put it on in the early afternoon.

[Roy Tucker]

The NFL is interested in growth and the US is pretty well saturated with NFL football. They've been trying to get a beachhead in Europe for a while now.

I would think that getting the kickoff at ~6:15 PM EST would reign supreme. The advertising money is just too huge. Who cares what the local time is in London, Tokyo, or Shanghai?

As long as the locals are OK with that, it really doesn't matter to me where the game is. I don't care enough about the NFL to shell out the big bucks for a ticket. TV is fine with me.

[Chip R]

I always wondered why they don't hold the Super Bowl in Hawaii.

[Unassisted]

I always wondered why they don't hold the Super Bowl in Hawaii.

Staging the game in Hawaii would reduce the number of media who get to attend and cover the game, since the cost of getting to and staying in Hawaii is so much higher than anywhere on the mainland. I imagine the NFL wants every drop of newspaper ink and every second of local coverage that it can get. Besides, hosting the Super Bowl in Hawaii would take away from the specialness of the Pro Bowl.

Having hosted several Final Fours, including next year's men's F4, San Antonio has inquired about hosting a Super Bowl. But it has been told it won't be considered, since the NFL wants to use the game as a reward for cities who have teams. I'm sure the people here who have been doing the asking will be none too pleased to hear that London might get one before San Antonio does.

[Chip R]

Staging the game in Hawaii would reduce the number of media who get to attend and cover the game, since the cost of getting to and staying in Hawaii is so much higher than anywhere on the mainland. I imagine the NFL wants every drop of newspaper ink and every second of local coverage that it can get. Besides, hosting the Super Bowl in Hawaii would take away from the specialness of the Pro Bowl.

I'm not saying do it every year but maybe 1 in 10. Besides, you'll get the media having fistfights in order to get to be able to go to Hawaii in February. Of course I'm sure the real reason is that Honolulu isn't going to get into a bidding war for the game.

Having hosted several Final Fours, including next year's men's F4, San Antonio has inquired about hosting a Super Bowl. But it has been told it won't be considered, since the NFL wants to use the game as a reward for cities who have teams. I'm sure the people here who have been doing the asking will be none too pleased to hear that London might get one before San Antonio does.

I think SA would be a fine place to host the Super Bowl. It'd be better than ATL or DET. Sounds like a bogus excuse to me because they still hold Super Bowls in Pasadena.

[dabvu2498]

I think SA would be a fine place to host the Super Bowl. It'd be better than ATL or DET. Sounds like a bogus excuse to me because they still hold Super Bowls in Pasadena.

Actually there hasn't been a Super Bowl in Pasadena since 1993.