The Super Bowl To London?
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
I forget the program I was listening to the other day, but an interesting point was raised about the Super Bowl. The radio host was talking Boxing and pay-per-view, and mentioned that he thought that within ten years the Super Bowl would be moved to that format. While that's certainly discerning, it's definitely years away. Unlike the reality that the Super Bowl could be played in London soon.
Roger Goodell has been denying stateside for months that the Super Bowl could be played overseas, but the BBC is saying something completely different....
The NFL has had "substantive talks" with officials in London about holding the Super Bowl in the city, a senior league official has told BBC Sport.Call me an "Ugly American", but I think the majority of the country would be really upset if the Super Bowl went to England. I certainly think it would be a success, and that the event would instantly sell out, but the Super Bowl is an American icon. The only good thing that could come about this, is that the game would be starting at 2 or 3pm here, instead of six something. The wait is the worst part.
While commissioner Roger Goodell has previously admitted an interest in bringing the game to London, this is the first confirmation of discussions.
"We've spoken on what it would take to host and for us to bring it over," said events vice-president Frank Supovitz.
"The city has all the facilities needed, and in great quantity."
Supovitz was talking in New York City where the NFL Draft will take place this weekend.
"We have had very substantive conversations with the city of London. We've got to the point of exploring the bid document," he added.
NFL in talks on London Super Bowl (BBC)
9 Comments:
One more thing, I not a metorologist, but isn't London weather pretty bad come late Jan./ Early Feb? It's hard enough getting through Weblemdon in July without rain, but I can only imagine winter would be just as bad or worse than Detroit. Yeah, I know they probably play indoors, but still.
What makes you so sure the Super Bowl would be on at 2 or 3pm EST if the game is in London? The game may be in London but the tv viewers are still largely in the USA and the NFL knows that and they can milk all of the money in pre game programming on a variety of networks. I am sure the NFL would have no problems starting the game at 10pm in London. It is clear they don't actually care about the game.
Or they could *GASP* show it on tape delay like the Olympics! This is just a terrible, horrible, no good very bad idea.
Does anyone actually read the articles? All it said was that the London folks wanted to find out what they needed to do to host a Super Bowl. Its not going to happen.
The owners and the union should never allow this shit to happen. This is our sport, dammit. They don't play their stupid EPL finals over here.
Goodell doesn't give a fuck if you like this or not.
"They don't play their stupid EPL finals over here."
Not a good analogy. The EPL is like college football, and no, we don't play the Sugar Bowl in London.
The Super Bowl is more like the World Cup, which we have hosted. Soccer was trying to expand in America. It didn't really work.
But as somebody said, the article really says that London wants to host, not that it's being considered to host.
We rejected David Beckham on terra firma Americana, so why don't we keep our football (at least championship games) over here? I am a multiculturalist and I'm glad other nations are taking interest in my favorite game but this is the Super Bowl and should always be an American treasure. Still, I don't mind having games in different countries, so long as it's not my Broncos that have to play in them.
Two chances. Slim. And none.
Why? I don't get why they would want to move the Super Bowl--OUR event--overseas to Europe. It's enough that we give them a regular season game (which I still think is ridiculous), but the Super Bowl? Seriously, enough with the global expansion shit. I might completely lose interest in the game if they did this.