Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Alright, Goodell has totally flipped his lid. Flown the coop. Lost his marbles. Gone off the edge. He is
Putting more international games on the 2018 schedule. 3 in London is not enough. He has really
REALLY ruined the game this time. I don't know if I can stay a fan of the NFL now with this announcement.
I seriously cannot stand this idea. I am used to some of his bad ideas and vendettas, but this one
Looks to be the final blow !
For one, he wants to make sure that EVERY TEAM plays a regular season game out of the country. So
Over the course of a season, home fans will have one less home game. but that does not stop there.
Oh no. He wants to see how the NFL will do in Asia and the rest of Europe. And Canada. At
Least he will be putting one game back in Hawaii. (Not the Pro Bowl) But Seriously? Germany?
South America? The Olympics showed how well that venue is.
"Globally, the NFL has fans on all corners of the earth" said Goodell. "We are endeavoring to
open our sport to become the world's premier athletic competition" The idea dates back years
to successes in London and Mexico, where NFL games have been met with sold out support.
Competitions will include regular season games, ad these draw more interest than exhibitions.
He (Goodell) also cited fairness in giving each team a chance to play overseas, bringing up
an idea of 16 international games.
Goodell is a joke. He's been ruining football. IMO, he may be the worst sport commissioner now that Selig & Stern are gone.
Canada (especially Toronto) games I can put up with but not London, Mexico City, or anywhere else.
Last edited by Jonathan Ashbeck; 04-01-2017 at 05:32 PM..
But there are fans of the NFL in many foreign countries and you cannot say what it is meant to be especially with the internet, ESPN, NFL Network. I've watched the Packers on a cruise ship in the middle of the ocean with many people from other countries, enjoying it, too and quite knowledgeable.
Check out Packers.com sometime and see where the Q & A questions come from, you might be surprised. Of course, it isn't as popular as soccer but it does have a bigger following than some would think.
Redskins played a game in London last year.. It was actually Cincinnati that lost a home game.. You think Snyder is giving up the income from a home game? You think Dallas would? Green Bay? New England? Seattle?
You have a limited selection of teams that it benefits to give up the home game.. And, if you keep taking more and more games away from them, you might as well just move the franchise.
Jacksonville, San Francisco (probably).. Oakland for the next couple of years.. Either the Chargers or Rams (or both).. Chicago, perhaps. Those are likely the teams that wouldn't have a major issue losing a home game, or come out ahead by playing a home game elsewhere.
I also leave the Toronto/Buffalo thing out of this equation.. Toronto is.. What? An hour and a half away?
American football was not meant to be a worldwide sport. It's only played in the US and sometimes Canada.
says who? you? american football just might be more popular if there was more exposure to the game. heck basketball was also created in this country, and it went around the world in part because the globe trotters went to other countries to put on their show. that encouraged other countries to set up their own leagues, and now we have basketball as an olympic sport.
Quote:
did it ever occur to you guys that perhaps expanding the brand would be a good thing? No; American football is not popular worldwide as soccer is.
once again i would remind you that american football doesnt get all that much coverage outside the US. as for soccer, the reason it is popular is because it requires a minimal amount of equipment to get a game going.
did it ever occur to you guys that perhaps expanding the brand would be a good thing? No; American football is not popular worldwide as soccer is.
That's like saying X Cola will never be as popular as Coca-Cola, so there's no point in trying to get any market share at all. It makes no sense at all.
The NFL is a business. If it can expand its audience by 50% of 25% or even 10% by mining foreign markets, it only makes business sense to do so.
It's like putting an NHL team (or two) in greater Los Angeles. You can point out that hockey is more popular in Saskatoon and Duluth, but by sheer numbers that team (or two) is going to make more of a go of it in LA than in those vastly smaller markets. By the same token, it's quite possible that the NFL can find more fans in the British Isles or Asia or Latin America than it can in the U.S. and Canada because these markets are more or less tapped out.
That's how business works. It's not a personal affront to anyone.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
