Chicago Sun-Times
A hearty stew of offbeat sports and pop culture.

Should the NFL consider playing the Super Bowl in London?

| 4 Comments | No TrackBacks
super-bowl-london.jpgThe NFL has made its intention of broadening the league's empire overseas perfectly clear in recent years. One would have to look no farther than two sold-out games at London's Wembley Stadium and a third game scheduled at the site this coming October.

But, there's a big difference between staging an occasional regular season game across the pond and having the Super Bowl take place outside of the United States.

A report in today's Sunday Telegraph reveals that London has launched a serious bid to host the big game in the coming future.
According to the paper, representatives from the Mayor of London's office and Visit London, the city's official visitor organisation, have received assurances from the National Football League (NFL) of a commitment to hold the event in London.

"We are looking at 2014, 2015 or 2017," David Hornby, the commercial director for Visit London was quoted as saying.

Talks have been ongoing with the NFL, who have identified London as the outstanding candidate city to host the event outside of the United States.
To me, the prospect of playing the Super Bowl in England just seems like a flawed idea. While baseball is America's pastime, there's little doubt that the professional football has become king.

It's just a hunch, but I'd wager Americans are pretty provincial about football, and the Super Bowl is a de facto holiday in this country. Playing the game in England would surely inflame some tempers stateside, which is and will continue to be the key demographic for the league no matter how far its popularity spreads.

And, before we jump to any conclusions, consider this reality-check:

The newspaper added the event could be worth 350 million pounds ($521.1 million) to the economy, although they also quote an unnamed NFL spokesman as saying: "The suggestions about London are only theoretical. There is no bid document."
Am I off-base on this one? Would you welcome the Super Bowl taking a road trip to London? Or would you prefer we keep it within our borders?

No TrackBacks

TrackBack URL: http://blogs.suntimes.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/22313

4 Comments

They should play a superbowl in London. First, it's a neutral site to play and it puts interest in the sport on the global scale.

The Super Bowl in London is ridiculous if for no other reason than they spell "organization" like "organisation."

DinnerTopics.com

If this is ever done, it will be the end for me with Football !!!

I am huge Soccer(football) fan and a Chicago Bears fan. While soccer is the worlds game(including the US) American Football is not. It is also a game not worth spreading or trying to promote internationally.
The Super Bowl is as sacred to the USA as the Tour de France is to the French. Imagine the "sacre les blues" if the Tour de France moved to the USA!
This has more to do with greed and politics than the game itself. In fact, the Super Bowl and all other American Championship games have way to many corporate sponsors with commericals killing the flow of the games, I am not sure the winners are not really tainted anyway!
Keep the game in USA(Hawai'i) and change the flow it. I believe the add times need to be between each quarter and half time to keep a continuous flow to the game. If it is really about the game anymore anyway!

Leave a comment

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Kyle Koster published on May 3, 2009 3:45 PM.

Michelle Obama under fire for wearing costly Lanvin sneakers was the previous entry in this blog.

Fun with Magic Markers: That's certainly an interesting sign is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Pages

Powered by Movable Type 5.04