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.
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.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.
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:
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?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."