PDA

View Full Version : NFL Owners Approve International Games During Regular Season


redlegsfan21
10-24-2006, 09:58 PM
By BRETT MARTEL
NEW ORLEANS (AP) -The NFL will play as many as two regular-season games per year outside the United States starting in 2007, with Mexico, Canada, England and Germany as possible sites for starters.

The plan, first announced last month, was approved Tuesday at the recommendation of new commissioner Roger Goodell, who said the benefits of reaching an international audience outweighed the loss of some teams' home games.

"We are talking about a limited number of games that we think will have a tremendous impact," Goodell said. "It's in response to the growing fan interest in our game overseas. There are more and more fans on a global basis."

Mark Waller, senior vice president of NFL International, said the league expected to schedule only one overseas game in 2007.

No specific sites were given for the games. However, Waller said the league hoped to announce the first site by this coming Super Bowl, while the teams would be selected later.

"Germany has a large number of sites as it's just done the World Cup. UK has a significant number of great sites," Waller said. "We know the sites in Mexico and Canada, so there's no shortage of venues that are interested in these games."

The plan would be set up so that teams would rotate over a 16-year period, with each team playing outside the country twice over that span, once as a visitor, the other as a home team. That means a team would lose one home team during that span.

"Obviously the league's going to work out the economics and if we lose a home game, we'll get compensated," said Pat Bowlen, owner of the Denver Broncos. "We're comfortable with it. Obviously we'd like to play in Mexico or Canada and not have to travel to Europe and that's probably the way it would be set up because of our location. But as far as the league's concerned, I think it's a great idea."

In 2005, the NFL staged its first regular-season game outside the United States when the Arizona Cardinals hosted the San Francisco 49ers in Mexico City. A crowd of 103,467 flocked to Azteca Stadium, the largest crowd for a regular-season game in NFL history.

The league also has played numerous exhibition games overseas for the past two decades. The New England Patriots and Seattle Seahawks will play a preseason game next August in Beijing.

Waller said the international popularity of certain teams would not necessarily determine who goes abroad. He said people in foreign markets were more concerned with simply hosting a regular season game, rather than exhibitions in which the best players tend see little action.

"The overwhelming preference is the game itself," Waller said.

NFL games regularly have been televised live in Mexico and Canada and more recently in Europe, notably Britain.

The owners also voted to take the league's Web site, NFL.com, in-house after allowing CBS SportsLine to operate it for the past five years. The league plans to relaunch the site next spring with the help of other league-owned media such as NFL Films and the NFL Network.

The visit to New Orleans was a short one as most owners arrived either Monday night or Tuesday morning and left Tuesday evening.

Former NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue, before he officially left the job over the summer, had called for the regularly scheduled October meetings to be held in New Orleans as part of the league's show of support for the city as it rebuilds from Hurricane Katrina.

Owners and the commissioner said they have marveled at the repairs made to the Louisiana Superdome in less than a year and praised area fans for selling out the Saints' home stadium for the whole season.

However, Saints owner Tom Benson, while pleased with the progress, said the Saints still have nearly 30 of 137 suites in the Superdome unsold and added that his team lagged behind others in corporate sponsorships.

"Our hospitality industry especially needs to come forward," he said. "I don't want to finger-point or anything, but we have to work together in order to make this thing successful.

"The long-term market, nobody can tell right now," Benson continued. "But a year ago, before Katrina, we weren't quite sure and look what we've done. There's no telling what could happen."

As for when New Orleans, which has hosted nine Super Bowls, might get its first since 2002, team owners were optimistic but noncommittal.

"I don't know about the next Super Bowl in line, but obviously New Orleans has always been a great place to host Super Bowls," Denver Broncos owner Pat Bowlen said. "I'd expect you'd see more."

Goodell said the bidding process for the 2011 Super Bowl will begin soon with a decision hopefully made by the next owners' meeting, slated for March in Scottsdale, Ariz.

The Saints' lease in the Superdome ends that same season. So without an extension, the league would risk the awkward situation of placing a Super Bowl in a city that is in the process of losing its NFL franchise.

Proposals for a stadium in Los Angeles, often cited as a possible future home for the Saints or another small-market team, was discussed, but there was no substantial progress made.

One increasing concern is projected construction costs now escalating in the range of $1 billion. That makes the project less attractive to the league unless public funding or a possible outside investor materializes, owners said.

"At this meeting, I don't think (NFL owners) were prepared to pay that for Los Angeles' stadium," Benson said.

http://sports.myway.com/news/10242006/v0317.html

football junkie
10-24-2006, 11:01 PM
I think it is good because it will give the league extra international exposure and will help grow the "NFL" brand.

I doubt the players will like it -- can you say jet lag? But as long as the NFL isn't playing in New Zealand, a 22-hour flight, it shouldn't be that bad.

efin98
10-25-2006, 10:22 PM
The league will benefit from the meida attention and the new fanbases that will surely plant in the new places and opens the doors to more international players to compete in the league.

I don't understand the need to play in Canada though, the sport is already enrenched there. Mexico, Japan, China, and England I can understand and think are great moves but Canada doesn't really make sense...it's going to harm their own league at the benefit to the NFL.

redlegsfan21
10-26-2006, 04:45 AM
The league will benefit from the meida attention and the new fanbases that will surely plant in the new places and opens the doors to more international players to compete in the league.

I don't understand the need to play in Canada though, the sport is already enrenched there. Mexico, Japan, China, and England I can understand and think are great moves but Canada doesn't really make sense...it's going to harm their own league at the benefit to the NFL.
I'm not so sure, the CFL schedule runs from mid-June to October and then Nov. 19th is the Grey Cup. Plus, add the fact that 6 of 8 teams get to the postseason, it is probably very closely followed in the later months.

efin98
10-27-2006, 08:48 AM
I'm not so sure, the CFL schedule runs from mid-June to October and then Nov. 19th is the Grey Cup. Plus, add the fact that 6 of 8 teams get to the postseason, it is probably very closely followed in the later months.

That's my reasoning why it would be a bad idea to play up there- interferes with their season and would come too late in the year for any of the NFL teams to give their OK without alot of coercing from the league. On top of that they could only really hold the game in Toronto or Vancouver(the only two indoor stadiums) meaning one of two major teams(Buffalo and Seatle) would lose a home game in favor of the Canadian game. I doubt those teams would be happy with that.

If the CFL were to give it's blessing the interference with the CFL schedule is a mute point, but I doubt it...

brady_branch
10-27-2006, 05:35 PM
Coming from one of the only prominent Canadians on this board, I can tell you that it's not so much about spreading the game as it is about money. My family still lives in Canada, and they love the NFL almost as much as I do. If the NFL had a game in practically any major Canadian city, they'd make a killing. Also, why would the game have to be in Toronto or Vancouver? Montreal, Quebec, Ottawa, Edmonton, and Calgary would work great too. The wind coming off Lake Michigan at Lambeau has to be worse than anything those cities (except maybe Edmonton or Calgary) could do on a regular basis.

efin98
10-27-2006, 09:01 PM
Also, why would the game have to be in Toronto or Vancouver? Montreal, Quebec, Ottawa, Edmonton, and Calgary would work great too. The wind coming off Lake Michigan at Lambeau has to be worse than anything those cities (except maybe Edmonton or Calgary) could do on a regular basis.

Outside temperatures, precipitation, distances to travel for teams(especially "home" teams), and size of the stadiums. Hamilton, Montreal, Calgary, Ottawa(no team but had one), and Regina have small stadiums.

Montreal has Olympic Stadium but the city is too far away to be the "home" for one of the teams. Plus I think the city would be reluctant to show of their blunder stadium to the world again, especially after their football team abandoned it for a smaller and older stadium...

Edmonton has the largest capacity but it's way too far north and away from any team to be a "home" game for them. Plus it's outside so they would have to deal with precipitation and temperature concerns, especially if they play it after the CFL season.

Toronto and Vancouver are close to NFL cities and play indoors and have large enough seating capacities to support the crowds. Vancouver is close to Seatle and Toronto is close to Bufalo so either so those teams would host the "home" game.

ATLFalcons
10-27-2006, 09:09 PM
Taking games international will be good for spreading the popularity of the sport, but American football will never become an "international sport". No matter where we put football teams it'll never be on the level of sports like soccer or basketball.

KHenry14
10-29-2006, 12:00 AM
I understand the concept of spreading the product out to new markets....but boy, If I was a Bronco fan, Chiefs'fan or a fan of some other team that has a real good homefield advantage, I'd be annoyed if my team gave that up to play someplace else in a league game. Pre-season is one thing, league games are another.

brady_branch
10-29-2006, 07:53 AM
Outside temperatures, precipitation, distances to travel for teams(especially "home" teams), and size of the stadiums. Hamilton, Montreal, Calgary, Ottawa(no team but had one), and Regina have small stadiums.

Montreal has Olympic Stadium but the city is too far away to be the "home" for one of the teams. Plus I think the city would be reluctant to show of their blunder stadium to the world again, especially after their football team abandoned it for a smaller and older stadium...

Edmonton has the largest capacity but it's way too far north and away from any team to be a "home" game for them. Plus it's outside so they would have to deal with precipitation and temperature concerns, especially if they play it after the CFL season.

Toronto and Vancouver are close to NFL cities and play indoors and have large enough seating capacities to support the crowds. Vancouver is close to Seatle and Toronto is close to Bufalo so either so those teams would host the "home" game.

The temperature can't be any worse than at Lambeau, and the precipitation and field condition no worse than Gillette. Ottawa is decently close to Buffalo, though not extremely close, like Toronto. Last year, the Cardinals and 49ers played in Mexico City, so Edmonton's not out of the question for an early December game between two bad teams. Edmonton was also the site of the first outdoor NHL game. And if they can take it, NFL players can take it.

efin98
10-29-2006, 12:46 PM
The temperature can't be any worse than at Lambeau, and the precipitation and field condition no worse than Gillette.

The temperatures up there are worse than any large city in North America and come at earlier times which would quash any game outdoors up there. Their lower temperatures is a fact. Green Bay has some lows at times but nothing like their lows. There's a reason the Vikings play indoors- snow and low temperatures and they aren't as far north as Calgary or Edmonton.

And New England has bad field conditions but that's due to not being able to properly replace the sod due to unseasonable October rain. The team is getting rid of sod after this year and going with artificial field turf from now on.

Ottawa is decently close to Buffalo, though not extremely close, like Toronto.

Outdoors and their stadium is too small.

Last year, the Cardinals and 49ers played in Mexico City, so Edmonton's not out of the question for an early December game between two bad teams. Edmonton was also the site of the first outdoor NHL game. And if they can take it, NFL players can take it.

That's the key right there- bad teams. Seattle or Buffalo aren't going to OK the game if they are still good, they lose their home field advantage for the game that they had built up just to please the league- it wouldn't make sense to them.

redlegsfan21
10-29-2006, 03:30 PM
Arizona and Detroit are most likely to lose games because they don't attract fans. Arizona had 42,509 out of 73,243 seats filled average (including Mexico game) which is 58.0%. Detroit had 61,572 out of 80,311 average or a 76.7%. No other team (except New Orleans) had less than 90%.