In the last few days I've read two different stories about the possibility of the Super Bowl being played in London within about the next decade. You can find the stories here and here. The first is a debate between two ESPN bloggers on whether or not a London Super Bowl is a good idea. The second is a pretty brief story from SI.com on how much sense the idea makes for the NFL.
I find this idea to be pretty irritating, and the best way I can think to express how bad of an idea it is is to respond to what's said in those two stories from the two guys who support it. I'll repeat some of the arguments from the anti-London Super Bowl blogger, and I'll also respond personally to the main points.
So? A London Super Bowl would also deprive an American city of its own huge economic growth. The movie industry can't really get any bigger here either, and no one's saying we should tear down Hollywood and move Sony Pictures to Oslo.
The people who go to the Super Bowl aren't usually common fans anyway. They're corporate types who can afford outrageously priced tickets.
That's largely true, but this is hardly an argument for exporting the world's biggest sporting event to another continent. The few true fans who do spend their life savings in order to travel to the Super Bowl city and get a ticket would be completely left out. As Paul Kuharsky says, "Is it worth alienating people who buy jerseys and tickets and paint their faces in an attempt to soften up foreign populations?" I don't think so.
Game time could be a compromise: an evening game in London could start about 3:30 pm ET, and people will watch the game on TV no matter when it's played.
People will absolutely watch the game on TV no matter when it's played, but they won't be nearly as happy about an early game time. 3:30 pm ET is half past noon on the west coast. For the party event of the year, that's just not very appealing. By itself maybe it's not a big deal, but added to all of the other little irritations it starts to make some fans pretty bitter.
Londoners are fascinated with all things American, and they're ready to embrace something like this. They may not understand a 3-4 defensive scheme, but they'll come out for a show, and that's what the Super Bowl is.
I guess all I can say here is that just because London is fascinated by the Super Bowl doesn't mean it should be played there.
You have to look at the NFL as a business. It's as big as it can get in the U.S., and the room for growth is across the pond.
Fans look at the NFL as fans. I understand that it's a business, and that Roger Goodell and others would love to see it become a global sport, but none of that affects me, the fan. 32 teams made up of two conferences with four 4-team divisions is perfect. The game is a blast to watch and analyze and cheer for. If Europe and eventually the world ends up with their own leagues that's fine with me too... but it better not interfere with the way I love to watch the game right here at home.
The vast majority of NFL fans in the U.S. wouldn't be affected at all by a London Super Bowl, "assuming issues like weather, field conditions, and kickoff time can be worked out."
Well, those are some pretty big assumptions. That's like saying, "The vast majority of 24 fans in the U.S. wouldn't be affected at all if the show went Japanese, assuming issues like acting, studio time, and English subtitles can be worked out." (This is probably my worst argument here... but I'm saving my big gun quotation for the final comments below. Besides, how do you "work out" an issue like the weather?)
FINAL COMMENTS
Even though it may seem like it, I don't think a London Super Bowl would be the end of the world. In fact, since this wouldn't likely happen in the next five or even ten years it's entirely possible that my mind will completely change before it does, and maybe the arguments in favor of the idea take into account the fact that Americans may be more open to the idea once it finally rolls around.
Having said that, it just seems wrong to me. The biggest reason comes from Paul Kuharsky once again: "Average February weather in London is a high of 47, a low of 36 and the month has an average rainfall of 1.34 inches. If I'm Nashville or Charlotte -- or even New York, Washington, Philadelphia, or Baltimore -- I'm asking why the league's willing to play in that weather outdoors across the pond, but not at home. And I am beginning to clamor for Super Bowl in my stadium, which was paid for, built and is regularly filled by Americans who buy the tickets and merchandise and provide the TV ratings." So there you have it. London would likely not fall into a list of cities qualified to host a Super Bowl if it were here in the U.S. because of its weather. So it just doesn't seem very fair that it can basically take the game away from U.S. cities. That's all I've got. Feel free to share your own thoughts!
No comments:
Post a Comment