What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

*** NFL International Football Thread *** (2 Viewers)

Just don't see how this could work. Most of us NFL fans over here have already adopted a franchise to support, and I can't imagine 80,000 people from around the UK making the required financial decision to actively support a London based club 8 games per year, especially as the club will be years away from competing. As a sport it's come and gone in popularity over the years, now we are at a high point similar to the mid 80s, but by the mid 90s there was all but no coverage whatsoever. In my opinion, it's a terrible short sighted idea that will fail in the event it does happen.

That said, I didn't think they'd sell out two games this year and now I'm scratching around trying to get tickets for the Niners game, so what do I know.

 
Just don't see how this could work. Most of us NFL fans over here have already adopted a franchise to support, and I can't imagine 80,000 people from around the UK making the required financial decision to actively support a London based club 8 games per year, especially as the club will be years away from competing. As a sport it's come and gone in popularity over the years, now we are at a high point similar to the mid 80s, but by the mid 90s there was all but no coverage whatsoever. In my opinion, it's a terrible short sighted idea that will fail in the event it does happen.That said, I didn't think they'd sell out two games this year and now I'm scratching around trying to get tickets for the Niners game, so what do I know.
From what I understand about NFL economics, they don't really need most of those 80,000 season ticket holders so much as they need to sell luxury suites. London has a ton of major corporations that would buy these regardless of how crappy the team is, so even if regular ticket sales flagged, a London-based team would still have one of the best financial situations in the league.

 
It's not just the travel, there are other logistics as well.

- What happens with higher UK taxes for both the players and the team?

- Is the CBA and the idea of a league franchise even legal in Great Britain?

- As someone has pointed out, teams would be limited to 1 and 4:30 Eastern Sunday games.

- The 1 PM games would be competing with Premiere League games.

 
It's not just the travel, there are other logistics as well.

- What happens with higher UK taxes for both the players and the team?

- Is the CBA and the idea of a league franchise even legal in Great Britain?

- As someone has pointed out, teams would be limited to 1 and 4:30 Eastern Sunday games.

- The 1 PM games would be competing with Premiere League games.
There is already this item to a limited extent just with the existing teams and the lack of state tax for Florida, Texas, etc.

 
It's not just the travel, there are other logistics as well.

- What happens with higher UK taxes for both the players and the team?

- Is the CBA and the idea of a league franchise even legal in Great Britain?

- As someone has pointed out, teams would be limited to 1 and 4:30 Eastern Sunday games.

- The 1 PM games would be competing with Premiere League games.
There is already this item to a limited extent just with the existing teams and the lack of state tax for Florida, Texas, etc.
True, but the differences for millionaires between US and UK taxes is enormous. The foreign PGA golfers move to Florida and Arizona for more than just state tax relief.

 
Too big to fail? Be careful NFL. They tried NFL Europe,it flopped. One game a year is a novelty right now. They can hype the game and get some fannies in the seats. But for 8 or 10 weeks,when soccer and CYCLING are bigger sports across the pond. Bad idea. The NFL is riding high right now,better to try to get their house in order here first. Address the problems the weaker franchises are having(Jacksonville,etc),move them to London? Keep it real Mr. Commish.
8 million people in London vs. 800k in Jacksonville. All they need are 80,000 Londoners (and tourists) willing to go to 8 games.

Sorry, but the NFLE is not the NFL.
L.A. could make the same argument,where's their team? You're right about NFLE not being the NFL,living here in Florida I can say The Jaguars aren't the NFL either.

 
FWIW, the Jags had higher attendance than both the Dolphins and Bucs despite being a smaller market than both of them and being a much worse team. Seems unfair to throw them under the bus when they were 20th in attendance last year.

And I guarantee that any team that gets put in Europe will be gone within 15 years.

 
It's not just the travel, there are other logistics as well.

- What happens with higher UK taxes for both the players and the team?

- Is the CBA and the idea of a league franchise even legal in Great Britain?

- As someone has pointed out, teams would be limited to 1 and 4:30 Eastern Sunday games.

- The 1 PM games would be competing with Premiere League games.
There is already this item to a limited extent just with the existing teams and the lack of state tax for Florida, Texas, etc.
I actually recently heard that players have to pay taxes for game checks in each state that they play a game in. After looking into it, that appears to be the case.

Found an interesting article on the London tax subject...http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonynitti/2012/10/29/one-reason-the-nfl-will-never-permanently-relocate-a-team-to-london-the-u-k-s-tax-treatment-of-nonresident-athletes/

 
FWIW, the Jags had higher attendance than both the Dolphins and Bucs despite being a smaller market than both of them and being a much worse team. Seems unfair to throw them under the bus when they were 20th in attendance last year.And I guarantee that any team that gets put in Europe will be gone within 15 years.
Agree that a team there would not last. One or two games sell out as a novelty. I believe they would sell out for the first couple years, but if the team was bad I think it would be a huge disaster.

 
It costs me about $450 to get to the game, stay overnight, tickets etc. I don't mind doing that once a year as ill take any NFL game I can get.

I wouldn't be doing this 8 times a year and I'd imagine a large % of the 80k people who attend would be the same.

 
It costs me about $450 to get to the game, stay overnight, tickets etc. I don't mind doing that once a year as ill take any NFL game I can get.I wouldn't be doing this 8 times a year and I'd imagine a large % of the 80k people who attend would be the same.
Most American fans never attend games. All they need are 640k people to attend the games, that shouldn't be hard to reach.

BTW, 2.8M Americans visit the UK every year and I'd guess a lot of them are football fans who'd like to see a game there.

 
Discussed this before oh so many times.

(World League) NFLE did have a big impact, they took losses and put the time in. There were young kids wanting to grow up to be football players and then they threw it away.

What we've learned about sports teams moving (even within the US) is that once the novelty wears off, they have to become part of the culture to be successful. Everyone might love the NFL and love going to a game, but when you want dedicated fans (like oh so many here) it takes some time to develop.

In NFLE, the teams weren't always supported well and they moved them around and eventually Germany was the best location.

See this article-

http://espn.go.com/colleges/fsu/football/story/_/id/8776514/florida-state-seminoles-bjoern-werner-eager-make-football-big-germany

IMO This is what the NFL wants. 100k(or more) kids playing football, the best going to play college ball, cream of the crop playing in the NFL.

There wasn't really fast enough connections in people's homes to be streaming games when NFLE was around. It's quite doable now.

Years ago, there were some stories of WWII soldiers teaching kids in Germany how to play american football.

I think Germany was a better choice than London and could be the second place for a team overseas. It's been a long time since NFLE and this is not the Dawg Pound hoping the Browns will return.

 
The Panthers began in an area where college basketball and NASCAR were huge. I would imagine there's something similar to learn from with competing with soccer and all.

I suppose one could argue Florida seems to have too many teams but it's always some owner whining they don't do well enough and a contradictory article how their franchise is worth 100 million more than when they bought it. They all seem to fine to me.

If a team is coming off a losing season and shipped to London, that's going to seem way different than an expansion team. The fans will be expected to welcome a loser and players under contract to play games in STL, Minny, Jax etc might be against the idea of playing for a London team. They do have families. I think it's going to have to be an expansion team with all new contracts and all.

 
Business 101. When you hold ONE game per year in some foreing country and it sells out, that MUST mean it will sell out every week forever.

 
Canada should get a team or two before London.
There are many NFL players that strongly dislike the cold. It'd be an interesting stumbling block to discuss if this ever happened.
I hope you are not serious.
Sure am. I've always been surprised how many players wouldn't want to play in GB or Buffalo. A while back Minnesota had tons of cap room (which they didn't spend and fans got upset about it) and that's indoors yet players still didn't want to go.

I grew up in the Northeast, it's somewhat foreign to me for people to think that way.

I don't think it'd stop them from getting a franchise, I called it a stumbling block about players meaning when it came time to field a team-draft or free agency, it'd be interesting is all.

 
Shad Khan: Jaguars 'are the home team for London'

By Will Brinson | NFL Writer

July 13, 2013 7:30 pm ET

Jaguars owner Shad Khan is the newest owner of the Fulham Football Club, having purchased the London-based soccer club on Friday. One of the benefits of being a billionaire sports owner is the ease of travel involved, and Khan has already scooted across the pond to announce the purchase.

While waiting for the official Sunday announcement, he spoke with Fulham TV about the purchase of the club and his plans for the future. As you might imagine, there was some discussion of the Jaguars. Khan called the club a "civic asset" in the same vein as Fulham.

"I've always looked at the other association I have with the Jacksonville Jaguars is really they're a civic asset," Khan said. "I am the steward of that asset. And I feel very much the same thing here. We want to listen to the fans."

But he also called the Jags "the home team for London," noting the "commonality" between the Jaguars and Fulham.

"First of all, the Jacksonville Jaguars and Fulham operate as two entities," Khan said when asked about the similarities between American and European football. "Obviously, there would be some practices, some synergies we'd like to take advantage of. And the Jaguars will be playing one home game [here] for the next four years.

"So, we are the home team for London. So, there is some commonality there."

Personally, I think the Jags will stick in Jacksonville, but there are many folks who don't believe that. And Khan's purchase of Fulham -- a soccer club not located in Jacksonville -- has many folks believing the Jags could bounce for London.

It's certainly a possibility, though it seems less likely with Khan and Jacksonville pumping millions into Everbank Field. Calling Jacksonville a "home team" for London seems like a cause to get all up in arms about the way it's being referenced.

The reality is Jacksonville is the home team for London. They're playing overseas for several years in a row and Khan is trying to market them internationally. Building a brand relationship between Fulham and the Jaguars will only improve the international recognition of both his football teams.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm a Fulham fan and feel its great that Khan is new owner of the team.

I personally would welcome the expansion into England for the NFL.

 
just wait until they get the team and then they will probably want a nascar track to i just do not trust thoe guys take that to the bank brohans

 
The home team for London, eh? You don't have to be a genius to see what Khan has in mind long-term.

 
The home team for London, eh? You don't have to be a genius to see what Khan has in mind long-term.
What he has in mind is to market the Jaguars and its merchandise to London fans and Fulham merchandise to Jaguars fans. The article conveniently leaves out the point that Khan has already said he wants a Fulham friendly in Everbank. By keeping the Jaguars in North Florida, he leverages two markets, not one.

Article also fails to point out that the reason for the "home team" moniker is that the Jaguars have exclusive marketing rights in England.

With this new allowance, the Jaguars can sign marketing and sponsorship deals with companies in the United Kingdom, provided they are not direct competitors with the NFL’s sponsors. Though the NFL has played regular-season games in London in the past, this is the first time a team has been granted exclusive control over the marketing rights in the country.
For a team that has struggled in merchandising that is huge get.

 
What exactly does exclusive control over the marketing rights mean?
the Jaguars can work out a deal with a London supermarket for example and call them Official Supermarket of the Jaguars (and basically keep it as local revenue and not split with the other teams).

 
This was well discussed a year ago or so in another thread, but I believe this expansion or moving of existing teams will occur. Just when? 10 years, 20+?

But I also do not think the logistics are as bad as everyone is making them out to be if one other thing occurs at the same time. An additional team goes to Germany. The NFL would need to provide an "away from home" training facility in Europe for the traveling teams - they would play London, stay in Europe and train, play in Germany and then return to the US. Using the bye week and Thur games - these teams could be given sufficient time to recover from the trip. It was also discussed that the European teams would need probably two additional "away from home" training facilities and play in the US for 2-3 games in a row before returning to Europe.

The logistics are tough, but not as bad as most seem to indicate if a second team in Europe was added and teams played both in a back to back format.

 
How often does it work out that an owner owning an NFL team and another fran

The home team for London, eh? You don't have to be a genius to see what Khan has in mind long-term.
What he has in mind is to market the Jaguars and its merchandise to London fans and Fulham merchandise to Jaguars fans. The article conveniently leaves out the point that Khan has already said he wants a Fulham friendly in Everbank. By keeping the Jaguars in North Florida, he leverages two markets, not one.

Article also fails to point out that the reason for the "home team" moniker is that the Jaguars have exclusive marketing rights in England.

With this new allowance, the Jaguars can sign marketing and sponsorship deals with companies in the United Kingdom, provided they are not direct competitors with the NFL’s sponsors. Though the NFL has played regular-season games in London in the past, this is the first time a team has been granted exclusive control over the marketing rights in the country.
For a team that has struggled in merchandising that is huge get.
So what does this mean practically?

The New York Giants, and any other NFL team besides the Jags, can't sell jerseys or anything with their logo or name on it in the UK?

 
How often does it work out that an owner owning an NFL team and another fran

The home team for London, eh? You don't have to be a genius to see what Khan has in mind long-term.
What he has in mind is to market the Jaguars and its merchandise to London fans and Fulham merchandise to Jaguars fans. The article conveniently leaves out the point that Khan has already said he wants a Fulham friendly in Everbank. By keeping the Jaguars in North Florida, he leverages two markets, not one.

Article also fails to point out that the reason for the "home team" moniker is that the Jaguars have exclusive marketing rights in England.

With this new allowance, the Jaguars can sign marketing and sponsorship deals with companies in the United Kingdom, provided they are not direct competitors with the NFL’s sponsors. Though the NFL has played regular-season games in London in the past, this is the first time a team has been granted exclusive control over the marketing rights in the country.
For a team that has struggled in merchandising that is huge get.
So what does this mean practically?

The New York Giants, and any other NFL team besides the Jags, can't sell jerseys or anything with their logo or name on it in the UK?
the Giants can sell their jerseys over there but they can't set up team sponsorships with a company as "Official chip shop of the Giants" which the Jaguars can. And now Khan can cross-promote and say "hey how would you like to be the official chip shop of Fulham too?"

 
How often does it work out that an owner owning an NFL team and another fran

The home team for London, eh? You don't have to be a genius to see what Khan has in mind long-term.
What he has in mind is to market the Jaguars and its merchandise to London fans and Fulham merchandise to Jaguars fans. The article conveniently leaves out the point that Khan has already said he wants a Fulham friendly in Everbank. By keeping the Jaguars in North Florida, he leverages two markets, not one.

Article also fails to point out that the reason for the "home team" moniker is that the Jaguars have exclusive marketing rights in England.

With this new allowance, the Jaguars can sign marketing and sponsorship deals with companies in the United Kingdom, provided they are not direct competitors with the NFL’s sponsors. Though the NFL has played regular-season games in London in the past, this is the first time a team has been granted exclusive control over the marketing rights in the country.
For a team that has struggled in merchandising that is huge get.
So what does this mean practically?

The New York Giants, and any other NFL team besides the Jags, can't sell jerseys or anything with their logo or name on it in the UK?
the Giants can sell their jerseys over there but they can't set up team sponsorships with a company as "Official chip shop of the Giants" which the Jaguars can. And now Khan can cross-promote and say "hey how would you like to be the official chip shop of Fulham too?"
So, just curious, did the NFL have to agree to the Jags doing this?

Or did they just scoop everyone else?

 
I'm sure that the NFL had to agree to it, though I wonder how that was written in the latest CBA and why the other owners would have agreed to something that would allow this to happen.

I guess it makes you wonder how much money there really is in England, if the other owners would give this up.

 
Hmm, this article says:

International markets are controlled by the U.S. sports leagues and off limits to individual clubs, one of the reasons why it’s been far tougher for U.S. teams to create an international brand for themselves than, say, English Premier League teams, which do not operate under such league-imposed restrictions. So Manchester United, for example, considered the world’s top sports team brand, can market itself in Asia, or anywhere else in the world.
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2012/10/15/Franchises/Jaguars.aspx

So I guess that the other teams did not have any say over it.

 
How often does it work out that an owner owning an NFL team and another fran

The home team for London, eh? You don't have to be a genius to see what Khan has in mind long-term.
What he has in mind is to market the Jaguars and its merchandise to London fans and Fulham merchandise to Jaguars fans. The article conveniently leaves out the point that Khan has already said he wants a Fulham friendly in Everbank. By keeping the Jaguars in North Florida, he leverages two markets, not one.

Article also fails to point out that the reason for the "home team" moniker is that the Jaguars have exclusive marketing rights in England.

With this new allowance, the Jaguars can sign marketing and sponsorship deals with companies in the United Kingdom, provided they are not direct competitors with the NFL’s sponsors. Though the NFL has played regular-season games in London in the past, this is the first time a team has been granted exclusive control over the marketing rights in the country.
For a team that has struggled in merchandising that is huge get.
So what does this mean practically?

The New York Giants, and any other NFL team besides the Jags, can't sell jerseys or anything with their logo or name on it in the UK?
the Giants can sell their jerseys over there but they can't set up team sponsorships with a company as "Official chip shop of the Giants" which the Jaguars can. And now Khan can cross-promote and say "hey how would you like to be the official chip shop of Fulham too?"
So, just curious, did the NFL have to agree to the Jags doing this?

Or did they just scoop everyone else?
The Jags sort of scooped everyone, but I assume that the NFL looked at it as a worthwhile trade-off for trying to keep that franchise afloat and its willingness to help expand the NFL market by playing all those games over there.

 
NFL could see London expansion team playing at Wembley Stadium 'by the end of the decade'

By Ben Rumsby

11:00PM BST 23 Sep 2013

Roger Maslin confirmed it was “unlikely” the Football Association would demand 10-year extensions when 70 per cent of corporate seats at the stadium come up for renewal in 2017.
And he revealed he would “quite possibly” offer five and seven-year packages as an alternative to those which cost a minimum of around £50,000 when they were snapped up when Wembley opened back in 2007.
Surveys of the Club Wembley membership revealed the number of debenture holders prepared to renew for another decade was alarmingly low, with corporate customers deciding the stadium’s annual calendar of matches did not represent value for money.
“We’re looking at various options there,” Maslin said, speaking as the FA unveiled its financial statement for the year ending Dec 31, 2012.
Figures showed turnover was down slightly from £329.1 million to £317.5 million, with profit also dipping from £39.9 million to £35 million, partly as a result of the Olympic Games and there being no Champions League final at Wembley in 2012.

The Wembley business plan is underpinned by debentures and failure to sell them out would leave the FA scrambling around for other income.

So it was no surprise to see Maslin give a ringing endorsement to the notion of the stadium becoming the permanent home of an NFL franchise or hosting the Super Bowl.

Maslin was confident the ground could stage an entire regular season of eight NFL games.

He said: “Football is our priority. But, yes, I’m absolutely confident that if [NFL commissioner] Roger Goodell wanted to have franchise here then we could absolutely do it.”

Maslin also expressed his desire to bring the Super Bowl to Wembley, adding: “If they were bringing it anywhere in the world, we want it here.”

That could happen one day, according to the man in charge of American Football in Britain.

NFL UK managing director Alistair Kirkwood also revealed he was in negotiations over staging three regular-season matches in London in 2014, with this year two being held in the capital during a single campaign for the first time.

On Sunday Wembley hosts the first of them when the Pittsburgh Steelers play the Minnesota Vikings, before the Jacksonville Jaguars take on the San Francisco 49ers there on Oct 27.

The spectacular success of the NFL’s decision to allow matches to be played in London has led to calls for the city to host its own permanent franchise and Kirkwood told Telegraph Sport: “It’s possible that it could be done before the end of the decade.”

However, he warned that 24 of the 32 current NFL owners would have to agree any such move, adding: “I think the league should have aspirations to be global and having a London franchise would be a great step towards it, but it would have to be under certain conditions.”

One of those conditions would be “tripling” the UK fan base for American football, according to Kirkwood, who said a London franchise was not inevitable.

Having signed a four-year deal to play one home game in London until 2016, the Jaguars look the most likely candidate to move – particularly after owner Shahid Khan bought Premier League club Fulham.

Kirkwood warned the prospect of Wembley hosting the Super Bowl was much further away but cited the fact New York was hosting the event for the first time next year as evidence it was not an impossible dream.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I bet the players loathe having to travel clear across the ocean. And I mean, come on, unless they have several more NFL teams expanding in Europe, and not just one, then the players who play for that team will hate it as

they will be traveling far 8 out of 16 games. Hardly fair.
I don't think it will be that big a deal for the London team...just schedule road trips instead of road games. Play 2 or 3 games in a row in the US with a central practice facility somewhere in the US.

It will mean an ugly trip for West coast teams, but I really don't see why it couldn't be worked out. If they can do Thursday night games, they can certainly travel to London and play on Sunday afternoon.

I would assume London games would have to always be 1 EST timeslots though, and it would be brutal to have the London team play any prime-time match-ups.

 
As a UK based NFL fan I have zero desire for a team to be based here.
Totally agree with this thought.

In business I advise clients how to get into projects to make money in the long term.

A massive part of that is detailing short/medium term exit strategies if things change from either side of the transaction.

So, if the NFL awards a franchise to London and it doesn't work out, what is plan B?

Not working out can include many other factors above and beyond attendance.

 
London wants an NFL team about as bad as New York wants a cricket team. People over there don't care about it at all and don't like american football.

 
A team based in Europe would have to overpay every free agent they sign to get players to go there, and theyd suck eternally.

 
London wants an NFL team about as bad as New York wants a cricket team. People over there don't care about it at all and don't like american football.
New York has quite a strong club cricket scene including some West Indian internationals playing in the top grade.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top