Thread: International games in 2007

[size=14pt]Resolution approved for international games[/size]

(Oct. 24, 2006) -- The NFL will stage up to two international regular-season games per season beginning in 2007, further demonstrating the league's commitment to competing in a global sports marketplace and to developing a greater presence beyond the borders of the United States.

NFL club owners approved a resolution at a league meeting in New Orleans today that enables the league office to schedule up to two regular-season games per season outside the United States beginning in 2007 and continuing through at least the 2011 campaign.

"This step comes in response to the tremendous and growing interest in the NFL around the world," said NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell. "The owners believe that hosting regular-season games outside the United States on a regular basis is in the best interests of the league and will help to increase the fan base, build awareness of the NFL and grow the sport worldwide."

In 2005, the NFL staged its first-ever regular-season game outside the United States as 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 NFL has engaged in almost 20 years of international activity, including the preseason American Bowl series, the NFL Europe League, grass roots programs and customized television programming.

In theory the idea sounds good, especially if money is the bottom-line.
The teams that have to play overseas are at a disadvantage though.
They have to deal with all the stresses of being in another country, lose home field advantage, and tack on more travel time which results in less preparation for the next game.

I think the homefield advantage will be the biggest concern.

I'd bet that they'll take it away from some of the teams in the so-called smaller markets. But who knows. In 2007-2011 there will be 10 teams involved in losing a home game.

Some of the games can be played in Mexico and Canada which will not mean that much travelling.

IMHO this is not a good idea in terms of regular season games. The loss of homefield adavantage, travel etc is not fair on any teams even though it will balance out over the years - thats assuming they run it for 16 teams so that everyone 'loses' one home game.
I see its scheduled to run only til 2011 so only 10 teams will lose homefield and I'm sure now that none of the favoured teams in the NFL will be be in that first wave of playing at 'home'
So don't expect to see the likes of Washington, Giants, GB, Pittsburgh etc leading the way on this.

I'd rather they stuck to using pre-season games to help spread the NFL word.

[size=14pt]NFL owners approve international games[/size]

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.

"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."

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.

There you go the manipulation has started already. The owners obviously like the idea as they won't lose out financially but only on the basis of " what suits me".
I'm waiting to see who gets picked first and which teams get to play their 'home' games in Mexico and Canada - just call me cynical
;D

"AngloVike" wrote:

"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."

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.

There you go the manipulation has started already. The owners obviously like the idea as they won't lose out financially but only on the basis of " what suits me".
I'm waiting to see who gets picked first and which teams get to play their 'home' games in Mexico and Canada - just call me cynical
;D

I think you might end up being right.

The NFL has it's darlings. History shows that, and theres no reason why it should change.

But hey, that could probably get the Vikings to Europe. And though it is bad for our team, I'll be there for sure.

NFL owners approve games abroad during regular season
Associated Press
25 Oct. 2006



NEW ORLEANS (AP) - All those red Manchester United soccer jerseys worn every day around the world - the NFL is looking to throw a few of its own colors into the mix...

"cogitans" wrote:

I think you might end up being right.

The NFL has it's darlings. History shows that, and theres no reason why it should change.

But hey, that could probably get the Vikings to Europe. And though it is bad for our team, I'll be there for sure.

Well I know that looking at the forums on NFLUK that any games in the UK will be sell-outs. The general consensus seems to be that people will attend the games regardless of who is playing and what NFL team they follow themselves. Given the short trips involved in travelling anywhere in Europe then getting a ticket for the game could be very hard indeed. I'd be gutted if the Vikes were playing in Europe and I couldn't get a ticket for the game - especially knowing that there were non-Viking fans at the game

"AngloVike" wrote:

"cogitans" wrote:

I think you might end up being right.

The NFL has it's darlings. History shows that, and theres no reason why it should change.

But hey, that could probably get the Vikings to Europe. And though it is bad for our team, I'll be there for sure.

Well I know that looking at the forums on NFLUK that any games in the UK will be sell-outs. The general consensus seems to be that people will attend the games regardless of who is playing and what NFL team they follow themselves. Given the short trips involved in travelling anywhere in Europe then getting a ticket for the game could be very hard indeed. I'd be gutted if the Vikes were playing in Europe and I couldn't get a ticket for the game - especially knowing that there were non-Viking fans at the game

I can see how that could be a problem. It would be like the trouble involved in getting World Cup tickets.

But lets deal with those problems if and when we've got a game at our hands.