Regular season NFL games overseas in 2007?

**Mista T** · 09-28-2006, 03:35 PM

It could happen. See Fox Sports article:

Waller already has spoken to the owners about the plan and received an enthusiastic response, with most of the questions about logistics rather than economics. Under the plan, which would probably be put in place for the 2007 season, there would be a rotation so that each team would lose only one home game every 16 years.

Although I'm not too enthusiastic about losing a home game every 16 years while still paying the full exhibition game tax, the idea of international travel for Ravens road trips every 8 years is appealing: Octoberfest in Munich, Piccadilly Circus, or skiing outside Vancouver, to go along with watching the Ravens play.

A good approach would be to follow the international game with a bye, as suggested. The coaches will sqawk, but NFL = $$$$, and there is enormous growth potential in Europe, Asia, and North America.

I predict that this plan will be approved by the owners.

**Losac** · 09-28-2006, 03:42 PM

from me

We are the BALTIMORE Ravens, which means home games are played in Baltimore. I could care less if it gets played in Europe where NFL football is only marginally popular at best.

**PARavensJeff** · 09-28-2006, 04:42 PM

I don't like this plan at all. We are the BALTIMORE RAVENS as Iosac said, & our home games get played here. We didn't pay all those hundreds of millions to have our stadium miss 1 game every 16 years. I'm all for our preseason home games going international, & we can keep that money in our pockets instead of paying full price for rip off football.

**Sports Steve** · 09-28-2006, 06:12 PM

That would be a expensive away trip.

**52RAYVENS** · 09-28-2006, 06:22 PM

As long as the NFL pays for my tickets to the game, hotel, flight and every other expense to send me to the game. I've had PSL's since 2000 and I ain't given up one game!!!

**RavenTD** · 09-29-2006, 01:01 PM

It would be easy for me,living in England to be over the moon at the news.
BUt like the guys say.Its wrong taking a home game away from the real fans.
Its wrong to risk the players travelling that distance,and getting screwed up in another country.

I wouldn't like to think that somehow that trip will screw the team up
no matter how small for the rest of the season.Or leave them with an empty tank if they should make the playoffs.

A regular season is punishing enough,without throwing a trip like that on the players.NFL coaches,players and most fans would be against it.

Even though it would be a dream for me,if I was selfish.I put the team first and say

.

**Maryland Ben** · 09-30-2006, 02:44 AM

Why is it any different to a trip to the Raiders for example? Either way you travel 3000miles plus and move across time zones. Having said that I would not be happy about losing a home game, even if it is only every 16 years. Would be great for me but not the team and lets face it if the Ravens only come over every 16 years there doesn't seem much point!!

**UKRavenStockers** · 09-30-2006, 04:57 AM

The way that it's being discussed would be that Canada, Mexico, UK and Germany would get one game each a season (btw where it not for the CBA discussions dragging on and Wembley not getting finished it's a lot more than likely we'd have had a game in London this year), that means four teams lose a home game each year and each team loses a home game once in an 8 year cycle, to me as a foreign fan that doesn't seem too much a forfeit, yes I recognise you'd lose a home game which having now been to a game I know just how much this means to the community and how big an event it is. But it's the NFL's choice and they're recognising that they've got a big fan base overseas, good for them because there is a decent sized (and rapidly growing, particularly in younger generations) fanbase that is salivating at the prospect of getting a game, you just have to look at the recent things they've brought in to allow us to watch the games in the UK, to know that there must be an audience for it.

I'd know very little of the economics of 'losing a home game', which I don't think would be exactly true, yes you'd lose the home field advantage atmosphere wise but there's now way the home team wouldn't get the majority of gate receipts and to take the two definite stadia as an example, Stadium Azteca seats 100,000+ (far bigger than any other NFL stadium) and Wembley will seat 90,000 which would be bigger than I think 30 NFL stadia. So on gate receipts you wouldn't lose out.

Also individuals wouldn't lose money I wouldn't think, I'd suggest you'd probably get first dibs at buying tickets to the game (obviously many would pass with the travel costs, highest occurence of unclaimed tickets in the European games I'd think) and not have to pay for them if you didn't want to go.

Basically I can see PSL/Season ticket holder of teams wouldn't be happy about losing a home game, even one every 8 years, but this is a case of the NFL knowing that they've 'lost' the European market once before when they abandoned them with no way of following the game and they're trying to ensure that never happens again by actually throwing us a bone once in a while.

**UKRavenStockers** · 09-30-2006, 05:01 AM

Originally Posted by Mista T

A good approach would be to follow the international game with a bye, as suggested.

Pretty much right but for the games in Europe it'd be a better idea to have the bye week the week before and send the teams out probably the weekend before or earlier as it's harder to adjust to a time zone switch going west to east than it is east to west. Going from Europe to the US you just basically try to stay up until a decent bed time when you arrive and then you're pretty much adjusted, it takes a hell of a lot longer going the other way, plus giving teams playing in Europe (still hypothetically) the bye the week before the game, it gives the NFL even more marketing opportunities with the teams involved in the countries involved.

**kiwiraven** · 10-05-2006, 06:46 AM

As much as I would like to see the Ravens play live, I think it's a very bad idea.

It wouldn't be fair for you guys, and the likelihood of any NFL team to travel basically a whole day down here is near impossible.
Europe wouldn't be as bad but it would still drain the players of both teams. Whether the bye is before or after the intl. game they would still have to prepare for the next game after a longhaul flight back.

If the NFL is so worried of losing the international market, why don't they just set up a plan to broadcast games to the local countries' cable providers (i.e SkyDigital) ?

Again, I would much rather pay for the trip myself to Bmore and experience a tailgate with fellow Raven fans than with other 'clueless' non NFL followers.

**flraven** · 10-05-2006, 02:49 PM

Originally Posted by kiwiraven

If the NFL is so worried of losing the international market, why don't they just set up a plan to broadcast games to the local countries' cable providers (i.e SkyDigital) ?

There's a great idea. Why not show the NFL games abroad on a regular basis and have them widely available to at least gauge interest and grow their fan base that way before sending teams over.

**UKRavenStockers** · 10-05-2006, 03:23 PM

They know the fanbase, they're getting hundreds of thousands of Brits watching every week and they had around 3 million I think watch the last Superbowl on TV in the UK, they know the market is there and they want to bring a game over in some way (their decision), they know from last time that the Europeans got wise to the pre-season thing with it not counting and their fav players going out after one series so attendances dwindled towards the end of the American Bowl run and they became unprofitable. Now that the sport is back in the UK (in a big way and getting bigger all the time) they want to tap into that, particularly as the younger generation is catching on this time (12 - 19 as well as 20 to 29 this time) they want to get their attention and keep hold of it this time.

Do I see the argument about travel? Yes but you can structure bye weeks to compensate for the harder jet lag adjustment of travelling west to east (bye week pre-european game) and as balshy and selfish as this sounds, it's up to the NFL and the owners to market the game how they want and had the CBA not taken so long this off-season and the new Wembley not been delayed, we could very well have seen a game in the UK this year, I'd be extremely surprised if this doesn't happen, the NFL management wants it and the owners did not object so there's no real road block in place to this going ahead.

It's difficult as a British fan to say that I don't want this to happen, it'd be such a different thing to experience an NFL game in the UK with folks I've followed the NFL with for years, it'd be a different experience to that I experienced three weeks ago with fellow Ravens fans at M&T Bank Stadium, but it's an opportunity and an experience that British fans wouldn't give up if and when the NFL offers it, there's no cast iron proof that it'd completely mess with a team if you managed the byes correctly and it's a marketing opportunity that I just don't see the NFL passing on really.