Over There

AP Photo/David J. Phillip

Yesterday marked the fifth regular season game in as many years that was played in London, England. The reason that games started being played over there in 2007 was to try to turn football into a global sport. As Roger Goodell said Saturday before the Bucs and the Bears squared off at Wembley: "We want to bring our game to continental Europe. The issue is, we want to make a success out of it in the U.K. We think this (London) has got all of the basics that we need to be successful. It’s got an advanced fan base, a strong media market, a great stadium. We have a long history here. So all those things contribute, let’s make it work. And if we can be successful here, then we can take that model, potentially, to continental Europe.”

As good as going global sounds for a business perspective - and believe me, if we learned anything from the lockout it was that the NFL is a business - I think the notion is ridiculous.

For a business to effectively go global, it has to possess a product that people want. And as much as us Americans love our football, Europeans couldn't care less. I've been to London, I've been to a soccer game over there, and it is clear that soccer (their football) is so ingrained in their culture and in their sports world that football trying to take its place, or even dip into its market share, is like Europeans trying to bring cricket to the states to compete with baseball. In other words, it just won't work.

But the NFL just doesn't understand. The Super Bowl might be the highest watched event in America, but the World Cup is the highest watched event in . . . the world. Soccer is a global sport and football is American. That's how it's always been. Americans have always been OK with it and so have Europeans. Unlike baseball, there aren't players from other countries that play football (except for a couple of kickers), so expanding globally for scouting purposes doesn't make sense.

Remember NFL Europe, or NFL Europa? It was teams based in Europe and sponsored by the NFL. The rosters were mostly made up of young, developmental players that NFL teams wanted to get closer looks at, so they would send them off to NFL Europe to play a football version of Spring Ball. NFL Europe's teams were spread throughout the continent and for about 15 years, was a functioning entity. It was functioning, however, at about a loss of $30 million per season by the NFL.

Teams were continually being shut down, and new teams started up, because Europeans refused to embrace the sport. And why should they? It's not in their culture. If anyone embraced NFL Europe, it was Germany, which was home to five different teams before the league was discontinued in 2007 in what Goodell called the "best business decision." If European countries couldn't embrace football and the league was bleeding money in 2007 (otherwise known as a failure), what is different now? A new strategy perhaps?

According to the Associated Press, Goodell is talking to several teams about becoming regulars in the British capital, a development he thinks would be “very powerful and lead us to what we ultimately would like to do - have a franchise here in London.”

Franchise? In London?

Assuming that the NFL doesn't break away from their perfect 32 team format, one would have to believe that the goal is to have a current NFL team relocate to London. And what better team than the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, who is owned by the Glazer family. The same family that owns the internationally renowned soccer franchise, Manchester United. Sunday marked their second game in London, having played the Patriots there in 2009.

Besides the connection of the Glazer family, Tampa Bay is also one of those NFL teams that have trouble selling out games, and local television blackouts are nothing new to fans. So from that angle, is it possible that Goodell already has picked his brain-child's team?

“I think they recognize that the growth of the league is important and they’ve been leaders in this area,’’ Goodell said. “I think they want to see the Bucs become a global franchise and I think that’s a great thing for Tampa and a great thing for the NFL.’’

Is it? It might sound like a great thing for the NFL, but they haven't even successfully tested their pilot project yet. Sure, they can sell out one game a year, but how about eight? And is it a great thing for Tampa "hosting" a game in London? I know the players enjoy it, (just ask Brian Urlacher) it's like a free vacation for them; a little sightseeing here and there with teammates and family. Who wouldn't enjoy that? But does a game over there actually have the best interest in mind for fans over here?

I don't think so. Perhaps I'm just a staunch believer in protectionism for American Football. Maybe I'm like the citizens before WWI that said just let Europe's problems be Europe's problem? Maybe I don't want to see the sport I love become diluted with international match ups, eight hour plane flights, and only seven instead of eight home games a year?

Or maybe I speak for most NFL fans.