Goodell: NFL plans to play in Australia “long term”

[The Frankish Reich]

1 hour ago, Augie said:

 

It’s been stupid for a while. Goodell should have been strung up for saying out loud that they conducted a jet lag “experiment” on the Bills by having the Jags in London a week earlier. If you didn’t know what that experiment would look like, they should take away your keys to the Lab. 

There's really no jet lag problem if you travel USA --> Europe in the daytime. I did that once. Not sure if any airline flies that anymore (you sacrifice a day in London if you're a tourist or on business), but certainly a charter can. Leave NY in the morning, stay awake on the plane, get in London about 8 pm, eat, go to sleep.

[The Frankish Reich]

46 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

I don’t think the NFL’s goal is to have American football talent pools emerging from all over the world. I think they just want more consumers of the TV product and merchandise/tickets. In that avenue they are making in roads.

 

The UK and Germany tend to be fruitful markets while Mexico is also an emerging North American market. So it’s working in some sense

Mexico is a natural. Travel times/time zones are easy, and so many people have connections to US teams.

Canada? What happened to Canada? Are they protecting the CFL? The Bills/Seahawks?

[billsfan89]

4 minutes ago, Brand J said:

This was from the article: 

 

It also mentioned they’re still struggling to get a consistent foothold of fans at UK games. When you turn on one of those games what do you see? Fans with all 32 jerseys at the game. It won’t/can’t be more popular if it’s not relatable to the youth and the only way to accomplish that is to get them playing the sport. We appreciate the NFL in the states, even if we haven’t played ourselves because we grew up watching. Not true for the rest of the world. If the NFL wants the next generation of international people watching the sport, it’s going to have to become relatable at some point. They’re going to need to play it since it’s not ingrained in their culture.

 

Much like the WNBA was a decades long project that sunk a lot of money (and only in recent years is looking like it is turning a corner) I think the NFL is looking at the international growth project in that same timetable. It's gonna take a lot of time and a lot of money to really get a foothold in these other markets. There's only one way to get a generation of UK/German and other international market youths to grow up with the NFL and that is to have it be something that has a presence for decades. 

 

The NFL started the international series in 2007 and have slowly expanded it so we aren't even 20 years into this version of international marketing efforts. I suspect the NFL will be willing to keep this going for at least another 10 years. 

 

I also think the NFL should never have shut down NFL Europe but that's another discussion... 

[billsfan89]

2 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Mexico is a natural. Travel times/time zones are easy, and so many people have connections to US teams.

Canada? What happened to Canada? Are they protecting the CFL? The Bills/Seahawks?

 

I think the Goal is going to be with the 17 game schedule to have teams do 1 international game a season per team. 

 

Each team play 8 home and 8 away games and 1 international game. That would lead to 16 international games a year. Given that last year there was already 7 international games and this year in 2026 there will be 9 international games I think by 2030 the 16 international games a season will be a reality. 

 

You probably are looking at the NFL ideally doing the following games. 

• 4 Games in London
• 1 Game in Brazil
• 2 Games in Mexico City
• 2 Games in Berlin
• 1 Game in Ireland
• 1 Game in Paris
• 1 Game in Madrid
• 1 Game in Toronto
• 1 Game in Vancouver
• 1 Game in Australia
• 1 Game flexed around

[EssexBill]

22 hours ago, DJB said:

I hate the NFL pushing the European and other continent games . 
 

Keep it in the USA where it belongs and not be so money hungry for the owners 

I agree with you but that ship has long since sailed so might as well make the best of it.

 

What I don’t personally like is that some teams (and to be fair, the bills are one of them) have hardly travelled over the years whereas other teams have done it a lot. 
 

Crazy thought, but I’d like to see them make it such that every team has to play abroad each season. You could it just one weekend when everyone is away, say a couple of games in London, a game in Madrid, a couple in Germany, Brazil, Mexico, Australia etc… I’m sure you can find 16 venues to host the games, or split it across 2 weekends, either way everyone has to travel no-one gets an advantage. 
 

But then I have some other crazy thoughts like making the regular season 20 games and increasing the roster to 60 to compensate for it, increasing the salary cap to allow for it etc… 

 

I’ll get my coat 

[Augie]

25 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

There's really no jet lag problem if you travel USA --> Europe in the daytime. I did that once. Not sure if any airline flies that anymore (you sacrifice a day in London if you're a tourist or on business), but certainly a charter can. Leave NY in the morning, stay awake on the plane, get in London about 8 pm, eat, go to sleep.

 

That is not my experience, so I’d bet some others would agree with me here. Jet lag is real, even if you give up a day to fly. 

 

But………So you lose a full day of football preparation for travel. Is that fair if the other team doesn’t do the same? Again, it sucks, imo. The only way to make it worse is to let one team go a week early and get adjusted without wasting a work day for prep, and that’s exactly what they did. That was “the experiment”, and it was BS. 

 

 

.

Edited April 11 by Augie

[Einstein]

2 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:

I just can’t wrap my head around this opinion. It’s obviously not happening. What other businesses do we tell the owners that they should make less money? 

 

Well, there are many fans who are older than you and remember when the NFL had owners that were game first, business second. In fact, the early NFL only survived because owners didn’t act like typical profit-maximizing businesses.

For example, The Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 was pushed by big market owners to help the smaller market teams make more money, even though it meant they made less money. 

There was also a time when NFL owners would name parts of the stadium after players (think: Jim Kelly Club) rather than sponsorships (now the Pepsi Club). There was also a time when NFL owners would spend millions of their own dollars to buy out the remaining seats so fans could watch the game on TV when it was going to be blacked out. Art Rooney and others dipped into his/their own family wealth to keep the Steelers afloat for many years when they were losing money. Ralph famously lent Al Davis money when the Raiders were hemorrhaging. 
 

To answer your question "What other businesses would do that?" ... the same exact businesses. Just under other owners. 

[Kirby Jackson]

59 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

Well, there are many fans who are older than you and remember when the NFL had owners that were game first, business second. In fact, the early NFL only survived because owners didn’t act like typical profit-maximizing businesses.

For example, The Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 was pushed by big market owners to help the smaller market teams make more money, even though it meant they made less money. 

There was also a time when NFL owners would name parts of the stadium after players (think: Jim Kelly Club) rather than sponsorships (now the Pepsi Club). There was also a time when NFL owners would spend millions of their own dollars to buy out the remaining seats so fans could watch the game on TV when it was going to be blacked out. Art Rooney and others dipped into his/their own family wealth to keep the Steelers afloat for many years when they were losing money. Ralph famously lent Al Davis money when the Raiders were hemorrhaging. 
 

To answer your question "What other businesses would do that?" ... the same exact businesses. Just under other owners. 

I understand the business of sports. I have a master’s degree in sports management and spent roughly a decade working in front office’s. What happened 50 years ago, or even 20 years ago, is irrelevant. That money wasn’t there to be made like this. The NFL is now the reason that these television networks can survive. It’s not the other way around. If it looked like that back then, they would have done the same thing. Asking a business to not maximize profits has never, and will never, make sense to me. 

You never hear someone say, “those damn Benderson’s keep opening up Delta-Sonics!! Don’t they have enough? Delta-Sonic doesn’t belong in Pennsylvania.” We actively complain about the NFL doing the same thing. I’ve got bad news for everyone, it’s not changing. As new ways to make money come about, they will capitalize. If we want them to stop making these decisions stop consuming the product at the rate that we do. Until then, expect more games the day before Thanksgiving, Black Friday, games in Australia, South America and streaming on Peacock. 

Edited April 11 by Kirby Jackson

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, Brand J said:

This was from the article: 

 

It also mentioned they’re still struggling to get a consistent foothold of fans at UK games. When you turn on one of those games what do you see? Fans with all 32 jerseys at the game. It won’t/can’t be more popular if it’s not relatable to the youth and the only way to accomplish that is to get them playing the sport. We appreciate the NFL in the states, even if we haven’t played ourselves because we grew up watching. Not true for the rest of the world. If the NFL wants the next generation of international people watching the sport, it’s going to have to become relatable at some point. They’re going to need to play it since it’s not ingrained in their culture.

 

 

Soccer--(Premier League, a Liga, World Cup) are pretty popular in this country despite nearly everyone watching have never played the game. Likewise,  easily 80+ % Americans who regularly watch football have never played the game.

 

Participation has little to do with faanhood.

[D. L. Hot-Flamethrower]

Roger should move over there and watch by himself . Player safety is a joke, just window dressing that we're doing something.

Edited April 11 by D. L. Hot-Flamethrower

[ChevyVanMiller]

5 hours ago, LittleSammy said:

We just got back from a vacation to Sydney. 15 1/2 hours LAX to Sydney, plus another 4 1/2 hours Detroit to LAX. It takes several days for your body clock to re-set going over, and even longer when you come back. It was a 19 hour time difference from PST. Short of giving these teams a bye the following week, not sure how they will be adjusted for a game the next week. Kind of the same issues the Bills faced going to/back from their game vs. JAX in London

Haven't had the pleasure of gong to Australian yet, but a few years ago the wife and I flew to Japan. About the same number of hours and we had the same difficulty in reacclimating once back home. I agree that teams will need the following week as a bye.

[Einstein]

1 hour ago, Kirby Jackson said:

What happened 50 years ago, or even 20 years ago, is irrelevant.

I am just explaining why some fans expect current owners to put game above money.

Because thats what they grew up watching. Owners were a different breed back then.

[Coffeesforclosers]

13 minutes ago, Einstein said:

I am just explaining why some fans expect current owners to put game above money.

Because thats what they grew up watching. Owners were a different breed back then.

 

I also think plenty of people are sick of a world where all business is judged by a single benchmark, "How does this increase shareholder returns?" 

 

It's how we're being resold cable TV, but over the Internet for $15 a month per channel, through TVs that listen to us so they can better tell us what to buy.

[Warriorspikes51]

Roger’s dream is to make it the GFL  Global Football League. Disgusting 

[Augie]

4 hours ago, Virgil said:

At this point, just make an international league.  

 

Didn’t they try that already with NFL Europe? If anybody really cared that might still be around.  

 

The NFL really wants Europe to love them. I get it. But it seems to be going just a little better than the French plan to make me love truffles. I am unaware of and indifferent to any such plan, no matter how much they want me to love them. 

[Kirby Jackson]

1 hour ago, Einstein said:

I am just explaining why some fans expect current owners to put game above money.

Because thats what they grew up watching. Owners were a different breed back then.

I’m not sure that they were a different breed as much as the landscape was so different. The guys that were owners then and are owners now, have adapted to the current landscape. You don’t see the Rooney’s, Hunt’s, Mara’s or Halas’ pushing back on more games, international games, etc… 

 

I totally agree that people romanticize about the game that the grew up watching. If the situation would have presented itself though, those guys would have capitalized like these guys do.

[Brand J]

9 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

Soccer--(Premier League, a Liga, World Cup) are pretty popular in this country despite nearly everyone watching have never played the game. Likewise,  easily 80+ % Americans who regularly watch football have never played the game.

 

Participation has little to do with faanhood.

Simplistic view. What you’re discounting is friends and family of those who do play tuning in to watch. Not many children play tackle football, relative to those who are active in sports, BUT Friday Night Lights is a real event. People show up in support of others, they don’t have to play the sport themselves to have interest.
 

Europeans have almost zero ties to American football. Most would need a reason to support the game and if their youths aren’t playing it, you’re asking grown adults and children to tune into a league that has little relevance to their culture. Soccer was a global sport long before the NBA, it’s not difficult to understand why it’s popular here and abroad. The NBA grew on a global scale not because we had teams playing overseas, but because little kids everywhere could emulate Jordan’s fadeaway, or yell “Kobe” as they shot the ball. It’s a cheap and easy game to play, unlike tackle football.

To grow the game overseas, interest has to start with the younger generation, not current adults who have zero connection to the sport. The easiest way for the younger generation to grow to love the sport is if they play, or support someone who does. And when they have kids… (see where I’m going with this?)

Edited April 12 by Brand J

[EssexBill]

4 hours ago, Brand J said:

Simplistic view. What you’re discounting is friends and family of those who do play tuning in to watch. Not many children play tackle football, relative to those who are active in sports, BUT Friday Night Lights is a real event. People show up in support of others, they don’t have to play the sport themselves to have interest.
 

Europeans have almost zero ties to American football. Most would need a reason to support the game and if their youths aren’t playing it, you’re asking grown adults and children to tune into a league that has little relevance to their culture. Soccer was a global sport long before the NBA, it’s not difficult to understand why it’s popular here and abroad. The NBA grew on a global scale not because we had teams playing overseas, but because little kids everywhere could emulate Jordan’s fadeaway, or yell “Kobe” as they shot the ball. It’s a cheap and easy game to play, unlike tackle football.

To grow the game overseas, interest has to start with the younger generation, not current adults who have zero connection to the sport. The easiest way for the younger generation to grow to love the sport is if they play, or support someone who does. And when they have kids… (see where I’m going with this?)

I can’t speak for the rest of Europe, but you’re absolutely correct in what you say regarding the UK.

 

It’s never going to be more than a small minority sport in the Uk though due to the popularity of Rugby which most people think of as being similar. It’s not of course, and the only thing similar is the shape of the ball, but people thing of Rugby as being for tough guys and will comment that American football players are soft because they wear helmets and pads. That’s the overwhelming attitude towards it, and it’s not likely to ever change when Rugby is played in schools up and down the country 

[machine gun kelly]

Everyone wants to blame Goodell, but it’s the owners that call the shots.  So if anyone wants to get upset, get upset with 32 owners.  Goodell works and reports to the owners.  He’s tasked with continuing to grow a multi-billion $ industry as every other company CEO in every business in the planet has to do the same.

 

Will any of the East coast teams be traveling anytime in the future to Australia, I seriously doubt it. The Midwest and western teams will most likely be tasked with those games.  We most likely if traveling will end up for a game, preferably an inter conference game in Europe.  Australia is probably earmarked for a west coast or mountain team.

 

So to worry about trips to Australia, or China someday, or an 18 game schedule is a waste of energy.  It’s going to happen whether we like it or not.

[machine gun kelly]

14 hours ago, ChevyVanMiller said:

Haven't had the pleasure of gong to Australian yet, but a few years ago the wife and I flew to Japan. About the same number of hours and we had the same difficulty in reacclimating once back home. I agree that teams will need the following week as a bye.

I would agree logically a bye following the game or prior to the game is helpful. I honestly don’t know if they will do it.  When we went to China to adopt my daughter 20 years ago, I had the same jet lag as you’re mentioning.

 

You reminded me of my thoughts 20 years ago, that future visits to the far east is not on my bucket list.