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

[Since1981]

Stop. This Australia idea with real NFL players is a logistical mess. There’s a reason kangaroos and koalas don’t exist anywhere else. It is ridiculously far. A 20 hour trip to NYC… seriously? For what, maybe a few extra $? Bah. This isn’t happening.

feels like a setup, a Goodell setup. “Have you seen how close Brazil is by comparison??”

[Gregg]

Shouldn't Goodell bring pro football back to NJ first before worrying about games in other areas.

[Buffalo03]

On 4/11/2026 at 9:44 AM, 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

So, what you're saying is, we want the Rams in week 2?

[Mr. WEO]

14 hours ago, Brand J said:

Again, you’re kidding yourself if you think the NFL’s globalization effort isn’t meant to grow the sport on a much larger scale. Goodell and all 32 owners would tell you they’d LOVE to bring in the numbers the top 5 sports produce. They’d love to challenge for the #1 overall spot, even if it’s a fallacy and will never happen. There’s already plenty of money in the NFL, but the money that sort of viewership would bring is akin to comparing Terry Pegula’s pockets to Elon Musk’s. Who wouldn’t want that? That’s their goal, even if they’re likely to never achieve it. All 32 owners would tell you they want many more Super Bowl viewers than the 20M they currently pull outside of North America. 

 

Of course they would love that--again, not even worth mentioning.  Clearly they will take any profit from these new markets without any hope to compete in a real way with PL (for example) and will grow their share through broadcasting, not by depending on grass roots youth leagues, or whatever you keep mentioning.  The "globalization" of baseball and basketball has not resulted in much growth for MLB in Europe.  The NFL knows they don't need this.

[Donuts and Doritos]

[cba fan]

On 4/11/2026 at 9:41 AM, T.E. said:

Maybe they can play a game on the moon

yeah it would be a better field then the crowned fields NFL use to have before all these high tech underground drainage systems. Due to how we all know the moon is flat. 🤣

[GunnerBill]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

Of course they would love that--again, not even worth mentioning.  Clearly they will take any profit from these new markets without any hope to compete in a real way with PL (for example) and will grow their share through broadcasting, not by depending on grass roots youth leagues, or whatever you keep mentioning.  The "globalization" of baseball and basketball has not resulted in much growth for MLB in Europe.  The NFL knows they don't need this.

 

While basketball has a decent level of youth participation in the UK and has a professional UK based league (our UK American Football League is still entirely amateur although there are efforts to create a fully professional league currently in development) the TV figures SKY gets for the NBA are dwarfed by what they get for the NFL. So I'm not sure the participation piece is the critical key to growth. The key has been the product. Well packaged and presented by TV, well publicised and marketed games (and events around the games). The NFL has done that stuff a mile better than the NBA and that has been the difference.

 

If the league ever wanted to expand and have teams based here? Then it's a different story IMO and you'd need to broaden the talent pool or dilute the product - so if the NFL wanted to be 50 teams by 2050 for example and have 18 international teams based around the world.... sure, participation is a critical piece. But right now participation is a nice to have. The NFL has a partnership with our amateur league and the odd one of our guys ends up in the NFL via scholarship to an American college etc.... the Seahawks Defensive Coordinator got into the NFL via an intern opportunity as a result of the link up. But it is relatively low level. 

 

I should say though my sense is the NFL have pivoted from the idea of having a team based here (which was definitely the plan at one point). I think they are much more looking at the success they have had in the UK and saying if we can maintain that there and keep growing organically and then replicate that model in Spain, Australia, Japan, wherever..... then that is serious money. Essentially become the biggest "non-traditional" sport in each territory which is what they have done here. Rather than trying to chip away at the fan base for more established domestic sports. 

Edited April 14 by GunnerBill

[Mark Vader]

On 4/10/2026 at 11:10 AM, 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 

What the NFL should do is play some regular season games in USA cities that don't have NFL football.

[Kirby Jackson]

12 minutes ago, Mark Vader said:

What the NFL should do is play some regular season games in USA cities that don't have NFL football.

They won’t though because there’s no more money to be made. They’d be trading off the ticket revenue and the TV broadcast is the same whether the game is played in Nashville or San Antonio. It allows some more people to attend a NFL game I suppose but it doesn’t expand their market. 

[Jauronimo]

6 hours ago, Since1981 said:

Stop. This Australia idea with real NFL players is a logistical mess. There’s a reason kangaroos and koalas don’t exist anywhere else. It is ridiculously far. A 20 hour trip to NYC… seriously? For what, maybe a few extra $? Bah. This isn’t happening.

feels like a setup, a Goodell setup. “Have you seen how close Brazil is by comparison??”

Your theory of evolution and the diversity of species is based on flight times in and out of JFK?!?!  For the record, I'm interested. You got a website or a business card I could have? 

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

 

While basketball has a decent level of youth participation in the UK and has a professional UK based league (our UK American Football League is still entirely amateur although there are efforts to create a fully professional league currently in development) the TV figures SKY gets for the NBA are dwarfed by what they get for the NFL. So I'm not sure the participation piece is the critical key to growth. The key has been the product. Well packaged and presented by TV, well publicised and marketed games (and events around the games). The NFL has done that stuff a mile better than the NBA and that has been the difference.

 

If the league ever wanted to expand and have teams based here? Then it's a different story IMO and you'd need to broaden the talent pool or dilute the product - so if the NFL wanted to be 50 teams by 2050 for example and have 18 international teams based around the world.... sure, participation is a critical piece. But right now participation is a nice to have. The NFL has a partnership with our amateur league and the odd one of our guys ends up in the NFL via scholarship to an American college etc.... the Seahawks Defensive Coordinator got into the NFL via an intern opportunity as a result of the link up. But it is relatively low level. 

 

I should say though my sense is the NFL have pivoted from the idea of having a team based here (which was definitely the plan at one point). I think they are much more looking at the success they have had in the UK and saying if we can maintain that there and keep growing organically and then replicate that model in Spain, Australia, Japan, wherever..... then that is serious money. Essentially become the biggest "non-traditional" sport in each territory which is what they have done here. Rather than trying to chip away at the fan base for more established domestic sports. 

 

I agree with all of this.  This is low hanging fruit for the NFL--money sitting on the table, for the taking.  Having 1 or 2 Euro based teams would never fly with the NFLPA, I would imagine and, as you agree, isn't necessary.

[Augie]

9 hours ago, Since1981 said:

Stop. This Australia idea with real NFL players is a logistical mess. There’s a reason kangaroos and koalas don’t exist anywhere else. It is ridiculously far. A 20 hour trip to NYC… seriously? For what, maybe a few extra $? Bah. This isn’t happening.

feels like a setup, a Goodell setup. “Have you seen how close Brazil is by comparison??”

 

Could Roger satisfy you by bringing kangaroos and koalas to a zoo near you? They can’t fight back, but I think even they now it’s stupid. 

[Dirk Diggler]

7 hours ago, Mark Vader said:

What the NFL should do is play some regular season games in USA cities that don't have NFL football.

I've always thought that would be cool idea. Rather than have every team play overseas each year, have it be a two year rotating neutral site schedule.

One year you play overseas the other is in the US at a location without a team. Have the Lions play at the a Big House. Cleveland in Columbus. Commanders in Blacksburg.

Edited April 14 by Dirk Diggler
Content

[uticaclub]

Instead of an 18th game, they add an additional bye week. Each team plays one international game and then has a bye week afterward. The latest, 17th game, is always the international match, giving each team 8 regular season home games. No team loses a home game during a competitive year and gets an extra game if they are a bottom feeder.

Sometimes, a team plays in Mexico City; other times, it's in Sydney.

[EssexBill]

17 hours ago, Donuts and Doritos said:

[GunnerBill]

6 hours ago, uticaclub said:

Instead of an 18th game, they add an additional bye week. Each team plays one international game and then has a bye week afterward. The latest, 17th game, is always the international match, giving each team 8 regular season home games. No team loses a home game during a competitive year and gets an extra game if they are a bottom feeder.

Sometimes, a team plays in Mexico City; other times, it's in Sydney.

 

I agree - that is the right next step - stick to 17 games, played over 19 weeks, every team plays one international game a year (whether Rio, or London, or Sydney) and you have a bye the week after your international game. If it is you year where the 17th game would be a road game then you are the road team internationally, if it is your year where the 17th game would be a home game then you are the home team internationally. Teams who are going to be a home team internationally get to "protect" two home games before the schedule makers decide which home game gets played abroad - so for example last year the Bills could say "we are protecting the Chiefs and Ravens games" but maybe the NFL takes the Cincy game international. 

 

It won't happen, but to me that would be the best way of a) giving the NFL an international series that matters; b) making it fair for teams; and c) taking player welfare into account. 

 

And I'd play all the international games between week 3 and week 15. So some weeks that would mean two international games. You could have a Thursday Night Football from Mexico City and an early Sunday game from London for example. 

[uticaclub]

12 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I agree - that is the right next step - stick to 17 games, played over 19 weeks, every team plays one international game a year (whether Rio, or London, or Sydney) and you have a bye the week after your international game. If it is you year where the 17th game would be a road game then you are the road team internationally, if it is your year where the 17th game would be a home game then you are the home team internationally. Teams who are going to be a home team internationally get to "protect" two home games before the schedule makers decide which home game gets played abroad - so for example last year the Bills could say "we are protecting the Chiefs and Ravens games" but maybe the NFL takes the Cincy game international. 

 

It won't happen, but to me that would be the best way of a) giving the NFL an international series that matters; b) making it fair for teams; and c) taking player welfare into account. 

 

And I'd play all the international games between week 3 and week 15. So some weeks that would mean two international games. You could have a Thursday Night Football from Mexico City and an early Sunday game from London for example. 

It just makes too much sense to happen

[Dirk Diggler]

18 games with one overseas game for each team is inevitable. No way the owners leave all that $$ on the table.