It's May. Unfortunately for us NFL fans, May is not a good time. Sure, people talk about this time of year as the first time that rookies and veterans take the fields in 'Organised Team Activities', but let's be honest: That's actually not exciting. If the pre-season has taught us one thing, it's that the majority of NFL fans just don't care about non-competitive events - no matter what their ramifications for the regular season.
Another knock-on effect of the traditional NFL down period between May and June, is that all kinds of utterly ridiculous stories find their way into the mainstream news, and because of the lack of on-field activity, the analysts have a field day pondering completely hypothetical issues. One such issue is close to my own - and I suspect most people's - heart:
'Should the NFL take the Superbowl to London?'
You've likely heard plenty of opinion on the matter from countless columnists eager to make their voice heard on the matter, but one opinion has not been sought - that of the British people.
For my sins, I am British. To be more precise, I live approximately 300 miles away from London. What has that got to do with a London Superbowl? Well, considering that according to ESPN, we're all Londoners in Britain. It's this kind of misguided thinking w
hich causes understandable annoyance with the way Brits are portrayed in the American media, but before I digress too far and get on my high horse about respect for others, let's get back to the issue in hand.Do the British fans want a UK Superbowl?
Of all the questions, this is the one that will likely not be taken into account, yet on the basis of expansion into Europe, surely it is the most important? Fans in Britain have been taken for granted by the NFL in the sense that it is assumed that thousands of good-natured yet slightly camp Brits (think Hugh Grant) will descend on Wembley and deck themselves out in U.S flags, before eating a 'ham-burger' for the sheer novelty value, because it ain't arf fun!
This quaint view of English people is something we'd perhaps like to believe has run it's course, yet well intentioned people such as Yasinskas play on almost constantly. Sure there is a slight curiosity about the NFL amongst your average teenager here, but unfortunately, there has never been any attempt made by the NFL to interact with them on the most basic level, therefore the sport is deemed inaccessible, and any interest they do have is soon overwhelmed by the reality that they will never play the game at any level.
Is there demand for regular season games over here? Yes, amongst the many hardcore fans such as myself who pay somewhere in the region of $400 each to travel down to London and watch the games at Wembley. It's a brilliant opportunity for us to see the sport live in our own national stadium, and as last season's Chargers-Saints game showed, we really do appreciate that we have a chance to see genuine, meaningful football, and not pre-season or exhibition games.
On the other hand, there is perhaps a feeling that the NFL, as big as it is over here, will likely not branch out beyond it's current fanbase too much without grass-roots funding. As I've made clear before, there is no point in exporting a 'product' - as countless horrific columnists describe the game - with the notion that merely seeing it will somehow ensnare the local simpletons and have them snapping up anything with Peyton Manning's name on it.
The 'product' argument is one that I feel very passionately about. If I told you that I had a new sport, but you could only watch it, and never play it yourself, how would you feel? You may think the sport is great, but you'll never experience even a basic form of the game. Your children would potentially have a chance , but instead of me organising activities to promote the sport and encourage kids to take it up... I'm just not going to bother.
But hey, look at my shiny product! You can still watch from afar - just no touching!
This fundamental error has fallen by the wayside in pursuit of the television and jersey revenue that the league craves above all else. Rather than help the sport grow organically in Britain and Europe, they have tried to jump straight in with Soccer at the top of the table. This strategy is doomed to fail, but sadly it will take ten years before the NFL realises it's mistake, and by that time, we'll have been dismissed as pariahs by the average American NFL fan for stealing their showcase event.
So American fans don't want the Superbowl in London?
Correct there little Jimmy, and here's why: It's theirs.
Rightfully, most comments underneath these Anglo-centric stories seem to be firmly against the idea of taking a part of American heritage and culture abroad for the sake of a few extra dollars in the already burgeoning coffers. The Superbowl is a huge part of their cultural identity, and whilst there is a healthy audience for the event over here, we could not replicate the fanaticism of American fans - and if we did, it would be exactly that: A replica. Fake. A charade. Sure, you'd have dozens of hot local women wearing little more than a Reggie Bush jersey, but would that be what the Superbowl is about? Whilst the thing between my legs would say yes, the thing between my ears says no.
There is no way to generate the same enthusiasm as you get in the U.S during Superbowl week. It's a unique event in that it is a one-off final in American sports. There is no series of seven games, there is no 'Chase', and there definitely is not a Fedex Cup. This leads to an atmosphere unrivalled even within it's own heartland, so why is the NFL so eager to export the 'product', when it has millions of untapped potential fans at home?
Personally I don't blame the Americans who flood messageboards with anti-brit sentiment. I think they're idiots for not seeing the real culprits behind this cynical marketing ply, but I can understand the protectionism that underlies their feelings. How would Europe feel if we took the Champions League final , and just held it in New York? We'd feel betrayed by those at the top of the game, and forced to pay exorbitant charges just to see what could be a once in a lifetime event for our local team.
How many Arizona Cardinals fans would have been able to make the journey to London to see their team's first ever Superbowl? Not as many as made it to Tampa, I can guarantee. It's unfair to take this kind of event away from the people who appreciate it the most, and it genuinely makes me queasy when commentators neglect this point in favour of the 'more money is good for the league' argument. Which leads me on to the final point...
Would any of this really benefit the NFL?
The crux of the matter: What is the league going to get out of this sojourn? 'More money' would seem to be the obvious answer, but would it be that much more than the league currently gets from staging the game in the states? More importantly, would it justify the logistical nightmare of transplanting America's biggest sporting event thousands of miles from it's usual location?
There is an argument for the local economies of cities like Tampa and Miami that regularly hold the Superbowl, but that should be discounted in my opinion. For a start, most cities would not host the Superbowl more than once every four years or so, and there is certainly no 'divine right' to do so. Personally, I'd like to see the game moved around the country more, which would perhaps give slightly more variety to the kind of game that we see each year.
The teams would certainly not be in favour of moving between time zones in the run-up to what could be (for many players, coaches, and team members) their only opportunity to win a Superbowl. This fundamental issue has already reared it's head during the regular season, with coaches Sean payton and Norv Turner both openly criticising the league for their logistical operations during last season's game. If the mild-mannered Payton can be driven to make such comments, what chance Bill Belichick being enamoured with the efforts of the NFL to market the league abroad? The worst case scenario would be a team like New England playing Seattle in London for the Superbowl. Look at Seattle's road woes on the east coast, and you can see why they may feel unhappy at being asked to adjust even more for the biggest game of their lives.
Financially, it could be argued that there is little advantage in marketing a sport that has no chance of getting anywhere near the top of TV ratings, even with two games ostensibly within prime time slots on a Sunday. Remember, games kick off at 6pm and 9pm for viewers in the UK. American evening games are unwatchable unless you have a particularly unhealthy interest in the game, like some of us.
The league and those running it are taking for granted that this 'curiosity' will become a feature of daily life in the UK if it is given enough exposure, simply on the basis that America once fell in love with it. By that twisted logic, the U.S should now be full of hardcore soccer fans all aching to check how Manchester United, Arsenal, Chelsea and Everton are doing on a weekly basis.
In essence, this small gain in European viewing figures/merchandising opportunities is unsustainable on a long-term basis. Once the novelty of the International Series games has worn off, we will see a huge drop-off in enthusiasm for the game in Europe. The hardcore will snap up tickets to the games, but as with the first two years, there will be large sections of empty seats that go unseen to the TV viewer. It's not what I or any other NFL fan in Europe wants to see for the game which we love with just as much passion as many American fans do.
No comments:
Post a Comment