According to British newspaper the Telegraph, the NFL could hold the Super Bowl in London as early as 2014. The big question on everybody’s mind is: Will it work?
McMullen’s Musings looked over the pros and cons of a Super Bowl across the pond, and asked the same question that is on everyone’s mind: Can the Super Bowl work in the London fog?
Pro: They’ve already proven they can sell out a game there.
Since the NFL started scheduling games in London, there have been two sell-out games at Wembley Stadium. With another game scheduled for October 25, it’s almost a sure bet there would be another.
With a big-ticket event such as the Super Bowl, it will probably be standing-room only, and quite possibly the largest crowd ever in Wembley Stadium history.
Con: In today’s economy, it might not be possible for fans to make the trip.
While it might be a great draw to the Britons, American fans might not be able to pony up the extra cash for everything you need to travel overseas (passports, airline tickets, etc.)
Factor in the cost of a ticket for the game, among other things, and you’re hovering somewhere in the $5,000 range after all is said and done. In today’s economy, that may be impossible for even the most affluent of fans.
Pro: It would fill the big hole left by NFL Europe/Europa.
Since NFL Europe folded in 2007, other than the games played every year, there hasn’t really been any instance of American football anywhere in Europe.
If all goes well, this could inspire the NFL to possibly resurrect the league again or bring an NFL team to Europe, along with an L.A. team. Personally, I think the resurrection of NFL Europa is needed to keep the fans satisfied until the NFL comes back again.
Con: A few NFL teams haven’t hosted the Super Bowl yet.
The biggest one, and quite possibly the reason why so many people are adamant about moving the Super Bowl overseas, is New York.
I must admit, they are right. With New York hoping to host the Olympics in 2016, this could expedite the economic recovery of that area.
Pro: London could continue its momentum from the 2012 Olympics.
Staying on that same vein, London is preparing its city to host the Thirtieth Olympiad in three years. No matter where you hold them, the Olympics is an economic boon for the host country.
A Super Bowl would not only maintain that economic uptick, but maybe make it a little better, at least for a year.
Con: Fans might be distracted by the soccer season.
Even though it’s the dead of winter, late January/early February is nearing crunch time in the English Premiership soccer season. Teams are fighting for the F.A. Cup, among others.
While the Super Bowl is a massive event, most Britons have a bigger affinity for the other “football.”
If presented with either going to the Super Bowl or watching your favorite team face Manchester United, I bet most Londoners would probably favor the football pitch over the football field.
So what’s the final verdict?
Actually, it’s too early to tell.
While it does seem like a good idea to host the Super Bowl in London, I do see the point of the people who are against it. It seems like a pretty even fight between the two, and both seem to have pretty valid arguments, one way or the other.
If it does actually happen, we’ll just wait until 2014 to see if it is successful.