I hear that the new NFL commissioner wants to have it there maybe next year.
2007-10-17 06:06:23 · 20 answers · asked by Selina Kyle 5 in Sports ➔ Football (American)
Wow - there seems to be a lot of negative responses!
I am undecided.
2007-10-17 06:29:19 · update #1
He never said anything about a date, only that it's something they'll be examining. It would be to have it there next year, though, considering that the next several Super Bowl sites have already been chosen:
2008 - Glendale
2009 - Tampa
2010 - Miami
2011 - Arlington
A Super Bowl on foreign soil might happen - although it seems somehow wrong - but not for at least five years.
2007-10-17 06:14:05 · answer #1 · answered by Craig S 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
This is by far one of the most ridiculous ideas the commissioner could've come up with.... First off, ITS THE SUPER BOWL!!! Its an unofficial American holiday!! You cant take it off of U.S. soil! People miss work, reschedule weddings, and so forth so they can watch the Super Bowl. If you were to put it in London, not only would it recieve EXTREMELY low ratings from the American TV Audience, but it would lose money because Companies and Corporations would no longer pay millions of dollars to get a 30 second ad run during the commercial breaks of the super bowl. Restaurants, bars, and super markets would not get the expected annual rush they recieve every year around the time of the superbowl from people going out to drink and watch the game, or buy lots of food, go home, and have a super bowl party. It would hurt the economy!!! The European American Football League died because of its lack of fans.... what makes them think that the NFL would be anymore succesful? Even then, if Manchester United was playing against Liverpool, THEY WOULD NEVER HOST THE GAME IN AMERICA. Lets leave American sports in America, and European sports in Europe.
2007-10-17 06:17:26 · answer #2 · answered by benaiah_e 2 · 5⤊ 0⤋
That is sacreligious to the game of pigskin football.
While we're at it, let's have the World Series in Moscow (Russia), and the Bowl Championship National Title college football game in Havana (Cuba). That would be equivalent to Great Britain moving the Wimbledon tennis matches to Chicago! The pieces of the puzzle just cannot fit that way.
Roger Goodell is a good disciplinarian, but a terrible businessman. He'd move the NFL to Antarctica if he could, just to cause "shock & awe." If he would put the same time into business sense as he did with the Michael Vick fiasco, the NFL would then be a complete & stable organization.
2007-10-17 06:09:00 · answer #3 · answered by Dr. Semi-Evil 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
I know there is about zero chance of me ever getting tickets to a Super Bowl so I don't care that much. But I think it's absolutely ridiculous to do that to fans of the actual teams (do real fans get to actually go, or is the super bowl all media and rich wellwishers of their local team?), make people get a passport to see their team. Also wouldn't it be annoying if you went overseas to a super bowl and the people around you were asking what a first down is?
2007-10-17 06:52:15 · answer #4 · answered by bagalagalaga 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think it's ridiculous. When I spent some time in the UK, I heard far too many complaints about the US calling NFL football when they call soccer football. Yes, there were people there who watched the Superbowl but not like here.
Add in the time difference. It's ridiculous.
2007-10-17 07:53:46 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
I think it's a real bad idea and it'll never happen. It's like having the English Premiereship in the US. One more thing, the NFL will lose millions of dollars if they do this.
2007-10-17 06:44:23 · answer #6 · answered by kennyg64 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
That would be a big turn-off to the NFL fans. If it happens it won't be for a few years. Here is the schedule:
Feb. 2008 - Gelndale, AZ
Feb 2009 - Tampa, FL
Feb 2010 - Miami, FL
Feb 2011 - Dallas, TX
2007-10-17 06:33:45 · answer #7 · answered by Manbearpig 3 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Didn't they just cancel NFL Europe due to cost and a lack of interest? Taking the SB to England doesn't seem to coincide with the direction they are going. Poor idea.
2007-10-17 06:38:23 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
i heard about it this morning, i think its one of the worst ideas in NFL history, its one thing to have a game take place there to kind of get them into it....but not the super bowl...the super bowl needs to be in america, at its home....not somewhere else where its not near as big
2007-10-17 06:43:20 · answer #9 · answered by game_rooster 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Wow, does that mean the Soccer world big whatever you call it game will be held in Death Valley, NM?
2007-10-17 06:16:58 · answer #10 · answered by reynwater 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋