Nice to be rich. We haven't seen any good acid around here for years.

I have read where the NFL gave a ton of tickets away every time to put butts in seats in London.

If the Steelers and Vikings were playing in Arrowhead this Thursday, how many people would pay full price? Having your own team makes a huge difference.

London is the size of NYC and they love sports. There is a ton of money in that city. The NFL wouldn't displace soccer, but if San Diego can support at 1/6th the size, London would have no problem.

The logistics of a Toronto move would make much more sense. There's a ton of money there too and a NFL fanbase already in place.

I agree but after Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver, the markets get pretty small. That won't get the NFL the growth it is looking for.

Mexico doesn't have enough wealthy people.

The NFL wants to concur Europe, and sees London as the beachhead. I don't see how they can make the jump across the pond, as much as they would like to.

It seems Goodell won't rest until the NFL is no longer the #1 sport in America, because that's what's coming if he keeps pushing these insane ideas while gouging the fans and watering down the product with rule changes.

A team in London would be a logistical nightmare and money pit that no one would ever want to play for. Goodell is only pushing for it because his overinflated ego and belief that the NFL is invincible gives him the delusion to think he can compete with soccer in Europe. This guy is a clown and so is every owner who enables his bullshit.

Given that London is a world financial hub, the London Raiders would probably be the most apropos.

The logistics aren't as difficult as you'd think. Flying from the east coast to London is two hours more than flying to the west coast. The London team would probably play 4 home games, then 4 games in the U.S. starting with the east coast and moving west weekly, ending with a bye to return home and do the cycle over. Road teams from the west coast would play on the east coast first, then head overseas the second week. It's doable.

They could have a London team that plays all their home games in Los Angeles.

Problem solved.

It's doable, but will significantly hurt competition.

Winning percentage falls off when team travels from coast-to-coast. I've seen studies that document this. Adding 2 hours to that trip will make the situation worse.

A 4 week road trip???? I think there are statistics that show teams really suffer in win percentage on the 2nd consecutive game on the road.

Teams almost always returns home between road games. There is a reason for this. I can't imagine prepping for a game with makeshift facilities while traveling.

Once a London team reaches respectability, I could see a lot of 7-9 to 9-7 seasons, where they hold service at home and flop on the road. In that case, the team becomes irrelevant in terms of the competitive balance of the league.

I've seen the University of Hawaii football team do a three week road trip before without returning home. It is kind of a similar situation, we are almost as far from the mainland US as London, and they make it work and get other teams to come here. I think it could be done.

They don't need to compete with soccer to make money overseas. It makes sense from a business stand-point to do it, just not from a logistical or football one.

5 hour time difference. An away team would have to basically play at 8AM ET. A West Coast team would pretty much play a 5AM game. It is beyond stupid of an idea.

Not going to happen.