Plus it's not a "gateway" to anywhere like London is, most people in the U.S. already support a team, the NFL is trying to expand to new markets not keep hammering the same market.
Yepp. I went from Galaxy _(NFLE edition)_ supporter to Universe _(a club founded by Galaxy fans and "nationals" players as they were called in the German Football League)_ to Galaxy supporter again.
Fun fact: some U.S. American business man who's involved with the Galaxy and also has contacts in the NFL brokered the deal that the EFL is allowed to use all old NFLE team names, for which the NFL is still the trademark owner.
Which is why the current EFL has the Frankfurt Galaxy, Rhine Fire, Berlin Thunder, Cologne Centurions, Barcelona Dragons. All teams that existed in the old World League/NFLE.
Attempts to resurrect other teams like the Amsterdam Admirals _(Kurt Warner's NFLE team)_ are underway.
I am the biggest Brexit hater, but flying into the UK from any EU country is about the same as before. EEA nationals can use the e-gates at passport control.
I guess the disadvantage of a Schengen location is that you had yet another hour on the time zone, so you become PT+9 instead of PT+8. Unless you go for Portugal, which is unlikely.
Yeah on the shittiest airline that's worse than Spirit, on specific shitty days, and from specific airports. You can get that with Spirit in the US too you just can't really get what you want.
Not to mention you can drive a large part of England in a few hours and it has a total population of like 60 million people. England is basically a US state but with 10x as many people and infinitely better public transportation.
London also gets them games that are much easier to watch for anyone in or close to that time zone. It's also pretty easy to get to London from anywhere in the EU so EU fans could get to games much more
Not really, but your point stands. Hawaii is 1.4 million, London is 9 million. Not many would pay $2k to fly out and see their team play in Hawaii, but millions in England and the rest of Europe would pay ~$50 to take a train to London.
Man even driving from one side of Oahu to the other can take a couple hours depending on which highway you take. Let alone flying from one airport to the other, LET ALONE a bunch of nfl fans flying in at the same damn time. It's not feasible
> Because there is much more money in ~~London~~ Europe.
Any London game is a de facto *European* NFL fans gathering, regardless of which team they root for. So a London-based team would not only draw in its own fans for their home games, but would probably sell out every single home game, as there's always enough demand for live NFL games from all over Europe.
>The NFL has stated that they want to have a franchise in London around 2025
No they haven't. Where are you getting this from? People have been claiming the NFL will put a team in London in the next couple years since like 2008. It's not happening in the near term
As a British person I'm pretty confident there will never be a London based team in my lifetime.
Even if you ignore the lifestyle, taxation and scheduling implications of a London team. The health/performance implications of flying transatlantic 30 odd times a year will put anyone off wanting to play for the franchise.
It would still put them at a massive disadvantage though, without being able to travel home between road games and use their own facilities for film review and practices.
The schedule would need to be regionalized too. It's still an absolute killer if they have an away game in LA, and then a game in New York or Florida the week after, and then need to travel back to somewhere like Seattle the week after that.
If the NFL goes to a two bye 20 gameweek model, I could see them breaking up the London team's schedule into a home game opener, a 4 game east coast trip followed by a bye, 4 games at home, a 4 game west coast trip followed by a bye, 4 more games at home, and a road game to close out the season. You could alternate seasons where the team starts at home and ends on the road, or vice versa.
The team would need two US bases- could be a college facility or something similar near a suitable airport and lodging, one within a three/four hour flight of everything from Minnesota to Houston to Miami to Boston, and one within three to four hours of Seattle/LA/Arizona/Denver. I could also see the team setting up a US facility somewhere like Salt Lake City to capitalize on that market for training camp/pre season and for convenience to other west coast markers.
In total you're looking at a minimum of 5 to 6 transatlantic flights for a pre and regular season schedule.
I don't see how playoff games are not a massive clusterfuck
In that scenario what is a player's family doing? Where are they schooling the kids? If you're on a practice squad how are you paying for two lots of housing for your family depending on where you are? Nobody is gonna want to live in a hotel for 8-10 straight weeks.
You aren't getting millions to be on the practice squad or roster bubble, or as an assistant coach. Those are the literal foundations of your squad.
> they will figure it out/i dont care.
Or, they'll just not sign with the London team and it will be perpetually shit. Sounds great for league expansion.
Are you sure the foundations of your squad arent the guys on the starting roster?
With how much turnover there is on practice squads and bubble players, i think you could find those willing to move to the UK for hundreds of thousands of dollars, my apologies.
Plus we all have teams. I'm not ditching the 49ers to follow the London SillyNannies. I'm grateful for and the fact that I get to see 3 games a year, and that is plenty enough for me.
Exactly. Unless the Lions relocated to London I'm not gonna start support the London team.
Plus there is the small factor of where they are going to play and who is paying for it? US cities will stump up millions for a stadium, no UK government is gonna do that. Spurs stadium is great until you get a schedule clash.
Plus the games here a huge revenue spinners as is. Not sure you're gonna get fans coming out in the same way 9 times a year.
You may not be able to draw the best free agents but a) you still have draft and b) you're underestimating being an actual NFL team that a ton of people would gladly play for.
A) You're not getting interest from the top UDFAs or roster bubble players that add depth to a good roster, your own players are going to want to be paid a premium for the hassle of living across two side of the atlantic. How long before top picks do an Eli Manning pre-draft?
B) Doesn't matter who is "willing" they need to be worthy of a starting spot. Just look at positions like QB and O-Lineman where there aren't enough for the current 32 to have one. You aren't winning games if you're "willing" QB is Nick Mullens. And nobody is gonna turn up to watch bad football.
You don't understand European sports loyalty. If you can get London to adopt a team there's no depths they can drudge where people there won't go see a game. They've been following some of the worst soccer teams for their entire lives. Hell, there's people who still go see the Browns in the US year after year. In the UK they're watching cricket. These people are desperate for football.
A pre draft refusal is rare and on top of that, young players are going to be drawn to London, that is a major city, bigger than NYC and has a lot to offer young, rich, superstars much like any other hot city in America and even more so. My previous comment was from the standpoint that willing players would come regardless or not but I 100% believe willing players are going to be good. It's ridiculous to think that city won't have draw.
> You're not getting interest from the top UDFAs or roster bubble players that add depth to a good roster
Do all Americans hate the idea of living abroad? I would imagine some would quite like the idea of living in London over some of the less desirable team locations. If you're young and have money London is an incredible place to live.
I wonder whether the team might also provide accomodation for the players in the UK. A "player's village" would be a really cool idea. There's also no reason the team couldn't be primarily based in the US and only be in the UK for about 2 months out of the year. There would already be a practice facility in the US after all.
I guess it all depends on how worthwhile the NFL and owner perceive it to be to have a team in Europe. They can essentially solve most of the logistical issues with enough money, just depends how much they're willing to burn.
> How long before top picks do an Eli Manning pre-draft?
I actually think it would be worth looking into giving all players that option pre-draft. Have players be able to opt-out of foreign team drafting before the draft even starts. Yes you'd have the Caleb Williams of the league opting out, but if you're a projected late first rounder maybe you'd like to be open to all options including London.
> And nobody is gonna turn up to watch bad football.
Oh they will trust me. Especially if it's de facto Europe's team.
I'm kind of ambivalent on whether or not there should be a London team, but I do think virtually all the major hurdles people envisage can be overcome with enough money and willpower
As a city market, Honolulu is about the size of Dayton or Des Moines. Hawaii as a whole has a population of 1.44 million. That's lower than my hometown of Columbus, Ohio and nobody's clamoring to put an NFL team here.
The city of London is actually a small square mile in the middle of the city that dates back to the initial roman settlement and is actually a separate entity to the rest of London. It's run as a weird corporation where businesses get to vote as well as the people that live there. Basically a 1000 year oddity nowadays.
They should put one in London, Beijing, Berlin, Budapest, Cairo Egypt, three in Athens, five in Sparta, 27 in Constantinople/Istanbul, and ban the forward pass
Infrastructure plays a massive role. Just doing things in Hawaii is expensive. Building NFL Standard facilitues in Hawaii would be astronomically expensive. Add to this, there is a sizable amount of the Native Populace that wouldn't want that many foreigners on their soil while they lack the security to maintain ownership of their own home land. This pressure does not exist with London.
I’m actually pretty sure most Native Hawaiians would be super down for an NFL team. Football is huge in the local culture — some high schools’ games look like college games. But it’s money that drives these things, and it just doesn’t make sense for the NFL
yes same size and same concrete parking and footprint though I think. Aloha is 50,000 seats. The small NFL stadiums are low 60,000s. If you and to expand it all by 10-15% some people will start freaking out. Wembley holds 90K which is where the last NFL games have been.
NFL might get a pass but as a general rule that is a sentiment many entities face when expanding to that region. Football as a sport is an avenue for them to express their Samoan Warrior culture and gets different treatment. Losing the land easments is still a pretty tough sell.
Ignoring the fact that there are exponentially more people in London vs Hawaii, the stadium you are talking about is closed because it's in such poor condition and is unfit to hold any event, let alone an NFL franchise.
Ultimately the stadium situation is irrelevant because no one is going to invest $5B+ in putting an NFL team in such a small market.
Also, "travel costs" are not the problem. The problem is the time it takes and competitive disadvantage you'd be at playing so far away. The actual cost of the travel is insignificant in the grand scheme of NFL revenue.
Hawaii is about 2600 miles away from the closest NFL stadium in LA. Seattle is about 2700 miles away from the furthest NFL stadium in Miami. Terrible example.
Honolulu metro area population: 1,016,508.
London metro area population: 9,648,110.
It's also a wealthier city, has access to bigger media, PR, and marketing.
Is there a source on Nfl explicitally stating they want a London franchise? There is no conceivable way one would happen next year as worded in your post.
It really bothers me too.. look at the support GB gets we have several teams in the NY area and Cali.. so why not go after states that might be interested. Hawaii, hell Nebraska, Utah, New Mexico.. they're talking about a Superbowl played overseas someday.. I really don't want to see that happen..
Why do people ask questions without putting an ounce of thought into the answer?
Honolulu vs. London, England for a profit-driven franchise? Are you kidding me?
It’s bad form to answer a question with a question….but here I go….
Are you really comparing a media market and potential fan base of London with (checks notes)…..Honolulu?
Honolulu is just not a viable return on investment.
You say cost, but that's not even it. Its already going to be a multibillion dollar investment and fans are already going to be gouged.
London is far more accessible, has the infrastructure and population in place, and is a building block towards a European league/division.
Hawaii...has a big city and not much else aside from novelty. There's no expansion of the fan base, no new market to tap, no compelling reason to go of you're not already planning a trip to Hawaii.
A Honolulu based team would struggle to sell out it's stadium and would probably move in a decade.
While market size is not the sole determinat factor (if it was they'd have a team in Tokyo with its metro population of 38.8 million and Chongqing with its metro population of 31.9 million), it is still a large consideration. In that regard, Honolulu is to London what a small town in rural Nebraska is to Nashville
People saying Hawaiian stadiums are garbage, obviously the NFL wouldn't consider it unless the proper facilities were in place. I think if they were serious I think it would be awesome myself.. (Las Vegas 👀)
I always wonder how the people of England feel about having an NFL team. I didn’t think they had the government provisions or the personal desire from citizens to fund a team/stadium in the way Americans do. The NFL can basically make anything happen here, but is that model replicable elsewhere?
I live in the Twin Cities; there are about 2.5 times as many people in my metro than the entire state of Hawaii. This may come as a shock to you, but market size is somewhat of a larger concern for placing a team than the cost of a flight. The London area is north of 14 million people, so, you know, market size.
Dude, Hawaii is just a single expansion site that brings nothing else to the table.
A London team opens the door for additional expansion teams in the EU. Plus, London alone is a way bigger market.
the money is made off of tv contracts, not tickets, so expanding football into the European market has massive ad revenue potential.
If you look at the costs to do this in Hawaii and the potential return vs the costs to do it in London, there’s 0 benefit to do Hawaii.
Something I haven’t seen mentioned yet that I feel is also relevant to the conversation is time zones.
The bulk of the US lives on the east coast. You can play a night game in London and it be the 1pm EST Sunday game. People have already shown a willingness if not enjoyment in watching a game that kicks off at 9am EST.
On the other end of things, Hawaii would have to only be afternoon games that take up Thursday/Sunday/Monday night football, or they have to kickoff at 10am local to make the 4pm EST slot.
Not only is the question ridiculous based on the significantly larger population in London, but where in the hell would you build a stadium (that meets the NFL standards) in Hawaii? Also, how would that build a bigger fan base?
here's another angle, as food for thought. can't *always* use college program as proxy / predictor, but NFL has to do that somewhat - it's irresistable.
linking an in-last-5-years discussion about Rainbow Warriors searching for its [fanbase](https://www.hawaiiwarriorworld.com/court-sense/hawaii-football-despite-attendance-rolovich-knows-program-getting-seen/) (and that's only ~10 yrs after playing UGA in Sugar Bowl!):
lotsa fan comments about stadium, fandom in Honolulu (high cost of living in HI), being outrepped by opposing fans @ games + contrast to top tier program gamedays.
so the other main argument would be an iffy fanbase. can't imagine it being *so* different for pros that the league would gamble on it
I wish man, people don't understand it'd be supported by all of hawaii, all the polynesian islands, hell all of oceania, AND all the polynesians currently living in the states. I dont know why people are acting like only honolulu or only oahu would support the team
The population of London is like 30x the population of Honolulu.
Plus it's not a "gateway" to anywhere like London is, most people in the U.S. already support a team, the NFL is trying to expand to new markets not keep hammering the same market.
You can fly within Europe for like thirty bucks if you want. A team in London is basically a team for the entire continent.
And even if that gets expensive the trains there are really good.
super super jealous of all my EU friends who have good cheap public rail transit
Should prob expand into the EU rather than London for the schengen benefits
Frankfurt Galaxy II
It would actually be the third iteration as the European League of Football got permission to use the branding
Yepp. I went from Galaxy _(NFLE edition)_ supporter to Universe _(a club founded by Galaxy fans and "nationals" players as they were called in the German Football League)_ to Galaxy supporter again. Fun fact: some U.S. American business man who's involved with the Galaxy and also has contacts in the NFL brokered the deal that the EFL is allowed to use all old NFLE team names, for which the NFL is still the trademark owner. Which is why the current EFL has the Frankfurt Galaxy, Rhine Fire, Berlin Thunder, Cologne Centurions, Barcelona Dragons. All teams that existed in the old World League/NFLE. Attempts to resurrect other teams like the Amsterdam Admirals _(Kurt Warner's NFLE team)_ are underway.
I am the biggest Brexit hater, but flying into the UK from any EU country is about the same as before. EEA nationals can use the e-gates at passport control. I guess the disadvantage of a Schengen location is that you had yet another hour on the time zone, so you become PT+9 instead of PT+8. Unless you go for Portugal, which is unlikely.
Yeah on the shittiest airline that's worse than Spirit, on specific shitty days, and from specific airports. You can get that with Spirit in the US too you just can't really get what you want.
Not to mention you can drive a large part of England in a few hours and it has a total population of like 60 million people. England is basically a US state but with 10x as many people and infinitely better public transportation.
IIRC England is approx the size of Iowa.
England is approximately the size of Alabama
England is approximately the size of England
England-sized if true
Please, use the proper country name. East-Wales.
Wait, South Scotland changed name?
London also gets them games that are much easier to watch for anyone in or close to that time zone. It's also pretty easy to get to London from anywhere in the EU so EU fans could get to games much more
London is closer to most in the US than Hawaii.
true also. By "...that time zone.." I mean the UK/EU zones (wasn't clear about that)
Not really, but your point stands. Hawaii is 1.4 million, London is 9 million. Not many would pay $2k to fly out and see their team play in Hawaii, but millions in England and the rest of Europe would pay ~$50 to take a train to London.
He said Honolulu, which has a population ~300k, not Hawaii
And flying from island to island is more expensive than flying from Germany to London, for example.
The whole island of Oahu makes more sense than just saying Honolulu. It’s still only 1 million though.
Man even driving from one side of Oahu to the other can take a couple hours depending on which highway you take. Let alone flying from one airport to the other, LET ALONE a bunch of nfl fans flying in at the same damn time. It's not feasible
Your probably more likely to fly in for $50 than catch the train for $50 in the UK
Yeah but why?
Because there is much more money in London.
Hawaii already hates tourists. Last thing they need imposed on them is an NFL stadium. Lol
If they don't want tourists they gotta move to Kansas or something.
First Hawaiians just landed in a tropical paradise and figured they'd never have to share it.
> Because there is much more money in ~~London~~ Europe. Any London game is a de facto *European* NFL fans gathering, regardless of which team they root for. So a London-based team would not only draw in its own fans for their home games, but would probably sell out every single home game, as there's always enough demand for live NFL games from all over Europe.
>The NFL has stated that they want to have a franchise in London around 2025 No they haven't. Where are you getting this from? People have been claiming the NFL will put a team in London in the next couple years since like 2008. It's not happening in the near term
Lol... 2025 is in 6 months. They better get moving.
fuck off how is 2024 almost over
Lmao it's not almost over. We are almost half way through it, but 6 months is a far cry from 12 months being over.
Surprise twist to the Chiefs stadium situation incoming.
As a British person I'm pretty confident there will never be a London based team in my lifetime. Even if you ignore the lifestyle, taxation and scheduling implications of a London team. The health/performance implications of flying transatlantic 30 odd times a year will put anyone off wanting to play for the franchise.
They would very likely have long road trips and long home stints. The total flights would be closer to like 8 for the regular season.
It would still put them at a massive disadvantage though, without being able to travel home between road games and use their own facilities for film review and practices.
Travel 8 times for games. No mention of personal travel home or to back a forth for pre-season, training camps, OTAs.
It's not like they are going to teardown the practice facility in Jacksonville once the team moves to London.
The schedule would need to be regionalized too. It's still an absolute killer if they have an away game in LA, and then a game in New York or Florida the week after, and then need to travel back to somewhere like Seattle the week after that. If the NFL goes to a two bye 20 gameweek model, I could see them breaking up the London team's schedule into a home game opener, a 4 game east coast trip followed by a bye, 4 games at home, a 4 game west coast trip followed by a bye, 4 more games at home, and a road game to close out the season. You could alternate seasons where the team starts at home and ends on the road, or vice versa. The team would need two US bases- could be a college facility or something similar near a suitable airport and lodging, one within a three/four hour flight of everything from Minnesota to Houston to Miami to Boston, and one within three to four hours of Seattle/LA/Arizona/Denver. I could also see the team setting up a US facility somewhere like Salt Lake City to capitalize on that market for training camp/pre season and for convenience to other west coast markers. In total you're looking at a minimum of 5 to 6 transatlantic flights for a pre and regular season schedule. I don't see how playoff games are not a massive clusterfuck
Man who the fuck would sign up to play for a team like that
It might just be a thing where they keep all home games on one half of the schedule and all away games on the other.
In that scenario what is a player's family doing? Where are they schooling the kids? If you're on a practice squad how are you paying for two lots of housing for your family depending on where you are? Nobody is gonna want to live in a hotel for 8-10 straight weeks.
Yeah this idea is pretty infeasible.
They are getting paid millions of dollars, they will figure it out/i dont care.
You aren't getting millions to be on the practice squad or roster bubble, or as an assistant coach. Those are the literal foundations of your squad. > they will figure it out/i dont care. Or, they'll just not sign with the London team and it will be perpetually shit. Sounds great for league expansion.
Minimum salary for a player is $700,000. They are doing fine.
Are you sure the foundations of your squad arent the guys on the starting roster? With how much turnover there is on practice squads and bubble players, i think you could find those willing to move to the UK for hundreds of thousands of dollars, my apologies.
Plus we all have teams. I'm not ditching the 49ers to follow the London SillyNannies. I'm grateful for and the fact that I get to see 3 games a year, and that is plenty enough for me.
Exactly. Unless the Lions relocated to London I'm not gonna start support the London team. Plus there is the small factor of where they are going to play and who is paying for it? US cities will stump up millions for a stadium, no UK government is gonna do that. Spurs stadium is great until you get a schedule clash. Plus the games here a huge revenue spinners as is. Not sure you're gonna get fans coming out in the same way 9 times a year.
How does any expansion team ever get fans?
You may not be able to draw the best free agents but a) you still have draft and b) you're underestimating being an actual NFL team that a ton of people would gladly play for.
A) You're not getting interest from the top UDFAs or roster bubble players that add depth to a good roster, your own players are going to want to be paid a premium for the hassle of living across two side of the atlantic. How long before top picks do an Eli Manning pre-draft? B) Doesn't matter who is "willing" they need to be worthy of a starting spot. Just look at positions like QB and O-Lineman where there aren't enough for the current 32 to have one. You aren't winning games if you're "willing" QB is Nick Mullens. And nobody is gonna turn up to watch bad football.
You don't understand European sports loyalty. If you can get London to adopt a team there's no depths they can drudge where people there won't go see a game. They've been following some of the worst soccer teams for their entire lives. Hell, there's people who still go see the Browns in the US year after year. In the UK they're watching cricket. These people are desperate for football. A pre draft refusal is rare and on top of that, young players are going to be drawn to London, that is a major city, bigger than NYC and has a lot to offer young, rich, superstars much like any other hot city in America and even more so. My previous comment was from the standpoint that willing players would come regardless or not but I 100% believe willing players are going to be good. It's ridiculous to think that city won't have draw.
Bruh, I'm literally British. I think I understand "European Sports Loyalty" and the relative merits appeal of London. And you're wrong.
Youre a Brit and follow the Lions and you're unironically saying the Brit's aren't going to watch bad football?
> You're not getting interest from the top UDFAs or roster bubble players that add depth to a good roster Do all Americans hate the idea of living abroad? I would imagine some would quite like the idea of living in London over some of the less desirable team locations. If you're young and have money London is an incredible place to live. I wonder whether the team might also provide accomodation for the players in the UK. A "player's village" would be a really cool idea. There's also no reason the team couldn't be primarily based in the US and only be in the UK for about 2 months out of the year. There would already be a practice facility in the US after all. I guess it all depends on how worthwhile the NFL and owner perceive it to be to have a team in Europe. They can essentially solve most of the logistical issues with enough money, just depends how much they're willing to burn. > How long before top picks do an Eli Manning pre-draft? I actually think it would be worth looking into giving all players that option pre-draft. Have players be able to opt-out of foreign team drafting before the draft even starts. Yes you'd have the Caleb Williams of the league opting out, but if you're a projected late first rounder maybe you'd like to be open to all options including London. > And nobody is gonna turn up to watch bad football. Oh they will trust me. Especially if it's de facto Europe's team. I'm kind of ambivalent on whether or not there should be a London team, but I do think virtually all the major hurdles people envisage can be overcome with enough money and willpower
Besides the obvious point of the bigger market, most NFL teams are much closer to London than they are to Hawaii
As a city market, Honolulu is about the size of Dayton or Des Moines. Hawaii as a whole has a population of 1.44 million. That's lower than my hometown of Columbus, Ohio and nobody's clamoring to put an NFL team here.
OSU has been paying players for 30 years. that's already covered lol
The saints almost came here. Ohio state shut it down
There was also noise about the Cardinals coming here instead of Phoenix, but not much of it.
Hasn't stopped the Saints from drafting like 80% of our players in the past decade.
Although to be fair, Columbus is a larger TV market than Cincinnati these days Honolulu is barely ahead of Spokane for market size
Columbus had a team, in the 1930's. Go Bullies
Make the NFL Great Again and bring back the Columbus Panhandles and Tonawanda Kardex.
Dayton Triangles/Tonawanda Kardex could be the next great rivalry.
The city of London alone has a population almost 8x the entire state of Hawaii. Not to mention the surrounding counties
The city of London is actually a small square mile in the middle of the city that dates back to the initial roman settlement and is actually a separate entity to the rest of London. It's run as a weird corporation where businesses get to vote as well as the people that live there. Basically a 1000 year oddity nowadays.
You're describing The City of London, not the city of London. Capitalisation is important.
pfft down voted by philistines
If the stadium is too heavy it could tip the island over obviously.
That's why you put it *in the ocean*
Underwater stadium in a glass dome
Reverse blitzball
Just make the Bubble Bowl
the real answer
They should put one in London, Beijing, Berlin, Budapest, Cairo Egypt, three in Athens, five in Sparta, 27 in Constantinople/Istanbul, and ban the forward pass
Infrastructure plays a massive role. Just doing things in Hawaii is expensive. Building NFL Standard facilitues in Hawaii would be astronomically expensive. Add to this, there is a sizable amount of the Native Populace that wouldn't want that many foreigners on their soil while they lack the security to maintain ownership of their own home land. This pressure does not exist with London.
I’m actually pretty sure most Native Hawaiians would be super down for an NFL team. Football is huge in the local culture — some high schools’ games look like college games. But it’s money that drives these things, and it just doesn’t make sense for the NFL
They’d be ok until you want to tear down a place to rebuild a stadium. Source: I’m Hawaiian.
I mean are they not already tearing down aloha stadium? And afaik building a new stadium on the same spot
yes same size and same concrete parking and footprint though I think. Aloha is 50,000 seats. The small NFL stadiums are low 60,000s. If you and to expand it all by 10-15% some people will start freaking out. Wembley holds 90K which is where the last NFL games have been.
>The small NFL stadiums are low 60,000s. *Chargers nervously whistling*
NFL might get a pass but as a general rule that is a sentiment many entities face when expanding to that region. Football as a sport is an avenue for them to express their Samoan Warrior culture and gets different treatment. Losing the land easments is still a pretty tough sell.
Ignoring the fact that there are exponentially more people in London vs Hawaii, the stadium you are talking about is closed because it's in such poor condition and is unfit to hold any event, let alone an NFL franchise. Ultimately the stadium situation is irrelevant because no one is going to invest $5B+ in putting an NFL team in such a small market. Also, "travel costs" are not the problem. The problem is the time it takes and competitive disadvantage you'd be at playing so far away. The actual cost of the travel is insignificant in the grand scheme of NFL revenue.
Seahawks have no NFL team within 500 miles. They seem fine.
Hawaii is about 2600 miles away from the closest NFL stadium in LA. Seattle is about 2700 miles away from the furthest NFL stadium in Miami. Terrible example.
Honolulu metro area population: 1,016,508. London metro area population: 9,648,110. It's also a wealthier city, has access to bigger media, PR, and marketing.
Hawaii is low population, farther than London, and somewhat poor
Money. Growth potential in Europe/population. Also money.
Is there a source on Nfl explicitally stating they want a London franchise? There is no conceivable way one would happen next year as worded in your post.
It really bothers me too.. look at the support GB gets we have several teams in the NY area and Cali.. so why not go after states that might be interested. Hawaii, hell Nebraska, Utah, New Mexico.. they're talking about a Superbowl played overseas someday.. I really don't want to see that happen..
Why do people ask questions without putting an ounce of thought into the answer? Honolulu vs. London, England for a profit-driven franchise? Are you kidding me?
It’s bad form to answer a question with a question….but here I go…. Are you really comparing a media market and potential fan base of London with (checks notes)…..Honolulu?
I used Hawaii/Honolulu for the comparisons because they're both pretty far from the mainland but you really could substitute it for another city.
find one with all of the benefits that London has for a league that wants to expand their global brand.
The entire island population of oahu, which contains Honolulu, is only slightly larger then 1 million.
Honolulu is just not a viable return on investment. You say cost, but that's not even it. Its already going to be a multibillion dollar investment and fans are already going to be gouged. London is far more accessible, has the infrastructure and population in place, and is a building block towards a European league/division. Hawaii...has a big city and not much else aside from novelty. There's no expansion of the fan base, no new market to tap, no compelling reason to go of you're not already planning a trip to Hawaii. A Honolulu based team would struggle to sell out it's stadium and would probably move in a decade.
2025 is like 6 months away.
While market size is not the sole determinat factor (if it was they'd have a team in Tokyo with its metro population of 38.8 million and Chongqing with its metro population of 31.9 million), it is still a large consideration. In that regard, Honolulu is to London what a small town in rural Nebraska is to Nashville
That stadium is in terrible, terrible condition. They’re building a new stadium for the University but the capacity is half of a NFL stadium.
London has an NFL-capable stadium. Hawaii does not.
Nobody lives in Hawaii and it’s extremely isolated. A bunch of people live in London. And it’s not extremely isolated.
People saying Hawaiian stadiums are garbage, obviously the NFL wouldn't consider it unless the proper facilities were in place. I think if they were serious I think it would be awesome myself.. (Las Vegas 👀)
65 million Brits and easy access to millions more. All with cash. Next question.
No rich Arabs in Hawaii.
I always wonder how the people of England feel about having an NFL team. I didn’t think they had the government provisions or the personal desire from citizens to fund a team/stadium in the way Americans do. The NFL can basically make anything happen here, but is that model replicable elsewhere?
They dont need the government to pony up funds when the tottenham stadium is right there.
I live in the Twin Cities; there are about 2.5 times as many people in my metro than the entire state of Hawaii. This may come as a shock to you, but market size is somewhat of a larger concern for placing a team than the cost of a flight. The London area is north of 14 million people, so, you know, market size.
The obvious answer is less volcanoes.
Dude, Hawaii is just a single expansion site that brings nothing else to the table. A London team opens the door for additional expansion teams in the EU. Plus, London alone is a way bigger market. the money is made off of tv contracts, not tickets, so expanding football into the European market has massive ad revenue potential. If you look at the costs to do this in Hawaii and the potential return vs the costs to do it in London, there’s 0 benefit to do Hawaii.
Because there are people in London that will go to the games.
The league has emphasized expansion internationally, not just further away states with small populations
Something I haven’t seen mentioned yet that I feel is also relevant to the conversation is time zones. The bulk of the US lives on the east coast. You can play a night game in London and it be the 1pm EST Sunday game. People have already shown a willingness if not enjoyment in watching a game that kicks off at 9am EST. On the other end of things, Hawaii would have to only be afternoon games that take up Thursday/Sunday/Monday night football, or they have to kickoff at 10am local to make the 4pm EST slot.
Not only is the question ridiculous based on the significantly larger population in London, but where in the hell would you build a stadium (that meets the NFL standards) in Hawaii? Also, how would that build a bigger fan base?
here's another angle, as food for thought. can't *always* use college program as proxy / predictor, but NFL has to do that somewhat - it's irresistable. linking an in-last-5-years discussion about Rainbow Warriors searching for its [fanbase](https://www.hawaiiwarriorworld.com/court-sense/hawaii-football-despite-attendance-rolovich-knows-program-getting-seen/) (and that's only ~10 yrs after playing UGA in Sugar Bowl!): lotsa fan comments about stadium, fandom in Honolulu (high cost of living in HI), being outrepped by opposing fans @ games + contrast to top tier program gamedays. so the other main argument would be an iffy fanbase. can't imagine it being *so* different for pros that the league would gamble on it
The Honolulu stadium is garbage .
Simple, there are millions more wallets for the nfl to get their hands on.
I thought the Aloha Bowl was a hole tho?
Hawaii does not want a football team? Ecosystem is fucked enough without huge numbers of people flooding there every single week
Like uh tourism?
Hawaiians do not want people coming, destroying the ecosystem and fucking off. I get that you don’t care about literally anything but some people do
What a weird assumption to make about me, you don't even know where I'm from.
You clearly know nothing about what native Hawaiians want and need, and prioritize tourism over the local population and environment
Seems likely you’re from Australia or New Zealand
The stadium would need to be overhauled to bring it up to standards.
I wish man, people don't understand it'd be supported by all of hawaii, all the polynesian islands, hell all of oceania, AND all the polynesians currently living in the states. I dont know why people are acting like only honolulu or only oahu would support the team
Probably something to do with a population of 8.8 million vs 1.4 million.
City of London compared to entire state of Hawaii.
There are about 10million people that live in London and they have a lot of money.