This past weekend, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers hosted my New England Patriots. But instead of the Patriots going to Tampa Bay, they jetted off to London to play in Wembley Stadium. I suppose that is an upgrade.
Now, I am not a fan of the NFL's London-game gimmick, but that is not my biggest concern. I am much more interested in the comment that Patriots owner Robert Kraft made when he was asked about the possibility of the league eventually placing a franchise in the capital of the United Kingdom.
"I really believe it'd be the right thing to do sometime in the next decade," Kraft told the Boston Herald. "There should be a franchise here."
Fair enough, Mr. Kraft. London has brought us some great things — Led Zeppelin, fish and chips and David Beckham. Okay, scratch that last one. But why have an NFL team there? Forget about the crazy traveling logistics that this would entail or the fact that if there were more than a single game in London during the year, the novelty would probably wear off. Instead, think about the problem that has plagued so many other leagues: over-expansion.
Let's start with the NBA. In the last two years, there was talk amongst the league that increasing global popularity should be capitalized upon by putting teams in Europe. There was even discussion in early 2008 outlining five teams being placed there. The NBA saw success in preseason games in which the league's stars were showcased in European cities like London, Barcelona and Berlin just last year, and David Stern was talking about the prospect of putting an NBA team in Europe within the next decade.
That was first mentioned in 2003. Flash forward to the preseason this year. While the Denver Nuggets traveled to Asia and the Utah Jazz and Chicago Bulls met at the O2 Arena in London, the league scaled back its push to expand its overseas market. And, while Stern would like to put a regular season game in London, doing so seems less realistic now than it did years ago.
In fact, instead of expanding, the NBA might have to contract. The Sacramento Kings and Memphis Grizzlies both averaged fewer than 13,000 fans a game last year and are struggling with economic issues. And for the record, that Memphis team originally was the Vancouver Grizzlies, founded in 1995. How'd that expansion attempt go?
Then there is the NHL, where the Phoenix Coyotes already filed for bankruptcy earlier this year. Though the most recent Stanley Cup Finals enjoyed its highest ratings in years (thanks to the star power of Sidney Crosby and the Detroit Red Wings), it is still not the most popular of sports.
In my mind, that is because there are too many teams. Do we really need to see hockey played in Phoenix, Atlanta or Nashville? Too often the prospect of increased league revenue tantalizes commissioners and owners, making them forget about the failures that litter many expansion teams.
The NFL is probably the most popular league in all of pro sports, but that is not a reason to oversaturate the market. It isn't like there are no bad teams out there — witness the Cleveland Browns or St. Louis Rams. And with all the stories of games being blacked out locally, shouldn't the league focus on those places that are not supporting their teams (that's you, Jacksonville) before it starts thinking about conjuring up new franchises?
In addition, hockey and basketball actually have leagues overseas. The NFL might be popular in London on TV, but that is not an indication that a uniquely American sport will be sustainable in a foreign market.
I know it is tempting to globalize football as a product, but the problems that would arise from such a decision would far outweigh any good that could come from it. Anyway, why mess with a good thing?
--
Ethan Landy is a senior majoring in English. He can be reached at Ethan.Landy@tufts.edu
