The NFL is interested in putting on more games in London, and that's terrific. Only it should be interested in putting on more games in Los Angeles first.
I know, the league wants to tap into markets that aren't oversaturated, and Europe qualifies. Plus, Europe is crazy about football. Except their football is what we call soccer, and, sorry, but everything in London becomes an Avis next to soccer.
But that's not the point. This is: L.A. is the second biggest market in the United States, a metropolitan area that once had two teams, and it should have another. Logic says an existing team moves there, with San Diego the most commonly mentioned, but logic has been telling us that for years.
The hangup? L.A. doesn't have a suitable stadium, which is where London comes in. The NFL annually holds games in Wembley Stadium, and that seems to work ... or, at least, work better than the Rose Bowl or L.A. Coliseum. The NFL wants a new stadium in Los Angeles, but there's none on the horizon. So it cultivates London instead?
Please.
We know London can support a team. Heck, it could support two. The question is: Will it? NFL Europe was a nice idea, except it didn't fly ... and it didn't fly because there was lukewarm support for marginal football. So, let's say Jacksonville moves to London. You think people embrace one of the league's bottom feeders just because the game is a novelty?
Football is part of the fabric of this country. It's not part of anything in London, and I have a hard time believing you win over soccer fans to a sport that is unfamiliar and relatively slow next to soccer. Just because football is a huge success here doesn't mean it becomes a huge success in another world.
That's another way of telling Roger Goodell to go west, young man.
It has been nearly two decades since the L.A. area had pro football, and it's unfathomable to think the NFL isn't there now. But it's more unfathomable to think the NFL seems more interested in London now than it is Los Angeles.
No comments:
Post a Comment