The National (Football League) Stadium

[ursus arctos]

Gate receipts account for only 22 percent of NFL revenue.

As Reed notes, this is much more about "growing the brand" than about filling Wembley.

[Janik]

And year in, year out?

To be fair to the NFL, they are building up to it slowly. Initially they had one game a year. Interest stayed high, with matches still sell-outs and lots of repeat spectators. That is important, as if it was people showing up just once out of curiosity then it's going to die off. Then they went to two games, and likewise. Then three. Again, there is no evidence that they have hit the interest celling as yet.

[Janik]

This YouGov survey of British opinion (dating from January this year) ought to be a concern for them, though:-

[Levin]

This is purely anecdotal but it feels like lots of American fans have been making the trips to London. See your team play, spend a couple of days in London. Would that change much of it was just away fans travelling to a London team?

[Ray de Galles]

Not sure what that survey really means in terms of Gridiron being a viable sport over here really.

Some of the sports at the top of "Boring" table are in rude health, at least economically, (golf, cricket, darts) and some of the ones at the bottom are very niche (rugby league, swimming, gymnastics) while athletics, much as I love it, is in the middle of a major global credibility problem and rarely pulls significant crowds outside of all but the pinnacle of it's events.

[Ray de Galles]

Speaking as possibly the only person here who regularly attends the London NFL games ( I usually do one a season) I think there is a good chance that a team based here could be viable in terms of ticket sales. There are certainly a lot of US fans who travel over specifically to see their team but I get the sense it's a pretty low percentage of the overall attendance. Obviously such fans of more teams would get the chance to make the trip as away supporters if there was a full season's set of fixtures held here.

The vast amount of people attending seem to be British/European (I encountered three separate sets of German fans yesterday) and I think a London/British side (how narrowly you draw their "home" is one issue) would attract them even if it's a second side to an established NFL team for many. Long term the problem may come from making sure the team doesn't have long periods of relative failure though, the roots of support wouldn't be deep and broad enough to sustain a "losing franchise". You'd also ideally want younger fans to grow up identifying with the team in terms of properly supporting them from the beginning rather than adopting them later in life as a second side.

But, as Ursus says, ticket sales are only one factor and nowhere near the decisive one - as the LA Chargers situation described upthread proves.

[Janik]

It was in response to ua's suggestion that a primary motivation is growing the brand. The ground might be quite stony for that if those who have watched it on TV (which was the criteria of the survey) are having their opinions accurately reflected.
Given the way the question was structure, some the niche sports will get decent numbers precisely because of that status - they are easier to avoid, so those who might be bored by them being on TV have never had to endure it. American Football is also quite niche in Britain so ought to benefit from that self-selection. But it doesn't appear to do so.

The 'boring' numbers for Football seem relatively low to me.

[Ray de Galles]

I get your point, though the "on TV" issue wasn't clear in the original post.

The sport seems to be relatively prominent in UK TV schedules nowadays - I wonder what ratings are like?

[Patrick Thistle]

I think that Yougov survey is irrelevant. Or to put it another way, American football is going to be as popular as cricket and darts (two massively covered sports, with die hard fans and enough money in the game to fund lucrative prize pots) and far more popular than golf (which attracts hundreds of people to stand out in the wind and rain watching people walking around pulling little trolleys). Even if the survey was absolutely dead on, 18% of 60 million people is over 10 million possible fans. That's enough to support a sport.

I think the problem is what Ray identified - who is going to support the London Bearskins, or whatever awful name they end up having. That would put me off because, um, I don't live in London. A Great Britain team is too vague. An England team would sound awful and alienate a few people. There's a lot of branding brainstorming to be done to actually develop a London-based team that appeals to enough people. (the Old World Warriors might work - and appeal to continental Europeans as well)

[San Bernardhinault]

This is purely anecdotal but it feels like lots of American fans have been making the trips to London. See your team play, spend a couple of days in London. Would that change much of it was just away fans travelling to a London team?

I doubt it. It's the same model that Las Vegas seems to be planning for the Raiders. Nobody expects there to be many Raiders fans from Vegas, but they're going to fill the stadium with people who'll use a game as an anchor for a long weekend.

[Ray de Galles]

This is an interesting and possibly significant fact, this season "a record 47,000 hardcore fans have bought a season ticket to all three London games."

[Janik]

I think the problem is what Ray identified - who is going to support the London Bearskins, or whatever awful name they end up having.

The NFL have consistently employed locals who understand British sporting culture in this. They will need to, as the anti-London feeling is otherwise going to be a nasty surprise for them.
As for the name, I've always assumed they would revive the old Monarchs brand. Unlike the NY Cosmos (a similar situation in a different sport) there are no rights issues with the name - the NFL owned it as part latterly of NFL Europe.
BTW, on a tangent, I recently discovered that Old Dominion University's sports teams are branded the Monarchs. Or at least the male ones. Most* of the female teams play under the title of the 'Lady Monarchs'. Which is just weird, Monarch is not a gendered word.
* - most, but not all. I'm pleased to see the Field Hockey side are just plain Monarchs. They have also won 9 of the 10 NCAA national titles that particular Uni has claimed.

[Ray de Galles]

I can't see them going anywhere near the Monarchs name given it petered out in failure. That team was a salient lesson in the problems of what territory to pitch the team at, given it spent time as both the London and England Monarchs.

Is the kind of Yankophile Brit who is really in to NFL is going to be the kind of person who objects to a London side? If you're already hooked on a US sport are you going to be so parochial as to object if it's based in and named after London?

[ursus arctos]

The "Lady" nonsense is quite common here, particularly in the South. And it is often applied to non-gendered nicknames, with the University of Tennessee's "Lady Vols" (for Volunteers) being a prominent example. While there are a number of schools that have abandoned the practice, I'm afraid that in ODU's case, the difference Janik notes is attributable to the fact that the women's team is the only one the university fields in the sport.

Ray's evocation of the traveling Continental support is important to the NFL's thinking here. The league believes that it has learned its lesson from the failure of the World League of American Football and NFL Europe, and therefore is not particularly interested in having multiple European franchises (which allow multiply the non-insignificant logistic issues). Instead, it sees London as the best bet for a "flagpole" European club that will attract interest not just locally, but nationally and from the Continent. Just as with the tens of millions of fans in this country, those fans aren't expected to attend games regularly (or at all). Instead they are expected to drive television ratings and merchandise sales. When you are looking at Europe as the market, a "niche" sport still has a potential audience in the millions. I'm also certain that the NFL is highly interested in the British and European gambling markets as a source of both revenue and know-how as the shackles on legal sports betting over here begin to loosen.

And I'm with Ray on the name. It will be London and it won't be Monarchs.

[Patrick Thistle]

Is the kind of Yankophile Brit who is really in to NFL is going to be the kind of person who objects to a London side? If you're already hooked on a US sport are you going to be so parochial as to object if it's based in and names after London?

But they all already have teams. It's like with MLB. I don't support a British baseball team. If the London 2019 series eventually spawns a London team, I'm not going to jack in supporting my current team. Likewise my pal who is a Buccaneers fan isn't just going to switch.

As Janik said there is an anti-London feeling. They might get round that as the Wembley Wizards or something.

[ursus arctos]

That's what all of the Dodger and Giant fans in New York said.

[Ray de Galles]

But they all already have teams. It's like with MLB. I don't support a British baseball team. If the London 2019 series eventually spawns a London team, I'm not going to jack in supporting my current team. Likewise my pal who is a Buccaneers fan isn't just going to switch.

I've addressed that upthread. I would see "diehard" British fans of a current NFL franchise adopt London as their second side and/or coming along when their main team is the visitor. Already when you go to the London games there are jerseys and hats of EVERY other NFL side because people just want to see the sport in London and I think that would continue with a season's worth of games.

The change may come with an audience like me who doesn't strongly identify with any current NFL side even though I've seen a dozen or so in London and attended a Jets home game in the US or like my 11 year old son who would potentially grow up identifying with a London side from the off.

As Janik said there is an anti-London feeling. They might get round that as the Wembley Wizards or something.

I'm sure there'll be some but it will be completely insignificant in the scheme of things. You might be the most Yorkshire of Yorkshiremen but if you're a died-in-the-wool fan of the NFL then you've clearly already drunk the Kool-Aid and managed to get past any deep-seated regional loyalty or you'd be watching the bloody Batley Bulldogs or whatever exclusively instead.

[Hot Pepsi]

The NFL have consistently employed locals who understand British sporting culture in this. They will need to, as the anti-London feeling is otherwise going to be a nasty surprise for them.
As for the name, I've always assumed they would revive the old Monarchs brand. Unlike the NY Cosmos (a similar situation in a different sport) there are no rights issues with the name - the NFL owned it as part latterly of NFL Europe.
BTW, on a tangent, I recently discovered that Old Dominion University's sports teams are branded the Monarchs. Or at least the male ones. Most* of the female teams play under the title of the 'Lady Monarchs'. Which is just weird, Monarch is not a gendered word.
* - most, but not all. I'm pleased to see the Field Hockey side are just plain Monarchs. They have also won 9 of the 10 NCAA national titles that particular Uni has claimed.

Perhaps they’ll be called the Europe something or others. That would be ironic post-Brexit.






Old Dominion started as the Norfolk branch of William & Mary, my alma Mater. That’s why they chose “Monarchs.” I wish W&M had picked that when we had the chance.

They go with Lady Monarchs to distinguish the women’s team - usually basketball - from the more established men’s equivalent. A lot of schools have traditionally used “lady”-whatever that way, though it’s usually falling out of favor except in the case of a few teams that have especially strong traditions like the Tennessee Lady Vols.

There is no men’s field hockey here so there’d be no need to call their field hockey team “lady” anything. And indeed ODU had a stretch of dominance in that sport for reasons I don’t know. ODU is a not especially prestigious school in a relatively dangerous part of Norfolk, which isn’t an especially interesting place. I have no idea how they recruited great field hockey players there given that it’s a mostly eastern - especially around Philadelphia - prep-school sort of sport here.

[Patrick Thistle]

That's what all of the Dodger and Giant fans in New York said.

Who did people in LA and San Francisco support before they moved?

[ursus arctos]

The Los Angeles Angels, Hollywood Stars and San Francisco Seals of the Pacific Coast League, each of which had been there for decades and disappeared as soon as the MLB clubs announced their move.

[Janik]

They go with Lady Monarchs to distinguish the women’s team - usually basketball - from the more established men’s equivalent. A lot of schools have traditionally used “lady”-whatever that way, though it’s usually falling out of favor except in the case of a few teams that have especially strong traditions like the Tennessee Lady Vols.

The issue being that that assumes the male team is the default. Yes, there is (sometimes) a need to distinguish between, say, the Men's and Women's Basketball teams of an institution if that isn't clear in context. If ODU were to do that by calling their male teams the Gentleman and the female ones the Lady Monarchs, well, weird, but not problematic in the same way.

There is no men’s field hockey here so there’d be no need to call their field hockey team “lady” anything. And indeed ODU had a stretch of dominance in that sport for reasons I don’t know. ODU is a not especially prestigious school in a relatively dangerous part of Norfolk, which isn’t an especially interesting place. I have no idea how they recruited great field hockey players there given that it’s a mostly eastern - especially around Philadelphia - prep-school sort of sport here.

Their (women's) Lacrosse team are also unadorned Monarchs according to Wikipedia. But presumably they have never fielded a Men's version of that, hence the choice. As for why the field Hockey players have done so well, in a niche sport it's normally one great coach. That would be my assumption.

[Bored Of Education]

This is an interesting and possibly significant fact, this season "a record 47,000 hardcore fans have bought a season ticket to all three London games."

Was in London yesterday and what I noticed from my anecdotal observations was that all NFL teams appeared to be represented in jersey form.

[ad hoc]

To be honest this is a bit like rugby league on challenge Cup final day.

[Ray de Galles]

That was a comparison I was tempted to make - but even more so. Is League’s Cup Final still a “gathering of the clans” for fans of all clubs, I thought attendances might have dipped recently?

[Patrick Thistle]

The Los Angeles Angels, Hollywood Stars and San Francisco Seals of the Pacific Coast League, each of which had been there for decades and disappeared as soon as the MLB clubs announced their move.

Are the current Angels not the same team?