No London, You're Not Getting a Super Bowl

The next three Super Bowls will be in Arizona, Las Vegas and New Orleans.  (So, I guess congratulations Cardinals, Raiders and Saints on your championships?)  The next one available is Super Bowl LX in February 2026.  They should announce the location of that game soon, but I do know one place it won't be played.  London.

London has, of course, been hosting multiple NFL games per season for a decade now.  They've also made no secret of their desire to host more events, including potentially a Super Bowl.  Which is an idea the NFL hasn't completely shut down yet.  No matter how dumb and impractical it is.

Let's start with the most obvious reason why a Super Bowl in London would make no sense--the time difference!  London is five hours ahead of the East Coast.  The Super Bowl starts at 6:30 pm Eastern!  That's 11:30 pm in London!  On a Sunday night!  Not happening!  Likewise, to have the game at a more convenient time for Londoners would push it into the early afternoon Eastern time (and the morning on the West Coast).  That ain't happening either!

Now let's move on to the travel aspect.  London is far.  An ocean away.  The closest team to London is the Patriots, who play 3,275 miles away.  That's roughly the same distance from Seattle to Miami, which is the farthest distance between teams in the NFL.  So, the closest team to London is the same distance as the farthest between any two teams in the league.

It's obviously a much longer trip for any other team to get there.  Seattle is 4,800 miles from London.  And that's actually closer than the other West Coast cities.  San Francisco is 5,360 miles.  Los Angeles is 5,447.  Las Vegas is 5,227.  Phoenix is 5,276.  So, any West Coast team would be at an incredible disadvantage for a Super Bowl in London.  Not just because of the flight, but because their bodies will think it's eight hours earlier than it actually is!

Then there are the fans of the participating teams to think about.  Going to the Super Bowl is an expensive undertaking regardless of where the game is played.  Between the game tickets, the flight and the hotel, it's gonna cost you a few thousand dollars at the minimum to travel to one.  It might be a little less if you live close enough to drive or you can get a cheap flight the morning of the game, but you're still looking at a couple grand no matter what.

If the game were in London, however, that minimum is probably closer to $4,000-5,000.  The cheap options go out the window, and so does the ability to slip in and out on the day of the game.  Of course, the NFL probably doesn't necessarily consider that a bad thing.  They probably want people in the host city spending money and enjoying the Super Bowl Week festivities as long as possible.  But with London they wouldn't have a choice.

Of course, that wouldn't stop fans of the participating teams from going.  They won't want to miss their team playing in the Super Bowl, regardless of cost.  There were plenty of Bengals fans who made their way to Los Angeles last month for Cincinnati's first Super Bowl appearance in 33 years.  But going from Cincinnati to LA is far different than going from Cincinnati to London.

I know what you're thinking.  "The NFL has London games every year and the fans go to those."  The difference is those teams know they're going to London well in advance.  Packers, Saints and Jaguars fans are probably already planning their trips.  Which they can do when they find out in March they'll be playing there in October.  Finding out two weeks in advance is far different.  Especially for a trip that's gonna require more than a few days.

There's also the whole idea that the Super Bowl is the biggest event in AMERICAN sports.  Why would you take the biggest event in American sports and put it in a foreign country?  Football is also THE American sport.  (It's called AMERICAN football everywhere else for crying out loud!)  Super Bowl Sunday is kinda like the Fourth of July.  A purely American holiday.  Why would you take that away?  For what?  The Super Bowl and the Final Four are the two purely American events that you shouldn't ever even consider playing anywere else!

Since we're talking about London here, let's put it in their terms.  Would you ever consider playing the FA Cup Final anywhere else?  The thought of even playing it outside of Wembley Stadium is blasphemous to some.  Likewise, would there be any wisdom in taking the Champions League Final, the biggest event in European soccer, and playing it at MetLife Stadium just to "increase its international reach?"  Of course not!  (And if it were in New York, they'd play it in the middle of the afternoon to accommodate European television, which is not ideal for the players.)

And, frankly, the Super Bowl has plenty of international reach as it is.  It's already broadcast in more than 80 countries, which show the game live at not-so-convenient times.  So, it's not like having the game in London is gonna suddenly bring in more international viewers!  All it would do is make it easier for people in Europe to attend the game...at the expense of NFL fans who actually live in the home markets of the participating teams!

We're also seeing that renewed push for the franchise in London, which makes just as much sense as a London Super Bowl (meaning none).  For starters, there's 32 teams, a nice even number.  They're not adding one!  And, among the many other problems, a permanent London team would never be able to play at home on Sunday or Monday night.  Just imagine if they qualified for the playoffs, too!  It would be a logistical nightmare!

Fortunately, I don't see the NFLPA ever signing off on a franchise or Super Bowl in London.  It's a nice idea.  That is, until you start thinking about it and realize how little sense actually it makes.  A Super Bowl in London?  No.  Hard pass!