The NFL rumbled into London this weekend for its fifth attempt at educating Britain in the ways of American football. It was the second time I'd missed the game in person, but the first time I'd sat down to watch it on TV. That was a mistake. Before my eyes were all the British stereotypes Americans are fed (and to a large extent believe), but this time for a British audience.
I've been telling myself for a long time that, despite positive vibes from the league, there will never be a franchise in London. After this weekend I'm of the opinion that I should rephrase my belief to read 'a franchise will never work in London'. It appears the NFL is hell bent on forcing the game on Britain in the long run, whether people want it or not. For the first time in the five year history of the International Series, the game at Wembley didn't sell out. But instead of questioning whether continuing with the venture is worthwhile, two games are in the pipeline for next season. How many "tickets still available" games will come and go before the league admits its wrong. It appears to me the league can't even envisage a scenario where people won't be interested. It doesn't do the perception of Americans being arrogant any harm, that's for sure.
Neither did the TV coverage of the game on Sunday do any harm in showing their patronising qualities either. On three separate occasions British fans were treated to Jerome Bettis, Roger Goodell and the Goose bloke on Fox speaking of their pleasure that so many fans 'appeared' to understand the game. If I hadn't been a guest in someone else's home the TV would have been out the window.
I first heard this patronising arrogance last Wednesday on ESPN's Football Today podcast (a damn good listen most of the time). Presenter Ross Tucker, in his usual aggressive tone, wanted to know how anybody could like football more than the American version after going to a game in the flesh. The English guy talking to him spluttered out some non committal answer, before making the bold claim that the NFL had 11 million fans in the UK.
Now, this is clearly wrong, but now many more Americans will believe what the NFL appears to believe. I have a number of mates who are "interested" in American football. And when I say interested, I mean they watch the Super Bowl for half an hour and will talk to me (mainly to humour me) about "some team who play in green and are named after a bird". I like to think I have a wide ranging set of peers, and thus a straw poll of opinions gives me a good idea of where the game is at in Britain.
I have one friend who is as much into the sport as I am. One who watches some games and plays fantasy football. Three others who know the sport exists and don't class it as a less-manly form of rugby, and then a whole host of others who think it is a less-manly form of rugby (which it blatantly isn't, but to them the helmets and body armour tell a different story).
A legitimate argument flagged up as a potential stumbling block for a British team is fans of the sport in the UK already have teams they support. Although use of the word support is, I believe, questionable.
I've always wondered how anybody who is British can properly "support" a team that plays 3,500 miles away. To me, even with the internet, I find that idea a bit weird. I've followed the sport for a number of years, but I don't have a team. Since moving to DC last year, I follow the Redskins, but I wouldn't really call myself a supporter. Maybe the feeling will come in time. Or maybe I just like hockey and baseball more, as I already feel a truly support both the Capitals and Nationals. To me supporting a sports team is steeped in local pride, and/or family ties. Anything outside of that makes me feel queasy. But that's just me.
Another point has been put to me that the NFL needs to send stars over to the London games to try and create more fans. Although I believe this definitely works when teams sign big name players to galvanise a fan base, if you're a fan already you just want to see a game. If you're not a fan of the NFL you probably don't know any names. Again, going back to my friends as a gage, if I told them Michael Vick was coming to town they'd know he'd been done for dog fighting. They would know he was a sporting star. But they wouldn't know which sport he played. Tom Brady. Peyton Manning. Blank faces all round.
When it comes to sport in the UK, football dominates. Fad sports come and go. A good example of a fad sport taking the UK by relative storm is ice hockey. Although it had a presence in the UK before 1995, it took off big time for about five years after that, with packed out arenas all over the country. It took even less time, just after the turn of the century, for it to drop back into obscurity. NFL Europe came and went too.
Then there are the other sports (sorry, leagues/products) who are trying to increase revenue in Europe and beyond.
I like American football, but this obsession with convincing yourself the sport will take on global significance has to stop (I'm going to start calling it Roger Goodell's search for a legacy). You've been beaten to it by football. Hence why football is called the global game. You can call it soccer all you want (a move at trying to put the sport down) but you're unlikely to see a kid in Africa wearing a Cincinnati Bengals jersey in the near future.
Recent history shows that America likes to try and stamp its mark, or beliefs if you like, on the world. Usually it's through military force or fast food restaurants. It appears now they think sport can be used in the same way. When will the higher echelons of American society learn their lesson. Be happy with what you have, and don't go starting another war that you cannot win.
