Column: NFL should give up on efforts to expand overseas

I didn’t watch this past Sunday’s game between the Pittsburgh Steelers and the Minnesota Vikings.

It wasn’t because I was frustrated with Todd Haley’s offense or because it was a meaningless matchup that likely means more to draft stock than it will impact the playoffs.

My reasoning is because the National Football League had the teams play in London, England.

The NFL’s “International Series” has had eight games in total so far — another is scheduled in late October — with seven of those eight taking place in London. The non-London game was in Mexico City.

A frequent  argument is that the four major American sports — football, baseball, hockey and basketball — are competing to be the first to expand overseas and have a team in Europe.

The MLB, NHL and NBA have all held games overseas. All three have a significant amount of foreign players and are playing international games in countries that have leagues of their own.

It’s a different animal for those leagues, though. When the NFL does it, it just feels like shoving a square peg into a round hole.

First, why should Americans send their premier sport overseas to a country that doesn’t appreciate it? In the past, the English fans have done the wave, cheered after every play and made noise when “their” team is on offense, unaware of the game’s rules. And it’s not like Britain has attempted to accommodate American soccer fans. Despite a much better American following for the Barclays Premier League than the NFL has among the British, the United Kingdom has never sent a regular-season match to the United States, let alone one consisting of the league’s premier teams.

Sending B-squads to play exhibition games against Major League Soccer teams doesn’t count. If the NFL is going to continue sending important games across the pond, then the Premier League should have to respond accordingly.

The Steelers’ owners, the Rooney family, were excited to play a game in London. 

I applaud the Steelers for not taking a home game away from Heinz Field. Last week’s game in London counted as a home game for the Vikings, and the Steelers will still play eight regular-season games at Heinz Field.

Steelers fans in Minnesota might not agree with me. The last time the Steelers played in Minnesota was 2005, and the Metrodome was packed with Steelers fans.

Vikings season-ticket holders are upset about losing a game from their home schedule, and Minnesota-based Steelers fans who get to see their team every eight years weren’t too happy, either.

To find an international market that the Steelers, and the NFL, should be looking to play in, we just need to go south of the border.

The seventh-largest city in the world, Mexico City, already has an NFL fan base and one that is listed on the Steelers’ radio affiliates’ website.

If the Steelers take the time to make Spanish radio broadcasts available for Mexican fans, then perhaps they should be looking to reward those fans with a game.

One game was played in Mexico City in 2005 between the Arizona Cardinals and San Francisco 49ers. It drew over 100,000 fans.

So while the much-maligned NFL commissioner will continue to try to force American football down the throats of the British, a devoted fan base will continue to be ignored.

Forget the Mexican fan base. Forget that Mexico City is in the same time zone as nine NFL teams. And forget that it’s the seventh-largest city.

Just look at what NFL Europe, an American football league in Europe from 1991 to 2007, did. League average attendance per game was never more than 26,000. Roger Goodell said the league lost $30 million a year.

The NFL Europe team in London, the London Monarchs, lasted from 1991 to 1998. It was the first team to fold from the league.

Perhaps Goodell just needs to look to the past to realize that London isn’t the place for his type of football.