Several comments here: 1. NFL already has 32 teams. 2. I feel like the NFL would play at Tottenham Hotspur Stadium instead of Wembley if they ever expanded to London. As for Dublin, probably Aviva Stadium instead of Croke Park. 3. Scotland is not a city in England. Edinburgh is a city in Scotland, which is a country in the UK (basically a country within a country). 4. Oakland would never support another team of their own. 5. Columbus and Austin have very similar situations, in which their college football teams (Buckeyes and Longhorns respectively) are too big for the NFL to compete with. Give the NFL to San Antonio instead and just leave Ohio with Cleveland and Cincinnati.
Also, both Columbus and Austin have MLS teams. While their fanbases aren't monstrous they're still very loyal, specially Columbus Crew's ones. Edit: If MLS allows the Bay area to have a second team Oakland has a tiny chance. However, the Roots (or whatever the group would be) must find new investors.
@@ralphmtsu That fanbase also came from the team's previous incarnation from USL (the main minor league in the past), where the team was good for the series. The team suffered the "promotion" to the MLS, they were dreadfully last in their conference for at least the first two seasons. Now they're in a better place.
The same with Salt Lake City and Brigham Young University, so either a San Antonio or San Diego team would work. However, if there were any teams to place outside of the US, I would have to go with Toronto, with the caveat being that a future NFL team in Toronto, if they're playing against an AFC West or NFC West team, must play said games at the BC Palace in Vancouver (which is a domed facility and the home of the CFL's BC Lions).
@@rwboa22 The difference with that is that BYU is in Provo, which while is in the same media market and CSA as Salt Lake City, would probably not harm the NFL as much as UT would in Austin or Ohio State in Columbus, even though SLC already has the University of Utah there. Although I would also take the capacity of the stadiums into account. UT and Ohio State’s stadiums seat over 100,000, while the stadiums at U of U and BYU are in the 40-50,000 range.
This channels bread & butter is content relating to Stadiums (which was great) but it seems like the guy is running out of things to talk about within that. The political vids arent working, neither are the retro cell phone vids and you even milked the imploded sub tragedy like others did.
Scotland is a country in the same manner every state in the US is a country. They aren't. It's a fluff, meaningless title. The country is the sovereign, and the sovereign is the United Kingdom.
@@apferrandoit’s still not in England. That’s like saying Pennsylvania, New York could get a team, because Pennsylvania has two good sized cities and they could both represent New York
I don’t think Austin/UT will allow it to be there. San Antonio is a proven market. I lived in Austin, it’s a baseball city. So, it’ll make sense to give them an MLB team and San Antonio a NFL team. But i also see an “Arlington” situation where you build an MLB and NFL stadium in San Marcos Texas and attract both cities.
San Marcos is already a college town itself. New Braunfels would probably be a better location if they want something right in the middle, although I'd prefer just renovating the Alamodome for NFL.
Wait... The NFL has 32 teams so the league would need to add eight teams to make 40. If the NFL were to do that... And Looking at the map. It would be cool if some of the divisions and conferences got realigned. 9ers Raiders Chargers Rams Cardinals Are all right there and make up 5 teams. They all have history with each other. Oregon could def use a team. So could Utah and Idaho. At that to Seattle and Denver that's the north west division. That's 10 teams right there. Plus the other 25 so we would need another 5 teams. OKC is one. Alabama would be two. Texas could use a 3rd team since CA and Florida has 3 teams. We could always throw a team in St Louis as #4. And either Iowa or Nebraska as the 40th team. 😊
First off, the NFL currently has 32 teams. It is not a 30 team league. Second, Jerry Jones would NEVER allow Austin to get a franchise. That is Cowboys country, and I believe NFL owners can veto a city that encroaches on their territory. Austin is less than 3 hours from Dallas. Columbus would also not get a franchise. Cincy is 90 minutes to the South and Cleveland is 2 hours to the North. Pittsburgh is 3 hours to the East and Indy is 3 hours to the West. It is well known that Columbus supports both the Bengals and the Browns heavily, and of course, it is Buckeye Central. No way Columbus gets an NFL franchise. They probably don't want one. Other cities that should be considered-- Birmingham, Memphis and Orlando. Each could easily support an NFL team.
NFL charter establishes 'Territory' as 75 miles. Jerry Jones, an 80 year old man, would have 1 vote and would need 8 more to prevent Austin/San Antonio. He'd struggle to get to 3. Columbus could also get a team, but likely wouldn't because Ohio has questionable stadium track record and I doubt the NFL risks that with 3 teams.
I think the league sucks at 32 teams, 40 would destroy it. The level of play is falling every year. The league is going toil itself. It will be a shame.
Oh, how soon people forget! The NFL had NFL Europe which lasted 13 years, but lost millions of dollars. People overseas are not interested in U.S. football outside of the Super Bowl. Just a taste, not the whole thing. It's like MLB in Florida. Spring Training had great attendance and was enough for Floridians. Then the league put 2 teams in Florida, and they haven't drawn big crowds even when those teams were good. People overseas enjoy their "football" (soccer), not American football.
The city of St. Louis is owed a team and there should be no expansion unless St. Louis is announced as the 1st team. The NFL.conspired with the Rams to move them to L.A., so, yes St. Louis is owed by the NFL.
If it goes to 32, the markets are most likely portland, san antonio, san diego, and maybe a flyer on albuquerque. At 40 teams, we are running out of high population markets that don't already have a nfl team in close proximity. I don't think another texas team makes sense, or another tennesee team in memphis. I would go st. louis, salt lake city, oklahoma city and maybe a flyer on somewhere in alabama/mississippi. I tried to spread out the markets to help with realignment and reduce travel for especially seattle but other west coast teams as well.
St. Louis, Memphis, Portland, and Birmingham, are better options than Austin, TX or Columbus, OH. As long as Jerry's living there will never be a 3rd NFL franchise in the state of Texas.
So many errors ... Scotland is not England and the city is Edimburgh. In London the stadium is Wembley and not Wimbley. In Dublin, it is Croke Park and not Choke Park. And forget about using this stadium for the NFL because the owner reserves it for Gaelic sports and just made an exception during the Lansdowne Road stadium destruction - Aviva Stadium construction. Last point about Ireland, main sports are Gaelic sport, then rugby and then football-soccer ... no place for the moment for American football. And last, city in Canada is Toronto and not Tornoto 😅
Austin is a very liberal metropolition city food, culture etc but really not a sports loving city but personally I think San Antonio would ultimately be the bettter choice.
I think that u r confusing NFL cities with NFL teams, there are 30 NFL cities, but there are 32 NFL TEAMS! Since ny and La both have 2 teams in their cities.
What if the London team played the first half of its games at home and then went on the road for the second half of its games, or vice-versa? They could use some college stadium in the middle of the U.S. as their practice facility while on the road. Or they could split the season into quarters -- play 4 or 5 games at home and then go on the road for 4 or 5 games. Also, there is some talk reviving commercial Concorde flights by the end of this decade, which would cut the flight time to 3 1/2 hours.
Toronto is a problem. The Canadian govt supports the CFL including at times financially. I believe the Canadian govt would block NFL expansion to Canada. Especially Toronto which has a CFL team. Yes, I think Austin would be great. However, Austin is close to Dallas and Houston. I believe Jerry Jones would try to block a team near his Cowboys. I also believe the reason that San Antonio is not in the NFL.
I think maybe 36 teams would be the absolute most that the league could expand to, but even that I don’t think would happen. This could go one of two ways, either a European division does get created between teams based in London, Dublin, Berlin/Munich/Frankfurt (one of those 3 German cities) and as the 4th team could be based in either Paris, Rome, or Madrid. However, I think the 4 new teams would stay in the United States. Those 4 cities I believe would be Portland, Austin, Salt Lake City, and San Diego.
What if the NFL added four CFL teams, and had CFL-regulation fields used for their home games? Of course, that would never happen, but I like the idea.
Toronto is never getting NFL. And this viewpoint isn't cuz I hate TO. I think they should have had their CFL team fold years ago. They're a joke to the league. The CFL would do just fine without a team in the big smoke. they Prob could support a NFL team even tho NFL football isn't a way of life up here lie it is in the states. But the TO or Ontario Gov will NEVER finance a USD $2B stadium and I cant see some owner paying for it himself. That the stadium is mega issue number 1. Also the country would NEVER back a Toronto team. That shows you don't know Shat about Canada when you always say the whole country always backs Toronto's team as the countries team in MLB or NBA. Ppl in BC are hard core Seahawks fans. Ppl in Manitoba are Viking or Green Bay fans, They would NEVER cheer for a Toronto team.
There are so many spelling mistakes in this video it's makes me wonder how much research you did. it's WEMBLEY stadium, not Wimbley. TORONTO is the correct spelling, not Tornoto. It's not Scotland, ENG. England is a separate country in the UK. It's Scotland, UK.
The NFL in Europe has to implement a limit of foreign players, the FIFA rules. 40 of those players would have to be born in their country, and they would have to pay way more for practice squad salaries for players to go overseas, and 2 year guarantee contracts with more signing bonus money would probably work.
Actually, England is a county-- technically a Kingdom. It is one of the 4 countries that make up the United Kingdom-- England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The official name of the U.K. is the United Kingdom of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
In my opinion adding two new divisions should be like this. The NFC should get a European division with London (Monarchs), Munich (Boars), Manchester (Devils) and Frankfurt (Galaxy). and the AFC getting teams in St.Louis (River otters), San Diego (Dreadnoughts), San Jose (Silverbacks) and Austin (Wildcatters). With a new division realignment looking like this AFC East: New England, Buffalo, New York, Baltimore AFC North: Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Indianapolis AFC South: Jacksonville, Miami, St.Louis, Tennessee AFC Central: Houston, Kansas City, Denver, Austin AFC West: Las Vegas, San Diego, Los Angeles, San Jose.
Portland Jacks(Lumberjacks) instead of San Jose Silverbacks... Look at the map huge void there... And Salt Lake City instead of St. Louis to fill the void
Before I expand to 40 I would move two teams. Chargers back to San Diego. Raiders back to Oakland. The 8 teams I would add... Austin Renegades to the AFC South with a black and red scheme and a cowboy hat logo. Portland Pouncers to the AFC West with a black and tan scheme and a cheetah logo Memphis Monarchs to the AFC East with a purple and gold scheme and a crown logo. Salt Lake City Racers to the NFC West with a black and white checker scheme. Las Vegas Rollers to the AFC North with a red yellow and black scheme with a flaming snake eyes dice logo with skulls in the one pip. St Louis Warriors to the NFC South with a silver and red scheme and a tomahawk logo. Des Moines Thrashers to the NFC North with a silver and red scheme and a screaming logo. Brimingham Brigands to the NFC East with a blue and black scheme and a menacing pirate grin logo with red eyes.
i don't think Columbus and Austin will work mainly because they already have a huge college football teams in those cities (Ohio State and University of Texas). I think Portland, San Antonio and St. Louis are better choices
My eight in no particular order (North America only) San Diego (new stadium pending) Oakland (new stadium pending) St. Louis (new stadium pending) Toronto Portland Austin Mexico City San Antonio My eight European cities London Dublin Glasgow Munich Frankfurt Paris Madrid Rome
Scotland England? Scotland is not a city in England, you probably mean Edinburgh in Scotland. Also adding 10 teams? There is already 32 teams so that would put it at 42.
Forget Europe. It has to be San Diego, San Antonio, Orlando and Sacramento. Portland, OR is big enough, but I can't imagine them supporting a football team.
I follow the Packers but I live in Ohio just 45 minutes from Columbus you forgot to mention they have the crew but I don't know if a team would work out there because Columbus is pretty much split three or four ways you got browns to the north Bangles to the south Steelers to the East Indian occasionally you get the colts fans showing up in there so Columbus is pretty much split right now but if Columbus had a team I'd probably stick with the Packers but I probably be watching them just to be curious
Years ago, at the height of Nebraska college football's dominance, I heard someone speculate that they could get an NFL franchise and one idea would be to build a stadium somewhere between Omaha and Lincoln, that way they could maximize the fan numbers (the cities are only about an hour away from each other). Problem with some new teams added would be that you would be having some in close range to some others. My suggestions would be:New locales; San Antonio (they already have the stadium ready to go), Orlando (same), Nebraska (see above), Austin, Memphis. Cities that have had teams that could host again; San Diego, Oakland, St. Louis. I have 8 teams for the 8 divisions. I think they would have to re-align again (sorry Dallas, but you really don't belong in the East, and Miami shouldn't be with 3 teams in the far NE part of the country).
1:31 that would be impossible because not even soccer teams are allowed to have play their home games at wembley and spurs stadium already has a team and they wouldn’t let any other teams espacially from a different sports play there.
