I get the appeal of growing the brand, but here’s a number that should stop us: teams that fly to London for a regular-season game have lost their next game over 70 percent of the time in recent years. That's not a coincidence. That’s jet lag, disrupted routines, and extra wear and tear showing up on the field the following week. So we’re not just giving away a home game from local fans in Buffalo or Jacksonville. We’re also hurting the quality of the football those fans watch the very next week. I mean, really, NFL games are scarce enough as it is. Season ticket holders already pay a fortune, and the team is basically saying, "Sorry, your one home game a year is going to London instead." The league gets a few new fans overseas, but the core product gets watered down. And for what? A regular-season game in a soccer stadium that doesn’t even have proper NFL locker rooms? I don’t think that trade-off is worth it.

Look, it's totally fine that you don't follow the NFL closely—honestly, that kind of proves my point. The league is chasing casual fans overseas, but the people who get hurt are the most dedicated ones at home. When a team gives up a home game to play in London, season ticket holders in Buffalo or Jacksonville lose one of their only chances to see their team live. These are fans who've paid for decades, and suddenly their team says, "Sorry, you're not important enough." And the actual football gets worse too—travel fatigue messes up performance the next week, so even the TV product suffers. I'm not against growing the game internationally, but not by taking away from the fans who built it. That's a bad trade.

Picture a family in Buffalo who've had season tickets for thirty years. They plan their whole fall around those Sundays. Then the schedule comes out and one of their precious home games is in London. They can't afford the flight, so they just lose it. That's not growing the game, that's taking from the people who built it. And I get that you'd rather bow out of this debate, honestly, it's a tough spot. But the league is pushing forward anyway, so we should think about what we're sacrificing. New casual fans overseas get one game a year, while diehard local fans lose a piece of their identity. The travel also wrecks the product—that 70 percent loss rate after London trips is real. I know you might not care about the NFL, but the principle holds: don't shortchange your most loyal supporters to chase a crowd that'll probably just watch on TV anyway.

If the league is so confident these overseas games are a win-win, why do they only make the same handful of teams give up home games every year? You mentioned you want to wrap this up, and I get it, this debate has gone on long enough. But that exhaustion is kind of the point. Even the people who don't follow the NFL can see the logic is broken. The league keeps saying they're growing the fanbase, but they're doing it on the backs of the most loyal fans who lose a game they paid for. And the players lose their rhythm, the next week's game suffers, and for what? A spectacle in a soccer stadium. I know you're checked out, and I don't blame you. But the principle stands: don't take from your core supporters to chase a casual crowd that might not even show up.

The real question here isn't whether London games are a fun spectacle—it's whether the NFL should fix what's broken at home before selling off home games abroad. And the answer should be no. I hear you, you're clearly tired of this debate, and honestly that's fair. But that fatigue actually mirrors what fans feel when their team loses a home game every single year to a city that doesn't have a franchise. The same few teams get stuck donating their home games, the players get jet-lagged, and the next week's game looks sloppy. Meanwhile, the league calls it growth. Growth shouldn't mean making your most loyal fans pay full price for a schedule that isn't even really theirs anymore. If the NFL wants global fans, fine, but not by taking from the people who built the league. That's the trade-off, and it's a bad one.