I’m surprised no one has commented on this. I’m thinking GB has a a reasonable quantity of fans willing to travel internationally in order to see a game.
I’m not a huge fan of London games in general – I’m maybe 2% more interested in this than any other Packer game.
Brian
They will play at the soccer ground of Tottenham Hotspur (“Spurs”), who are a leading English club.
The stadium is pretty new and has two pitches (effectively stacked vertically), one for soccer and one for American football.
The stadium is quite an engineering feat. As mentioned, there are two playing surfaces - a grass pitch for soccer and an artificial turf pitch for American football. When the soccer pitch isn’t being used, it is stored under the parking lot.
Would be more correct to say the grass surface is retracted when the synthetic surface is required. Grass doesn’t grow that well under a parking lot
I hadn’t heard about the Packers playing there, however, I recently ran across this video talking the logistics* of American Football teams playing in Europe as well as the possibility of the NFL adding a team in London.
*I was surprised that the physical size of the players is one of the logistics issues they have to deal with when flying.
Whom would they be playing against? It seems odd for the article to just be talking about the Packers.
Appears undecided
Dates, matchups and kickoff times will be confirmed as part of the full 2022 schedule announcement later this year.
Brian
As this London game will be replacing a home game in Green Bay for the Packers, the opponent will be one of the nine teams which have already been announced for their “home” schedule for 2022:
I suspect that the Packers would have rather the choice to not be one of their NFC North rivals (as those are usually the most popular games on their schedule), so if I had to make a bet on it, it’d be one of the other six teams in the above list.
The league is likely to announce the actual schedule for the season sometime in May.
The article didn’t specifically mention giving up a home game, at least from what I read. I assume they will be the visitor. I can’t see teams like the Packers, Cowboys, Patriots ever giving up a home game.
I read an article that said that there are five NFL teams that will play games outside of the States next season and I thought: “Aren’t you going to need six?”
I think the article was just poorly written.
Here’s how they do it:
This doesn’t appear to be the case. The third paragraph in the article on the Packers’ site, which was linked to in the OP describes this, though it could be clearer:
Last year, it was the AFC teams who got that ninth home game. And, other than the Jaguars (which have a separate arrangement for playing “home” games in London), the two teams which were named in that article – the Packers and the Saints – are both NFC teams.
And, if you look at the link I shared to the Packers’ 2022 opponents, it says:
The league is calling it a “neutral site” game, but it’s pretty clear that, for the Packers (and likely, the Saints, too), it’s coming at the expense of one of their home games.
One team could play twice.
I recall reading that the Packers were resisting giving up a home game for London in part because of their importance to the Green Bay economy on game days. Green Bay is the only team who hasn’t played in London. Even other teams willing to travel to London didn’t want to give up their home game against Green Bay because those games often drew larger than average crowds.
From an SI article on the subject:
The small-market Packers had been reluctant to give up a home game, and opponents were reticent to giving up a home game against the Packers because their fans travel so well.
I think I’m more likely to sprout a 3rd hand or a 3rd eye than to see the Packers give up a home game, but we shall see.
Now the dopey expansion to 17 games finally makes sense to me. No way to get the majority to agree to losing one of their precious 8 home games, but what if when you gave up a home game, you still get your standard 8, at a minimum, always? That was a much easier sell in the owners’ room, I’m sure.
ETA: If it were me, I’d only agree if there were never any divisional games abroad. No way to spin facing a division rival in London instead of home as anything but a lost home game. Ideally it would be one of the two in-conference strength of schedule games since those are lower in the tiebreaker order. All other in-conference games are common games in terms of division standings.
…as opposed to adding two weeks for 18, I mean. Obviously the owners want more games in general. I imagine the pro-18 games faction dismissing the 17 idea as unworkable; that’s an uneven number of home games by definition! “No, think of them as ‘extra’ home games we can spend on foreign soil. Always get your 8 home games, same as the majority of the league every year, and now we can showcase in London and Mexico essentially ‘for free.’”
The SI article that @Tabco linked to has a couple of quotes from Packers president Mark Murphy on it. As has been noted, the Packers have been reluctant to give up a home game at Lambeau, but it sounds like the new CBA gives the league the right to force a team to do so.
The article also explicitly states that the London game will be a home game for the Packers.
FWIW, I was talking with my father on Thursday; he still lives in Green Bay, and he works with a local ticket broker to sell our season tickets every year; said broker also operates a travel agency, and arranges package-deal trips for Packer fans to go to away games.
My dad talked with the broker earlier this week, who told him that they (the broker) already had over 1000 local Packer fans inquiring about travel packages to see the Pack play in London.
Just looked it up: The Packers’ two NFC strength-of-schedule games are @ Bucs and hosting the Rams. So the Rams would be the ideal opponent in terms of fairness. (Tied for second-least meaningful game on both the Packers’ and Rams’ schedule.)
Also, this article in the Green Bay Press-Gazette makes it explicit, as well: