# Talk:NFL Europe

NFL Europa ist the official new name of the NFLE!
Greets, Gulp 22:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Reference this part of the article and the link that accompanies it NFL Europa. Something about trying to have their own identity while keeping ties with the NFL.   Pharos04 10:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I re-added as best I could about how the NFLE, before last weeks news, had hopes of adding teams and having a playoff system again. I think it's relavent to the page because it shows how unexpected the folding is for most. Kanga-Kucha

I've removed it as it's unsourced. Feel free to re-add it once you have the references to go with it. Thanks. Also, please add new posts to the bottom, not the top. Thanks. - BillCJ 01:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
A

The NFLE had more different rules than those mentioned, I look into find out all the rules that were used, and edit that section later, most likely in a list format. Kanga-Kucha

Why was NFL Europa discontinued in 2007? The attendences seemed pretty healthy, the popularity of American Football is growing in Europe. Perhaps the article could say more about why the league ended, and what is the future for the sport in Europe. Are their any plans for a replacement?

It's explained in the article. Read the article and you'll see why. --Crash Underride 01:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I appreciate that the article says that it was losing the NFL $30 million a year, but it doesn't really explain why. The crowds were good, paticularly in Germany, and the levels of interest and competion seemed to be rising. What I paticularly think the article lacks is information about the future - the qoute from the NFL seems extremely vague on this, as through they are really intending to give up completly on football in Europe, other than hosting the odd regular NFL game there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Cornwallis (talk • contribs) 

If you can find a reliable source or 2 to add such info, then by all means do. But if there isn't anything out there, then we can't add anything. Besides, if it was that popular in Germany, wouldn't the governments (state and/or federal) there have subsidized it to keep it going? ;) - BillCJ (talk) 18:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The league had good crowds for a minor sport but away from the most popular franchises a lot of free tickets had to be given away to attract 10,000 or more spectators. I believe the main reason for its unprofitability was the failure to attract TV stations to back it.
My POV is that NFL made a mistake in shutting it down as $30 million was not much for such a wealthy league. Its one off games in Europe may be more profitable but will not build lasting support. 
12 March 2008 (UTC)
Face it, American football will just never catch on outside the United States. Europeans find it boring and unwatchable-- especially since a foreign league (NFL) imposed it upon them.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.48.241.189 (talk) 21:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC) 

Simply untrue. NFL Europe was the most attended sport in Europe after soccer. --Z Doc (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
$30 million is the cost of two QB's in the NFL at the franchise tag, from the developmental aspect alone it is worth that IMO, one thing that I think they should have done is play near US Military bases and give US military discounts. --75.251.120.234 (talk) 22:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
well... couple of things: first no sport apart from soccer gets any political recognition beyond city level in Germany. Olympic Handball might attract crowds of 10 000 plus at every game and Dirk Nowitzky may be one of the best non-Americans to ever play the game of Basketball... German politicians just don't care. I think the league had one franchise thatworked and that was Frankfurt (maybe working on their own they would have even been profitable) the others could have worked with local (political) support, success on the field and so on. Of course the crowds were good and the whole thing cost the NFL pennies once you come down to it. But Mr Gooddell (or however you spell him, I don't care) just didn't like it because it was the "baby" of his predecessor. There is potential for American Football in Europe. As seen by now four Germans playing NFL (Björn Werner in Indi, Markus Kuhn for the Giants, Kasim Edebali for the saints I think and Sebastian Vollmer for the Pats) and a 30 000 crowd in Vienna for the European Championship final of Germany vs. Austria where Germany beat Austria in double overtime (which was all over the Austrian newspaper the next day, but hardly noticed in Germany, because as I said.... some Germans are stupid and some of them own newspapers and thin sport=soccer) I don't think the London games (that are visited by quite a lot of German fans who see it as the only feasible way to watch a NFL game for less than 1000€ all told) are the feature of the league. I think some minor operation like the AFL or that lingerie league is going to make an entry in Europe draw supprisingly big crowds (if they are smart with placing there franchises in Football towns and not just anywhere... Vienna would be a good idea, London.... not so much) and suddenly the NFL wakes up and decides they always needed a minor league across the pond. How do I know? well if it hadn't been for the 60s AFL there wouldn't be a team south of DC for crying out loud! the NFL always does the right thing once a competing operation with less money to burn has shown them how to do it... and with more than one third of ALL Americans (women, children and blind or senile people included) wathcing the Super Bowl every year, the league will just have to try growing the sport globally... sooner or later... 141.30.210.129 (talk) 21:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Reason the league shutdown was due to the success of the NFL International series, game 1 in Wembley London. That drew so much interest and sold out so quickly that the NFL deemed that a far more profitable alternative. It was the excuse some owners had been looking for all along. The player development part was something the NFL owners had been divided on for years. The operational cost of NFL Europe was $30 million but losses were $10-$20 million a year depending on who you ask. Losses did not take into account the reputation gain and increased attention (and revenue) of NFL teams. Another thing is that Roger Goodell had just taken over office as NFL president and as such may have used this as political leverage within the NFL owners circle. There was an ongoing argument between NFL owners with one side using NFL Europe to the maximum and the other side trying to ignore it as much as possible. An German initiative to keep the league alive was denied for undisclosed reasons (no we don't want you to). --Z Doc (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Do we really need a seperate article for the 1991-1992 version of the World League? It really is the same league, with some of the same teams continuing. The articles have a great deal of redundant info, and could be merged rather easily?oknazevad (talk) 02:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

So if there was ten teams,   and they each played each other team once during the regular season before the playoffs,   then that would be nine games played by each team.   How is there ten ?Eregli bob (talk) 06:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I suspect each team played one other twice, having checked the 1991 WLAF season article quickly. Haven't checked the 1992 WLAF season yet, but the answer should be in those two articles. - Demokra (talk) 01:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, in 1991 there were five "rematch" games, mostly intercontinental or international rather than within the divisions for short travels and tie breaking. Sacramento (3-7) somehow managed to beat Frankfurt (7-3) twice, Barcelona and San Antonio each won at home, London defeated the Knights twice, Montreal has beaten Birmingham twice, and as the only US-US pairing and within the 4 team East division, Orlando helped twice in keeping the Skyhawks winless. Matthead (talk) 19:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

As mentioned, this branding seemed to change over time. But there's a misconception (repeated by Len Pasquarelli) that the original "WLAF" became the "World League" at some point. A rudimentary search suggests the exact opposite.
The 1991-92 US/Canada/Europe league was usually called the shorter name, "World League":  logo on the Wembley field at the '91 World Bowl, this TV ad,/the (US?) football card set, and an official 1992 book. Certainly Americans (having 6 of 10 teams then) wouldn't need the name to explain which sport this was!
But Europeans might, and in the '95-'97 Europe-only league, it appears that the longer name, "World League of American Football", was officially used, even in American TV coverage. See video of the '95 opener '96 World Bowl and a poster for the '97 Bowl. The same logo was used, with either just "World League" or "World League of American Football". I'm yet to find any use of the "WLAF" logo in '91-'92 or the "World League" logo in '95-'97. Demokra (talk) 20:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
I believe the official name was World League of American Football until 1998, but World League was a shorten name that dates back to 1991 see [2] league game balls over the history you can see in 1991 on the ball the term "World League" was used Skippypeanuts (talk) 14:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

UK newspaper The Independent has many, many contemporary 1990s articles online. Naturally slanted towards covering the Monarchs, but could greatly improve this article's range.

Articles mentioning the World League
Articles mentioning NFL Europe/Europa. Demokra (talk) 20:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

"Ex-Tottenham Hotspur striker Clive Allen also kicked for the Monarchs,[37][38] while fellow footballers Jesús Angoy, Manfred Burgsmüller and Silvio Diliberto kicked for the Barcelona Dragons, Rhein Fire and Amsterdam Admirals respectively.[39]" Considering that the game this league played is called football the use of the term "footballer" here is rather confusing.--Khajidha (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Demokra, I'm confused by your claim that the Pro Football Researchers Association isn't reliable. It's generally regarded as exceptionally reliable, if not utterly authoritative for American football history. Moreover, your preferred 2005 source does refer to the IFL as a farm league of the NFL. It notes it is virtually identical to NFL Europe, would have used NFL rules, teams were assigned to NFL divisions, the league was announced by the NFL, and Kap specifically referred to the league as bringing the NFL overseas. Moreover, NFL Europe was unequivocally a minor developmental league, and sources refer to it as such. Yes, it was the largest pro league in Europe, but it was still run by the NFL, operated by the NFL, with players from the NFL, NFL rules, and ultimately was closed by the NFL for not making money for the NFL. Toa Nidhiki05 14:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

No. The Intercontinental Football League, Inc. company (p1) was separate from the NFL and was headquartered in Dallas (p4). The six team franchises were sold by Kap in 1973 (p2), many months before the NFL was invited to be involved.
The IFL's pitch to the NFL (in June 1974) was co-sponsored by the West German Adalbert Wetzel, who you've removed from the article.
The IFL sold franchises to investors in Europe as early as February 1973 (p4) – well over a year before its first meeting with the NFL.
The initiative came from outside of the NFL. Later the NFL became heavily involved, provided most personnel and naturally held power over the IFL, but there's no sign that it ever took over the smaller company. Even without being owner, the NFL was clearly the best placed to be the public face of the IFL (e.g. the 1974 announcement of teams).
"'Origins of the WLAF' (1992) is a poor source on the IFL" (if you care to quote people correctly), because its research is lacking – it's only half a page on that, and maybe understandably, the author didn't have available the PFRA research from 2005, which was introduced as "new" research undertaken in America and Europe.
The 1992 author made the same error of assuming that the 1974 public announcement at NFL HQ was the start of the story, and that the IFL was created and owned by the NFL just like the WLAF.
Even if the NFL had owned the IFL and its teams in the '70s, it was a completely different league and teams from the WLAF in the '90s. It's a separate but related topic, as the American Bowls are.
In any case, these errors are nowhere near the article's biggest issue.
Adding information is fine if it's relevant, and you've put in some OK content on NFL boardroom matters. But the section on the league's founding is now longer in word count than the history sections about the league from 1991 to 2007!
You made contentious changes, removed many references including contemporary ones, added errors in multiple sections, and you deleted significant amounts of the article, mainly relating to the history of the actual WLAF/NFLE league, which is inarguably a central part of this article. This is now lost and will take ages to restore.
Will you have a problem with that content being re-added?  Demokra (talk) 07:27, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
You don't seem to have reliable sources to back up your claims. All sources indicate the IFL was a pet project of the NFL, as I've mentioned above. Unless you have reliable sources to disprove what the PFRA says, what you are arguing for simply isn't backed up. The extensive coverage of the IFL and 1980s football are vital to understanding why the NFL initially was interested in European expansion, and why they opted to do so in the 1990s with the WLAF.
As for your second claim, I did not "delete large sections of content". The previous version was poorly sourced (if sourced at all) and research, was mostly focused on coattracks to specific players that would later be notable in the NFL, and included specific overviews on a handful of seasons that would belong on those pages themselves. The new version is modeled off of the National Football League page, which is a featured article; specific seasons of the league (that is, the actual game seasons themselves) don't belong on the main page, they belong on article pages for those seasons. The league page is supposed to focus on the big picture of league operations, which it does. So yes, I would have a problem with the previous, poor-quality version of the article having content added. I don't think any reasonable editor would look at the previous version and deem it to be of high quality. If you have specific examples of vital, league-relevant content that was removed, I'd be happy to consider re-adding it. Toa Nidhiki05 14:04, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Demokra, if you aren't going to respond I'll just remove the tag. Toa Nidhiki05 13:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi,
As you see from his display above, Toa Nidhiki isn't interested in working with others on this article, or even in hearing valid complaints. He is reverting all substantial changes back to his own versions, is making false claims about several subjects, and has overhauled the article to be completely NFL-centric. While that is one side of what the article should contain, this situation is a major problem and it can't continue. (I wasn't on Wikipedia as I was working the past week.)
This was more or less how the article was from 2014 to 2022, written by many editors, before Toa's "wholesale rewrite":  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NFL_Europe&oldid=1112109567
It has issues with organization, but that version was informative about the league, was relevant and was largely sourced.
Toa has made several contentious and bizarre changes (circa Sep 29, 2022):

Most of the History section about the actual league competition, the WLAF/NFLE (1991−2007), has now been scrubbed from Wikipedia. It had totalled around 1,794 words on those seasons, and now has only 670. Toa added copious text on prior/later events, and large stats tables, which masked the amount of inline content he removed. This was vandalism by stealth.
Sources deleted, e.g. in the previous version The Independent (UK) was referenced 20 times; now only 4 times. This is one of the few '90s/'00s news sources from a European league host country that is still live online, and the deletions clearly damage the article.
Insisted on adding much more detail about the separate 1970s IFL, while deleting so much about NFL Europe
Rewrote almost entirely with a focus on the National Football League, in the mistaken belief that NFL Europe was notable solely for its effect on the American NFL.
Deleted all of the article's Commons photos of NFL Europe, and inserted NFL images instead
Posted large amounts of unattributed or unsourced prose in the text, while misquoting and making false assertions on this Talk page, and dismissing sources that contradict his account.
Has deleted the in-article warning tags (twice, so far) that question the errors or mass deletions of content
Nominated his version as a 'Good' article immediately after finishing it, despite its obvious shortcomings.
There are actually detailed sources on the league topic, including more recent research that could really make the article valuable. (For example, on the early '90s "Team Dallas", which trained the players not yet assigned to the competing teams). I have been enjoying researching and reliving the league and some of its games recently, as a snapshot of another, more optimistic time. But not much hope of the article being improved now! - Thanks, Demokra (talk) 05:35, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Your complaints make no sense:
Articles on sporting leagues do not tend to include an in-depth guide to the results of every season, because there are articles for this; they instead focus on the operations of the league.
Sources were not deleted. In fact, sources were added; the old article had only 56 sources and massive unsourced blocks of text, while the new one has 103 sources and no unsourced text,
The IFL is absolutely substantially relevant to the founding of the league.
NFL Europe was a developmental league first and foremost, owned and run by the NFL. This is absolutely relevant.
I'm not even sure what you're talking about here.
There is zero unsourced or attributed text in the new article.
Frankly, you aren't making a lot of sense here and I'm not sure why you're so angry. Toa Nidhiki05 13:42, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Helmet camera article says: "In 1991, the World League of American Football introduced the innovation of a miniature camera mounted on the right side of the VSR-3 Riddell helmet worn by quarterbacks. This rig was developed by USA Network and Aerial Video Systems (AVS). An antenna was placed in the crown of the helmet between an inflatable pad and the shell.  Each of these Helmet-Cams cost $20,000 and transmitted live game action.  These helmet cams were briefly used to provide live player's-eye-view footage in professional American football. However, their use was discontinued after players complained of the extra weight, and TV networks became concerned about the aggressive behavior the cameras captured." Yes, it was wild, like the real thing. Lots of noise, breathing, shouting, crunching collisions and confusing quick-changing video. Hear what Orlando QB Kerwin Bell has to say. A San Antonio offense player wore one in the loss against the Galaxy. Or the Fire QB. It's huddle, snap count, snap, chaos, tackle, then either close-up of grass, or view of the sky. As the World Bowl was in Europe, no helmet cam there. And no return in 1992 (nor ever? 2019). Also, the (only one) cam system was not only in the helmet, but also connected to the pads, probably to battery and transmitter, and cable without a coupling to disconnect. Someone had to hold the helmet behind the players back when it was off at the sideline. Interesting Chicago Tribune report. Matthead (talk) 21:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)