For the past two decades, the NFL has tried to increase professional football’s global popularity by adding more regular-season games outside the U.S. But is the next natural step for a league focused on growth and innovation to hold the biggest postseason game abroad?
The NFL first hosted an international regular-season game in Mexico City in 2005. Two years later, London got a game, and the city has since become an annual fixture of the league’s schedule, hosting three games in 2024.
In recent years, the NFL has methodically expanded its footprint to locales like Munich and São Paulo. And in 2025, the NFL hopes to hold up to eight regular-season games abroad—three more than the record-tying 2024 international slate.
While commissioner Roger Goodell admitted during his Super Bowl press conference that the NFL might not reach its eight-game target, shortly after, the league announced debuts for Dublin and Melbourne to go along with fellow first-time hosts Madrid and Berlin. We’re all set for another record slate.
All of that international expansion has raised questions about whether the league will one day host a Super Bowl abroad. Unlike regular season games, which require a team to give up a true home game to serve as the “designated” home team, the Super Bowl is played at a neutral venue (not counting 2021 and 2022 when the Bucs and Rams, respectively, won at their own stadiums).
Goodell himself said it was on the NFL’s radar back in October 2023 when asked before a London-based game whether the U.K.’s largest city might ever host the game: “It is not impossible, and it is something that has been discussed before.”
Despite Goodell’s declaration at the time that the league was focused on playing the Super Bowl in a city with its own franchise, 15 NFL cities have never hosted—among them this year’s participants, Kansas City and Philadelphia. Indeed, the NFL has a habit of going back to the same few cities for the Big Game. New Orleans just hosted its 11th, tied for the most with Miami. Los Angeles has had eight, Tampa five, and four cities have hosted at least three times.
So what do players and executives think about switching up the status quo? We asked some before the Big Game on Sunday. While the answers trended toward the negative, if they had to go, well, they had some travel recommendations:
Do players want an international Super Bowl?
Raheem Mostert (Dolphins running back)
“It’ll be hard for everybody to travel, but people will make it happen, though.”
Shawne Merriman (former linebacker)
“I would hate for the Super Bowl to leave the States.”
Malcolm Jenkins (former safety)
“I don’t want an international Super Bowl. This is our thing, but I don’t want to have to travel to another country to go get to it.”
David Montgomery (Lions running back)
“I’m not really for that because there’s too many people here who can’t get over there.”
“I think it’s really interesting, and I understand all the issues with it around the performance side and how far it might have to go. And that is what I think is key to all of this. It’s no different than 18 and 2, which is: Let’s make sure the game stays how good it is. That has to be first and foremost because I think the parity in the NFL, the margin of victory is so tight. That’s what keeps people tuning in, and so that has to be number one. And if it just so happens that we can figure out schedule-wise to where we can play somewhere else and the fanbases really want it, well then why not?”
Where would the dream spot be?
Blake Grupe (Saints kicker)
“New Orleans has some French in it, so I think that might be perfect for us to play a game in France.”
Gerald McCoy (former defensive tackle)
“Africa. Somewhere in South Africa. It’s a beautiful place.”
Avonte Maddox (Eagles cornerback)
“I went to Australia last year, and I wasn’t pretty happy on that flight, but other than that, yeah, I think it’d be cool.”
