The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

There should be no NFL team outside of the USA

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/2/2014 Category: Sports
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 596 times Debate No: 43273
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




Resolution: No NFL team should be allowed to relocate outside of the united states of america.
Con states that a team should be allowed to relocate to a city outside of the united states, pro states that they should not be allowed to relocate to said city.
First round is acceptance.
Second round is constructive.
Third round is rebuttals
Fourth round is closing statements.


As the majority knows, NFL is a widely known football league that promotes two separate divisions; The American and the The National. Why cities from around the world should not be able to compete in this league does not make sense to me. Let's say that the San Diego Chargers relocated to Tijuana, Mexico. This would make sense because there 2 other teams in California and Mexico has zero. To make a long story short, this would create less competition for ticket sales. Now why should this team not be able to compete? Afterall, N.F.L. stands for NATIONAL Football League not AMERICAN Football League. If teams were only allowed to locate themselves in America, why not ban all the players from foreign countries? Why? The answer is simple, sport organizations such as FIFA, NFL, NBA, all promote diversity. There is not one professional sports team out there that contains all American players. Players might originate all the way from Cuba, Mexico, Korea, and Australia. So why not let the location of teams promote diversity for the main goal of sports and life (in my opinion) is to unite and form one peaceful world.
That is why teams should be able to relocate to foreign countries.
Debate Round No. 1


My first point is of the word national,
National: Of, relating to, or belonging to a nation as an organized whole.
Key word here, whole. The nation. in this case america as an organized whole. Organized by the 50 states. As con stated above it is the national football league, and this should be located in said nation. The nfl can't put a team outside of the country when it goes against the very name of there organization.

I state my second point and that is of travel.
Panthers wide receiver said this of the idea of relocating to a different city.
"Oh, no. The relocation that is required and the travel and all that stuff, you're constantly on the road. The time change is brutal for the physical work we do. If it was a complete league out there, that's a different animal. But to live in London and travel to the United States to play, whomever that team is, they're at a disadvantage every time they hop on a plane.
Currently the Jacksonville jaguars are considering a relocation to London. The last thing the jaguars need is a disadvantage. Every other week the team would hop on a plane and travel back to play in the states, it creates a disadvantage to any team that moves there. Teams already have a huge problem with travel within the states, the move to London would cause extreme changes to the game as it is played.

My opponent stated that a move to a different country would promote diversity because not one team does not have players from a different country such as Mexico or Cuba, however this would not be true. Consider a move to Toronto, is around one or two players originally from Canada on the team. This doesn't support diversity at all because the players from Mexico or Cuba or South Africa or New Zealand are not from Canada. It doesn't help these players that they move to canada instead of the us. All the move to Canada would do is anger the American players and wouldn't help the players from other countries because either way they are in a different country. The only people who would be satisfied with the move would be the 2 Canadian players on the team, that is not diversity, thus a move to a different country would not support diversity.

Based on the points I have presented I stand by my original opinion that no team should be allowed to relocate outside of the national (and by national I mean American) football league.


Since I skipped the acceptance I will do that right now. I accept this challenge and I am willing to debate on the topic of NFL's relocation policy.
Debate Round No. 2


I'm not really sure what I'm supposed to do with this round, I have presented my case and I have refuted my opponents arguments, There's really nothing else I can say because I already had my acceptance round. So, I guess I stand by all of the points I made in the 2nd round.


My opponent stated earlier that one huge disadvantage of relocation of another country would be the travel. I understand the logic behind that statement. But in reality, if your career is a professional sport player, you have to deal with the travel and frankly, I do not think that a travel to another country is going to change anything. Also in my opponent's argument, he stated that the word "national" limits to the United States. That is not always true. The word national can be used to represent a country, or the world. I think that in this case, it relates to the world. There are only two major football organizations in the world, one is the N.F.L and one is the C.N.L. . Now think which one is more famous. The answer is obvious. It's the N.F.L because it has teams from around the country and diverse players. My conclusion to this is that the more widely spread a league is, the more success it will have. This concludes my rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 3


Although I see what my opponent is saying behind the statement that they have to deal with travel, it doesn't change the fact that the players will still be at a disadvantage because of it. Even if they can deal with it and not have a problem with it they still can't recover as easily as a team traveling within the USA. This puts the team at a disadvantage with takes away from the game itself.

My opponent insists that the word "national" can mean outside of the limits of the United States, however he has not presented a definition that presents this. Thus the definition I presented stands in this round.
Again this definition was: National: Of, relating to, or belonging to a nation as an organized whole.
Because it is the rebuttle period no definition can be presented and thus this definition stands.

My oponent referenced the CNL, however I believe he meant the CFL because the CNL doesn't exist. He states that the NFL is more famous because "it has teams from around the country and diverse players" and he states that the more widely spread a league is the more success it will have. However this is not true, because the NFL is extremely successful within the USA, not outside of it. The CFL proves that the attempts to bring football outside of the USA have failed, and thus we should not bring a team outside of the USA because the foreign countries will not enjoy it.

This concludes the pro side of the debate, and because of all the reasons I have presented I strongly urge a vote for pro.


Jigmin forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Jigmin 2 years ago
This is my conclusion...

I know that being a team from a foreign country is a disadvantage but it is the owner's decision. I'm not saying I would recommend it but I am saying there is nothing wrong with it to ban it..
Posted by msheahan99 2 years ago
yeah that's fine, i really don't care about the order, I just want to argue
Posted by imabench 2 years ago
Does it HAVE to wait til the third round to give rebuttals or can it just be first round acceptance and then have at it?
No votes have been placed for this debate.