Aug 10, 2012; Kansas City, MO, USA; A Kansas City Chiefs cheerleader performs before the game against the Arizona Cardinals at Arrowhead Stadium. Kansas City won the game 27-17. Mandatory Credit: John Rieger-US PRESSWIRE
Last fall Kansas City Chiefs owner Clark Hunt, the chair of the league's international committee, stated in the Kansas City Star that the Chiefs "may be interested in" hosting a game in London at some point in the future. It came with some caveats though, mainly that Hunt understands that taking a home game away would involve talking to the community because of the impact -- financially and competitively -- of removing one of 10 precious home games.
But what if the Chiefs were the visiting team in London?
As Pro Football Talk points out, the Chiefs are on the Jaguars' home schedule in 2013, along with the three AFC South teams, three west coast teams (49ers, Chargers and Cardinals) and an AFC East team (TBD). The league hasn't sent a divisional game to London yet. Sending a west coast team means a lot of extra travel. So deducing it down, it seems the Chiefs or that AFC East team make the most sense for the game in London next year.
There's nothing concrete to indicate the Chiefs are actively pursuing a London game but Hunt's comments last October suggest the Chiefs would at least entertain the idea, especially if it keeps all home games in Kansas City.
Surely the Chiefs understand the brand impact of having "Kansas City" and "Chiefs" talked about in the national (and international) media in the weeks leading up to the game. There are certainly benefits to considering this option.
So we'll put this up to a vote, Chiefs fans. Would you be OK with playing in London as the road team?
Would you approve of the Chiefs playing in London next year if it didn't involve taking away a home game?
Yes (1412 votes)
No (1123 votes)
2535 total votes