NFL plays nine games abroad in 2026: good for football's future?
Should the NFL move a team overseas if it means some players have to travel thousands of miles every other week?
A radio-style debate on a real news story, written for A1 learners of English (beginner): short, slow sentences about everyday things, with the most common words.
Hear the whole debate in the app Free every day: today's episode at your level, with a synced transcript and the key vocabulary.
Get it on Google Play iPhone: join the waitlistThe debate in brief
Should NFL teams relocate to London? The debate centers on whether establishing a permanent London franchise would reduce player travel burden or simply shift it, and whether the business benefits to the league justify the physical toll on athletes.
Key vocabulary
| English | Meaning and example from the episode |
|---|---|
| crowd | a large group of people gathered together“The crowd is big, yes.” |
| franchise | a sports team with a fixed home location“A London franchise is different.” |
| overseas | across the ocean; in another country“Should teams move overseas?” |
| stadium | a large building for sports or entertainment“David, stadium consultant.” |
| jet | a fast airplane for travel“The problem is the long jet every week.” |
| burden | a heavy load or difficult responsibility“That's the real burden, not one game.” |
Who's talking
- Host
- Marcus Webb
Former NFL offensive lineman
A London franchise worsens conditions because one team bears constant jet lag every two weeks while others play mostly at home, unfairly sacrificing that group's bodies for league profit. - Sarah Chen
Sports broadcaster and analyst covering the
A London franchise is better because players would live and sleep at home most of the year, unlike the 49ers' current constant travel, and it builds the sport locally without harming athletes. - David Rothschild
Veteran NFL owner's representative and
A London franchise doesn't solve the travel problem; the relocated team still flies to America eight times yearly, shifting burden rather than eliminating it, though it does generate business value.
The panelists are fictional characters, and their voices are generated with AI.
What they debate
- Does a London team make the NFL fairer or just richer for owners?
- When Goodell says expansion is 'when, not if,' who really wins?
- Could a player refuse an overseas game without losing his contract?
- Could a new overseas franchise actually make the sport fairer?
- Should the 49ers carry all the travel burden while other teams stay home?
Transcript (beginning)
Hello and welcome. Nine NFL games abroad this year. Should teams move overseas? With us: Marcus, former player and welfare advocate. Sarah, sports broadcaster in London. David, stadium consultant.
Marcus, players travel thousands of miles. Is that fair?
No. It is not fair. Look, I've been there. The 49ers fly almost forty thousand miles this year. That's not how bodies work.
Sarah, you are in London. Is that travel really unfair?
No. The miles are not the problem. The problem is the long jet every week. A London franchise is different. Players live here. They sleep here.
David, what about the 49ers this season? Can owners fix that?
Yes, they can. A London franchise lives in London. Marcus, that team flies less than the 49ers do now.
No. That team flies less. But all the other teams fly more.
No, no, wait. That's not true. One team comes here one time a year. One jet. The 49ers fly to Melbourne and Mexico. That's worse.
David?
No. The other teams do not fly more. Each team comes to London one time. One jet, one game. The 49ers fly all year.
One game, yes. But it is a bad week. We do not sleep well. Then we play at home. We play bad.
Sorry, but no. One bad week is normal. Teams play bad at home too.
Marcus, Sarah says one bad week is normal. Is it?
Continue listening: 32 more turns The full episode, with the transcript synced to the audio, is in the RoundTalk app.
Get it on Google Play iPhone: join the waitlist