NFL teams already questioning playing in China, as they should

The NFL has a serious desire to grow internationally, and it's not often you'll see owners step out of line and publicly question a big league initiative.

But two years before the NFL hopes to hold a game in China, two of the league's most prominent franchises have questioned the league's plan to play a regular-season game there.

First, here's what New York Giants co-owner Steve Tisch said about playing in China back in March, to Yahoo Sports' Charles Robinson:

"When it comes time for the first game to be played in China, the logistics are going to be … the league is going to have to figure out how to make it. Getting there, playing there, coming back to the states, how do you maintain the parity of the other 30 teams that don't have to play there?" Tisch told Yahoo Sports. On Thursday ESPN.com published a story that had fellow Giants owner John Mara and Packers president Mark Murphy bringing up similar concerns about playing in China, which could happen during the 2018 season:

"We would not be in support of that," Murphy said about playing in China. "That's such a long trip. If they do it, it would make sense for West Coast teams -- shorter trip for them. But that wouldn't be something we would want to do."

"I think there's a feeling that our game could be very attractive over there and generate a lot of interest," Mara said. "But I'm sure not volunteering to play over there. That's a tough trip. I don't know how you do that. You certainly have to give them a week off afterward. And even a week before -- it's a pretty tough trip."

On the surface the public concerns of the owners don't seem like a big deal — it's not revolutionary to believe a nearly 13-hour trip from Los Angeles to Beijing will affect an NFL team in the middle of a season — but it's probably telling that there's any blowback at all from owners as the NFL speaks glowingly about how more international games can grow the sport.

The concerns are valid. A game halfway around the world in China could significantly affect both teams for a while. Even with a Thursday night-China-bye week combo, that's a heck of a trip to take in the middle of a season. Players have a tough enough time making it through a physical season without traveling to Asia in the middle of it.

There's also the whole issue of how all international games disrupt the symmetry of the schedule. The NFL has only 16 regular-season games. International games mess with the balance of the NFL. The Los Angeles Rams will reportedly be the home team for a China game in 2018. That's the furthest thing from a home game there could be. So they get seven home games (as do teams that take a home game in London, or Mexico, or wherever the NFL wants to go next). The team that plays as the road game overseas has to only play seven true road games in a season, not eight like everyone else they're competing for a playoff spot against. Maybe that sounds like a small thing, but in a competitive NFL it's not.

I get it, the NFL believes there's a lot of money to be had by having a presence in China. I wonder about the validity of that, as I do with the validity of the notion that playing a few games in London changes the NFL's financial fortunes all that much. It's a league that made a reported $12 billion in 2014, is making a few million more really worth messing with the schedule and taking games away from the home fans? It's not like Rams fans get any benefit out of their team giving up one of eight home games to go to China.

But here we are. NFL commissioner Roger Goodell thinks sending regular-season games to other countries will put more money in owners' pockets, even if at least a couple of those owners seem to understand the downside to the China experiment (and presumably others privately have the same thoughts). It's probably coming. That doesn't mean it's good for the sport, though. It's hard to see how it has any positive impact on the fans that have already made the NFL the most popular sport in America.