Could Brexit sack the NFL's London expansion plans?

LONDON — The NFL is committed to London. At least, for now.

Sunday, the city will host its third regular-season game of the year, this one between the Washington Redskins and the Cincinnati Bengals at Wembley Stadium. The league has sent teams across the pond for 10 straight seasons now, and recently brokered a 10-year deal to host at least two games per season at Tottenham Hotspur’s new stadium when it opens in 2018, in addition to the two games per year at Wembley it will host until 2020.

Fan support is strong too, with the league’s U.K. fanbase standing at 13 million, according to internal polling.

The next logical step, it seems, is to place a franchise here, something commissioner Roger Goodell and Co., have been keen to do. But the U.K.’s shocking vote to exit the European Union this past summer, better known as “Brexit,” may have thrown a serious wrench into the league’s long-term expansion efforts.

“Brexit just represents this anti-free trade movement,” said Mark Williams, a risk-management practitioner and professor at Boston University’s Questrom School of Business. “The long-term implications are actually reduced trade, reduced income, reduced economic growth in this region and an overall reduced standard of living. It will come in that order.

“The cost of doing business in places like the U.K. will be increased. That will impact your bottom line and also your incentive to move and thrive in those areas.”

In the wake of Brexit, the English pound has hit a 31-year low, forcing many multi-national corporations to reconsider placing their European bases in London.

“International sports franchises are the same, they have to rethink now because the economics are so different,” Williams said. “That vote, the yes vote, just changed the economics of trade dramatically and the benefits of being in England, and in general in the U.K..”

With the U.K. not officially leaving the EU until 2019 at the earliest, and the country’s new economic and trade partnerships yet to be worked out, the total impact of Brexit remains unclear. It could, in fact, be a positive for the league, as a potential U.K.-based NFL franchise would not have to worry about the EU’s strict labor laws, particularly the worker’s right to move freely. But, the possibilities hinge on the performance of the U.K.’s economy in the coming years and its status as a gateway to the rest of Europe.

“A lot of this all depends on how the economy is going to be affected,” said Mark Conrad, director of the sports business program at Fordham University. “If Brexit is either going to result in a devaluation of the currency or a recession, I think the NFL would be more reluctant to have an expansion franchise in London because it may be too much of a financial risk.”

Conrad said he believes the best option for the league is to continue hosting games overseas and growing the fanbase, but stop short of committing a team to the U.K. capital.

“I think there are a lot of risks involved,” Conrad said. “It’s hardly a done deal and I think Brexit opens up more questions than answers at this point.

“If I was the NFL I would sit and wait. I certainly wouldn’t do anything rash because we just don’t know enough about what’s going to happen. It’s just too early, too shocking.”

But, as early as last week, sitting and waiting did not appear to be in the NFL’s playbook. Goodell told Sky Sports that he has “the utmost confidence” in the league’s ability to host a team across the pond, and Mark Waller, the league’s executive vice president of international, told Yahoo Sports “everything is lined up” to place a franchise within the next six years.

It’s important to remember, though, that the NFL is a business above all else, and if the U.K. indeed faces long-term challenges, the success and sustainability of a London franchise would be in jeopardy.

“The way I would say it is, Brexit itself is like a quarterback sack,” Williams said.

More NFL on Yahoo Sports