Poor field conditions at Estadio Azteca prompted the NFL to "pull the plug on the Mexico City game" between the L.A. Rams and Kansas City Chiefs, reverting to L.A. Memorial Coliseum because it is "technically a home game for the Rams," according to Farmer & Klein of the L.A. TIMES. A concert nine days before the planned kickoff "left the playing surface at the Mexico City stadium in serious disrepair." That "raised concerns about player safety" with the league. Efforts to re-sod the turf "were insufficient to convince the NFL to stay." According to the league, the decision was based on the determination -- in consultation with the NFLPA and following a meeting and field inspection on Tuesday by NFL and club field experts as well as local and independent outside experts -- that the playing field at Estadio Azteca "does not meet NFL standards for play ability and consistency and will not meet those standards by next Monday" (L.A. TIMES, 11/13). ESPN's Tony Kornheiser said, "This is a victory for the NFLPA because they got involved in this. If you're going to say that safety is your No. 1 issue ... then I think they're actually putting their money where their mouth is because they don't want to move this game. They want to be expansionists in London and Mexico City" ("PTI," ESPN, 11/13).
TOO MUCH ACTIVITY: In N.Y., Ken Belson wrote the decision to move the game out of Mexico City is a "step backward for the league." The field at Estadio Azteca in years past has "received plenty of attention from the Mexican media, with several leaders and coaches of soccer teams that play there complaining about the field’s condition." Some critics noted that recent events were "held in the stadium before the new surface had enough time to take root" (N.Y. TIMES, 11/13).
MONEY MATTERS: PRO FOOTBALL TALK's Mike Florio said, "Even if you're not concerned about player safety, how about protecting your investment?" NBCSN's Chris Simms: "They wanted to keep it there of course because it's good for the shield and it's money and everything else. That's the only reason the NFL was trying to make it happen, but I really think that the tide turned once the NFL got wind that players were saying, 'We might not play if we have to go down and play on that field'" ("PFT," NBCSN, 11/14).
TOUGH LOSS: ESPN's Michael WIlbon said that the NFL moving the game to L.A. is "dubious and it just sounds like the players are being divas." Wilbon said he understood Estadio Azteca "looked like junk and then they laid some new hybrid turf ... but if new turf is a reason to get out and go to Los Angeles then they could never play a game" at Heinz Field and Soldier Field "because it always looks terrible" ("PTI," ESPN, 11/13).
NEXT IN LINE?: LA AFICIÓN reported "several stadiums in Mexico could replace Estadio Azteca" as the host of future NFL games, including Liga MX side Chivas Guadalajara's Estadio Akron, which was inaugurated in '10. The facility originally had an artificial surface but now has natural grass, and it has a capacity of nearly 50,000. Liga MX side Monterrey's BBVA Bancomer Stadium, which was inaugurated in '15, seats 53,500. Its field "is not the best in Liga MX, but with necessary care, it could be." Liga MX side Santos Laguna's stadium was built in '09 and has a capacity of 30,000 (LA AFICIÓN, 11/14).
TONGUE IN CHEEK: LA AFICIÓN also reported following the news the game would be moved to L.A., the Mexican Baseball League (LMB) tweeted a series of photos of its stadiums and said, "There are playing fields that never lose their beauty" (LA AFICIÓN, 11/13).
