The Chargers gave up a home game to play the Chiefs in Brazil, but was it really a disadvantage? With SoFi Stadium often filled with opposing fans, international games offer neutral ground—but the heavy travel raises questions about the long-term impact.
When the Los Angeles Chargers opened last season against the Kansas City Chiefs in São Paulo, Brazil, it was a historic moment. It was also technically a Chargers home game—which is where the debate begins. Should the Chargers actually want another international showcase, or is the cost greater than the benefit?
On paper, losing a home game is supposed to be a disadvantage. Home games mean familiar routines, no travel fatigue and the comfort of playing in front of your own fans. But the reality for the Chargers is a bit different. When they play at SoFi Stadium against certain opponents—especially the Chiefs—the crowd often feels split, or worse. Chiefs fans routinely pack the stadium, turning what should be a home-field advantage into something closer to a neutral-site game.
That’s what made the Brazil game unique. Even though the Chargers gave up a home date on the schedule, they didn’t really lose much in terms of crowd advantage. In fact, you could argue they gained something: a truly neutral environment. Instead of battling crowd noise from opposing fans in their own building, they played on equal footing. Psychologically, that matters more than people realize.
There’s also the branding element. The NFL has made it clear that growing the game globally is a priority, and teams that participate in international games become part of that expansion. The Chargers, who have long battled for attention in a crowded Los Angeles market, benefit from that exposure. It strengthens their identity beyond Southern California and builds a broader fanbase.
However, there is one major downside: travel.
Last season, the Chargers were near the top of the league in total miles traveled. International trips aren’t simple cross-country flights. They involve long-haul travel, time zone adjustments, disrupted sleep schedules and altered weekly routines. Even if the league tries to compensate with scheduling adjustments, the physical toll is real.
Football is a game of preparation and recovery. The further you travel, the more difficult it becomes to maintain consistency. Fatigue can show up in subtle ways—slower reaction times, reduced explosiveness and increased injury risk. Over a 17-game season, those small disadvantages can add up.
That’s why the recent announcement involving the San Francisco 49ers is so fascinating. They’re scheduled to play in Melbourne, Australia, and Mexico City in 2026. That’s an enormous travel burden, and it highlights just how aggressive the NFL is being with its international push.
For the Chargers, the ideal scenario would be selective participation. International games can be beneficial, especially if they replace home matchups where the crowd would lean heavily toward the opponent anyway. But it’s not something the team should want every year. The mileage, fatigue and disruption to routine can create competitive disadvantages over the course of a season.
Ultimately, it comes down to balance. International games offer exposure, neutral-site advantages and unique opportunities. But too many of them could wear down even the most talented roster.
So should the Chargers be hoping for another international game? The answer is yes—but only in moderation.