Premier League look abroad - Clubs set to play additional match overseas

[Oliver_Kahn]

The 20 Premier League clubs have unanimously agreed to further examine a radical plan that would see each team playing an extra match a season abroad.

Under the proposal, matches between two Premier League sides could be staged in the world's largest cities in the Far East, Australia and the USA.

A new round of 10 competitive fixtures would be played across the world over one weekend in January, beginning in the 2010/11 season.

39 games

The idea would be to cash in on existing interest in the Premier League around the world, and the extra money generated from TV would be split equally among the 20 clubs.

The details of how the system would work have yet to be finalised but it would mean each club playing 39 games, with a draw to pick out each side's overseas match.

There would be a sporting criteria, such as league position, to decide which clubs play each other.

And under the proposal, points earned in the overseas game would count towards the final league position.

Innovative

Premier League chief executive Richard Scudamore said: "The 'international round' is an exciting and innovative proposal that needs careful consideration before being introduced.

"However, this concept recognises the truly global appeal of the Barclays Premier League whilst understanding that the traditions of the English game have always underpinned our success.

"We believe that an 'international round' of matches will enhance the strength of the Barclays Premier League as a competition; create extra interest in all 20 Premier League clubs at home and abroad; and allow increased investment in talent development and acquisition, facilities as well as our football development and community programmes."

Scudamore added: "The globalisation of sport is both an opportunity and a challenge; one that needs addressing in a responsible way.

"We are a better competition for being a cosmopolitan league and have benefited from our increased international reach.

"Nonetheless, it is critical we retain our English character by improving our efforts to produce home-grown talent, deepening our commitment to community engagement and continuing our investment in the grass-roots."

Sky Sports | Football | Premier League | News | Premier League look abroad

[G-R87]

I quite like the idea. I don't think any changes should be made to the structure/teams, etc. of the EPL but the idea of branching out is certainly the way forward.

The NFL did it recently at Wembley and have proposed to do it again; they have even discussed a superbowl being held at wembley in the future! I think this just shows how much of a success branching out can be.

Personally, although the EPL is already the most watched european league, I think that attracting different audiences around the world will add to the appeal and benefit foreign players, as well as providing an incentive for the English talent.

The idea, IMO, is very refreshing and I like it. However, I think that more important issues should be dealt with before doing this. (i.e. the issue with foreign players in the EPL, etc).

I'm just throwing this out there, but I had the idea that perhaps the EPL could follow the path of American sports, whereby there are no draws/ties. IMO this will add a more competetive edge to the game and if a boring match goes to Penalties then at least some drama will happen. I also think that with more regular penatly shootouts the problem about England and penalty shootouts could be helped. I think that this idea would add excitement and I don't really see any down sides to it.

What do other people think about this? RSVP...

[kyan]

you're gonna get me started on a rant when I should be writing an essay....


These two ideas, I think, are two of the worst I've heard in a long time.

Firstly, imagine if after 38 games United finished the league 1 point ahead of Arsenal. but in the game that's to be played abroad, United get drawn Spurs, while Arsenal get Derby County. How is that fair? it ruins the point of a league, the point being each team plays the same teams the same number of times. Except this one extra money-making game would screw everything up.

And when would it be played? Not only does that mean craming another 10 fixtures into a hectic English schedule, but it can't be the last day of the season cos fans won't stand for the trophy being presented abroad (assuming it were won on the final day or whatever...). It can't be the first day cos that's just stupid... so when?

It's just to make money, which of course is important, but this is the English game. It's great if foreigners want to watch it and try and see games live but to play abroad.... tbh it just symbolises the EPL becoming a franchise way too much.

And as for cancelling draws. NO ****ING WAY!

The league is far more exciting as it is, with draws coming in to play. If each week a team had to win it would get stupid imo, the teams would be a lot harder to separate. But who says a draw can't be exciting? Villa v Chelsea ended 4-4, how would it be fair for that match to go to penalties after that?

And by making penalties occur so often it would take away from the excitement of that anyway. And penalties aren't really that fair a way to decide a game of football, it's the best method, but still not great...

I'm a conservative on these issues...

[G-R87]

Originally Posted by kyan

you're gonna get me started on a rant when I should be writing an essay....


These two ideas, I think, are two of the worst I've heard in a long time.

Firstly, imagine if after 38 games United finished the league 1 point ahead of Arsenal. but in the game that's to be played abroad, United get drawn Spurs, while Arsenal get Derby County. How is that fair? it ruins the point of a league, the point being each team plays the same teams the same number of times. Except this one extra money-making game would screw everything up.

And when would it be played? Not only does that mean craming another 10 fixtures into a hectic English schedule, but it can't be the last day of the season cos fans won't stand for the trophy being presented abroad (assuming it were won on the final day or whatever...). It can't be the first day cos that's just stupid... so when?

It's just to make money, which of course is important, but this is the English game. It's great if foreigners want to watch it and try and see games live but to play abroad.... tbh it just symbolises the EPL becoming a franchise way too much.

And as for cancelling draws. NO ****ING WAY!

The league is far more exciting as it is, with draws coming in to play. If each week a team had to win it would get stupid imo, the teams would be a lot harder to separate. But who says a draw can't be exciting? Villa v Chelsea ended 4-4, how would it be fair for that match to go to penalties after that?

And by making penalties occur so often it would take away from the excitement of that anyway. And penalties aren't really that fair a way to decide a game of football, it's the best method, but still not great...

I'm a conservative on these issues...

I disagree about the EPL games abroad. Your Point about being '1 point ahead' after 38 games is irrelevant; If you play 39, the points amassed after 38 will not matter. (everyone is in the same boat). The same way that if you are 1 point ahead today after 37 games...this point makes no sense because all teams will know about the additional game at the start of the season. (this point would only be relevant if the additional games were announced after the 38 game season is over - like a surprise...do you see my point?)

This is like complaining that 'if we played 46 games like we used to then we could close the 2 point gap left after 38 games'...You see why you are mistaken here?

If i'm not mistaken you Live in Iran. (?) Now, I imagine that attening EPL games is a bit of a problem for you, so wouldn;t you relish the oppotunity of seeing an EPL game live?

[Werdna]

With the influx of American owners and the determined manner in which the premier league and clubs have been mad about money I feared that some American style league changes might occur.

I am totally against this. This serves only one purpose and it isn't the interest of football.

When and if this happens I think it would then only be a matter of time before the idea of having no relegation (like in American sports) would arise again and I think that could finally spell the end of the good old game as we know it.

[kyan]

Originally Posted by matthew

I disagree about the EPL games abroad. Your Point about being '1 point ahead' after 38 games is irrelevant; If you play 39, the points amassed after 38 will not matter. (everyone is in the same boat). The same way that if you are 1 point ahead today after 37 games...this point makes no sense because all teams will know about the additional game at the start of the season. (this point would only be relevant if the additional games were announced after the 38 game season is over - like a surprise...do you see my point?)

This is like complaining that 'if we played 46 games like we used to then we could close the 2 point gap left after 38 games'...You see why you are mistaken here?

No sorry I disagree, the teams won't be in the same boat, because the opponent of the extra fixture would be determined by a draw. So some teams will get harder fixtures than others, so they're not all in the same boat because it'll be harder for some teams to get the extra 3 points as opposed to others...

If i'm not mistaken you Live in Iran. (?) Now, I imagine that attening EPL games is a bit of a problem for you, so wouldn;t you relish the oppotunity of seeing an EPL game live?

Nah, I was born and live in England...

[G-R87]

Originally Posted by kyan

No sorry I disagree, the teams won't be in the same boat, because the opponent of the extra fixture would be determined by a draw. So some teams will get harder fixtures than others, so they're not all in the same boat because it'll be harder for some teams to get the extra 3 points as opposed to others...



Nah, I was born and live in England...

No, the top teams will not be able to play one another, and no matter who you play, the EPL is always tough. You say these comments as though the additional games will be sprung upon or a suprise. Why? All the teams will be aware of the final game, so It will make no difference if they are 1 point ahead after 38 games.

There will be a draw, but you aren't playing anyone unfair, You are playing the same teams so where is the difficulty? I see that what you are trying to say is that if Derby need 1 Point to stay up and they face Man Utd or something like this? Why will it matter who they play, they need to win no matter who they face. Having an additional game is no different from playing 38, or 37. No Matter how many you play, the last game is the last game. Doesn't matter if it's more games or less games, you need the results week in week out so this arguement about ifs and buts is irrelevant.

P.S. Apologies about nationality, I was confused because your country selected is Iran, so how can I expect you to live in England.

[Evertonscouser]

I dont like this at all. Only way I'd accept it was if maybe a there was a week break from EPL games and each team played a friendly in a different country that weekend. No way should they be competitive.

[skeeta]

Given that virtually nothing of this ilk can surprise me, I'm not surprised that they are looking at the concept.

Though I am surprised that they are apparently thinking of going to an "unbalanced" schedule in order to do it. If you think Ferguson is going to be chuffed about the longer season, just wait until he cottons on to the fact that this could mean Man United playing a title deciding extra match against Villa in Singapore, while their rivals get Derby County in Paris.

Scudamore and his pals are so out of touch that I am now believing that they really do believe they have the bestest league ever.

The people who came up with this don't care about the integrity of a system in which every club plays every other club twice, once at home and once away.

The NFL teams don't even play each other once, and that is the model they are looking at.

All of the "modern" business models* are based on increasing revenues and therefore profits, and it is very difficult to do that in a "mature" market.

*including those supporting the debt repayment schedules of certain clubs.

The Italian Supercup was played in Giants Stadium in New Jersey about five years ago, in Tripoli, Libya a year or so after that, and was supposed to be played in Shanghai last year, but the travel arrangements didn't work out.

The reasons why cities kill for the Olympics and the like are largely down to the construction jobs and new infrastructure such a bid entails, as well as the perhaps chimerical "ancillary spending" generated by those visiting the event. This is nothing like that, and is more accurately analogised to the bidding to host the UEFA Cup final, which is not exactly frenzied. In fact, I would actually think that half of these matches are likely to be less attractive to potential bidders than the UEFA Cup Final.

[Blaugrana]

Haha this is laughable

Why not just play your whole league in Qatar? That will get you even more money.. Playing an EPL match outside of England just isn't the same, i wouldn't even want to watch it probably.

Originally Posted by matthew

No, the top teams will not be able to play one another, and no matter who you play, the EPL is always tough.

So let's say that Man City and the Spurs are fighting for an Uefa Cup ticket, they're tied on points with only 1 leg yet to play. Man City have to play Man Utd, while the Spurs are up against Sunderland. You would say that's fair?


Allowing foreigners to watch a match isn't a good arguement either i feel, for 2 reasons

1) Do you have any idea how much money they charge for a ticket, in let's say Japan? Thousands of people will want to see the match, which drives the price for a ticket up. This means that "normal" families can't watch it anyway. They may as well buy a ticket to England and watch a match there, maybe it's a bit more expensive but you get to see it in England itself.
2) There are lots of friendy tournaments abroad, there they can watch the EPL clubs as well. It hardly matters for them whether it's an official match or not.


Bar money, i don't see a single reason to play matches abroad.

[kyan]

Originally Posted by matthew

No, the top teams will not be able to play one another, and no matter who you play, the EPL is always tough. You say these comments as though the additional games will be sprung upon or a suprise. Why? All the teams will be aware of the final game, so It will make no difference if they are 1 point ahead after 38 games.

There will be a draw, but you aren't playing anyone unfair, You are playing the same teams so where is the difficulty? I see that what you are trying to say is that if Derby need 1 Point to stay up and they face Man Utd or something like this? Why will it matter who they play, they need to win no matter who they face. Having an additional game is no different from playing 38, or 37. No Matter how many you play, the last game is the last game. Doesn't matter if it's more games or less games, you need the results week in week out so this arguement about ifs and buts is irrelevant.

It makes a big difference, it's a lot harder to beat one of the top 3 who lose maybe 5 matches at most in a season, in comparison to one of the bottom 3 who win maybe 5 matches in a season!

P.S. Apologies about nationality, I was confused because your country selected is Iran, so how can I expect you to live in England.

Don't worry about it...

Platini scorns global games plan

Uefa president Michel Platini has poured scorn on the Premier League's plans to play matches around the world.

The former France international said: "It will never be received by Fifa, by the fans or the national associations.

It's a nonsense idea. I am sure (Fifa) will never accept it because it's not good for football.

"In England, you already have no English coach, no English players and maybe now you will have no clubs playing in England. It's a joke."

The Premier League revealed on Thursday that it was exploring the possibility of all teams playing a 39th league match abroad, starting in 2011.

Fifa has confirmed it will examine the Premier League's proposals at its executive committee meeting on 14 March.

Manchester United boss Sir Alex Ferguson condemned the Premier League after claiming managers were not consulted before the plan was announced.

"They should have been enquiring and having discussions with managers and players before they come out with all this stuff and make an issue of it.

"They can't keep their mouth shut down there," said Ferguson.

"What disappoints me is Manchester United chief executive David Gill said 'keep this quiet, we're discussing it' and then it's in the papers.

"These issues should be discussed internally by clubs before they come to this position we are now in but until I speak to David Gill again I have nothing more to say about it."

Sunderland boss Roy Keane and Newcastle counterpart Kevin Keegan have backed the Premier League plans, with Arsenal manager Arsene Wenger broadly in favour.

"I'm not against an innovative attitude if it respects the competitive side of our league, if it respects the fans and promotes the quality of our Premier League," Wenger told the BBC.

And Keane also told the BBC: "It's great. Change is good but that depends who you are playing in that extra game. If it's one of the top four, I might argue."

"It will give everybody in the world a chance to see it in areas where they don't get a chance to see football like that," said Keegan.

Keane added: "The Premier League has been brilliant and Richard Scudamore (Premier League chief executive) spoke brilliantly. They are looking at the proposals and do everything properly.

"It's three years away and I think we should all be trying to be positive about it."

Former Football Association executive director David Davies revealed his fears of player burn-out to the BBC.

"It's more football when our fixture list is already more cluttered than anywhere else," Davies told BBC Radio 5 Live.

Those 10 extra games would be played at five different venues, with cities bidding for the right to stage them.

The extra games are expected to net the clubs in the region of an extra £5m each.

MLS deputy commissioner Ivan Gazidis said there is "a thirst for Premier League games" in the USA and around the world.

"If this were to happen it's something that we would be involved in," he said.

"We are the premier promoter of international soccer in North America and clearly we would like to get involved."

When Manchester United played a testimonial in Saudi Arabia in January they reportedly earned about £1m for the 6,000-mile round-trip.

Davies added: "I would much prefer a winter break, if we want our teams to win. The problem is we neither win at international level nor do we win the big club competitions with any degree of regularity at all."

"I'm not surprised about the proposal or the reaction to it for a league so popular around the world and full of players from all around the planet to want to exploit that position is entirely predictable.

"Fans have got to be aware that the game has changed and the game is a global game, so there has to be a balance.

"To be fair, they are not taking a home game out of the current programme and shifting it to Bangkok. The intention is to have an extra game - an extra round of matches."

Professional Footballers' Association chief executive Gordon Taylor expressed concern that the plans would put more pressure on top-flight players.

"I can't see it being very helpful, in a very crowded fixture programme, to introduce one more game," he told BBC Sport.

"It's trying to get a quart into a pint pot, it's driven commercially. From the business side of things it will look good but you have to remember that this is a sporting business and you are dealing with human beings.

"This will increase the injury problems of the top-flight players. It is going to the well too many times and it is treating players as commodities.

"If you encourage caution then you are considered to be out of date but that is not always the case.

"Change is not always for the better, change can sometimes affect the very strength of the roots that have caused you to be the most popular game in the world," added Taylor.

The BBC's 606 website has been inundated with posts, with the majority of the 4,800 comments so far critical of the proposals and some calling for fans to unite against the proposals.

The Football Supporters' Federation has launched its 'No to game 39' poll to fight the Premier League's plans.

BBC SPORT | Football | Premier League | Platini scorns global games plan

I think Platini is being a bit of a c**t tbh, I find it ironic how he has the nerve to say a thing like that when the French national team has so many players without French parents or born and bred abroad...

But I still think this idea is stupid.

[unitedfan]

It would just be stupid to make a 39th competative fixtures, and that argues for itself. If it was uncompetative, then why not? Besides, as Blau says, the Chinese probably don't give a toss whether it's competative or not.

But then, would they turn out for Derby County versus Bolton Wanderers? The point has been raised that the likes of United and Liverpool have a huge following abroad, while the like of Derby wouldn't have many fans there at all, if even any. It is, even when you carefully break it down, something that wouldn't actually help anyone, only the bankers, who wouldn't even get at much as they think they will, because as I say, they'll go crazy for United vs Arsenal, but when it's two relegation candidates, they probably won't bother.

[c.ronaldo#1]

Playing Premiership football in different countrys is a great idea. The extra game is probably not a great idea. Obviously nothing has een finalished so they have alot of time to look for the best solution.