Premiership games abroad?

[Liam]

Top clubs consider overseas games

The English Premier League is considering playing some matches overseas, BBC Sport has learned.

At a meeting in London on Thursday, all 20 clubs agreed to explore a proposal to extend the season to 39 games.

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

It is understood the additional fixtures could be determined by a draw but that the top-five teams could be seeded to avoid playing each other.

It is unlikely any decision will be taken before the Premier League's annual summer meeting in June, but any changes could come into effect for the 2010/11 season.

Points from those extra games would count towards the final league table.

Should the proposal get the go-ahead, cities in Asia, Middle East and North America are likely to show a strong interest in hosting the extra games.

It is believed each venue would host two matches over a weekend.

BBC sports editor Mihir Bose says the Premier League's decision to explore such a move is a "logical" one.

"The growth of the Premier League has been impressive in the last 15 years thanks to the sale of television rights in this country," he said.

"But now the market in the United Kingdom is becoming saturated and it is the overseas market which is now the big target area."

The Premier League's income from the sale of overseas TV rights has already increased from £178m in 2001 to £625m for the current deal that runs until 2010.

Broadcaster NowTV paid around £100m for the rights to Hong Kong alone.

Premier League games are broadcast to over 600m homes in 202 countries worldwide, while an estimated 1bn people watched the Premier League game between Manchester United and Arsenal in November 2007.

A number of top-flight clubs already play matches around the world as they seek to capitalise on the huge global interest in the English game.

Manchester United are regular visitors to Asia, Middle East and America while other clubs are beginning to follow their lead.

"This is a chance for the Premier League to showcase its product around the world," added Bose.

"Some fans may feel aggrieved, but their concerns will be outweighed by the financial advantages for the clubs.

"Clubs will see this as a chance to make more money so they can invest in new facilities and better players."

There is likely to be a big scramble for the right to host the extra games.

"It will be like cities bidding for the Olympic Games or the World Cup," explained Bose.

The Premier League's proposal mirrors moves in other sports, notably American Football.

Miami Dolphins and New York Giants met at Wembley in October, the first competitive NFL game outside the Americas.

So, whadya think?

[FireDoughnut]

They are already complaining about the number of matches, but I like the idea.

It will increase the money that the smaller clubs receive, although obviously the big five will be the dream matches.

[stokeriño]

I think it'll cause all manner of problems just for the sake of extra money - as if that's the one thing they're short of.

Imagine if you ended up relegated by 1 point because your 39th game of the season was drawn against Man Utd, and the team that pipped you got...I don't know, Derby.

Although the idea of people in Beijing bidding to host Wigan vs. Fulham is quite hilarious.

And another question: if Spurs and Arsenal, say, are playing in Seoul, does it still count as a derby? >_>

Edited February 7, 2008 by stokeriño

[Farmer Reil]

I can see the positives, but to me it seems a bit unfair to the smaller clubs.

Picture a situation whereby a team like Derby struggles out of the relegation zone by a point at the end of 38 games. Then they get drawn against Manchester United in Iran. So they have to fly everyone out to Iran after 38 games + cups, to play a team they're never going to beat if they had four years to prepare. Then Fulham draw Wigan at home, win, and stay up.

If the top five get seeded, let's face it, all that means is the top five get an extra three points per season. Sure, there'll be the odd surprise, but on paper, it's pointless.

It just strikes me as unfair to make some teams play one of the top five three times, when other teams only have to play them twice. It just screams of benefiting the good teams, and penalising the lesser ones.

I've got nothing against them playing matches abroad. Maybe play the Carling Cup abroad; let's face it, nobody in England cares Or the Community Shield game. But adding an extra randomly-picked round of fixtures is shit.

Edit: Bah, everyone else beat me to most of my points ¬_¬ Although it's quite scary how similar my examples were to Stoker's

Edited February 7, 2008 by Farmer Reil

[FireDoughnut]

I assume this 39th game would occur in the middle of the season, or possibly at the start...

Another idea would be randomly draw out a week of fixtures and instead of playing them at home (in Britain), host them aboard. So teams are still playing 38 games, just one of them is a foreign country.

As for countries bidding for Fulham versus Wigan, I assume the games would be paired together so Fulham/Wigan would be part of a weekend deal with Man U/'Boro so as to increase the money. Each weekend "deal" would get one of the top five...

[brenchill]

Why not just have them as friendlies before the charity shield? I hate the idea of incorporating these matches into the season and giving them value in terms of points. I can't see this ever being greenlighted seems too farfetched to ever happen.

[Gazz]

Why has there got to be a 39th match? Is picking one out of 38 too difficult?

I can see it now aswell, Blackburn V Fulham in Tonga - attendence, 14 people, 3 monkeys and a donkey.

[Blue Rosler]

I think it'd be a good idea to raise awareness of more teams, but as friendlies in Summer.

Man Utd vs Wigan

Chelsea vs Everton

Arsenal vs Reading

Split funds and people go for the big teams.

[supergrass]

The only possible plus point I can see to this is more money, and that's not exactly a problem in the Premier League now. Virtually all clubs can spend big (relative to the terms of who they are), certainly moreso than they could ever do before. This is just greedy.

The league now is fair in as much as you play every team twice, once at home and once away. The best team after those games are the champions...unless they fail to beat Reading in Hong Kong on a special 39th game. It's one of the worst ideas I've heard any football association come out with, trumping anything Platini has been dreaming up since coming to power at UEFA.

[GA!]

Yeah, the idea of a 39th match is bullshit. The NFL can get away with this sort of thing as their format is a tournament, not to mention how the locations of teams move around all the time because of the franchise system. We have a tightly structured league where everybody plays 38 times, 19 times at home, 19 times away, facing every team twice. To add another match in order to do a publicity stunt like the NFL would disrupt the point of the league as some lucky bastard will get 3 more points out of Derby County than they're entitled to (unless you're Newcastle of course). If the Premier League want to explore radical options, how about they reduce the league by 4 teams to 16 so there's less 6 less matches a season. Then those 6 matches (plus one more) are played in a seperate summer league abroad comprised of two leagues of eight, and each team plays each other only once as the concept of home and away matches won't be there.

Edited February 7, 2008 by God-Awful

[Darloboy]

It's a horrible idea, it just shows how money-obsessed the game has become, and it'll widen the gap even further between the Premier League and the Football League.

Ugh.

[Lineker]

It's a horrible idea, it just shows how money-obsessed the game has become, and it'll widen the gap even further between the Premier League and the Football League.

Ugh.

Exactly this. Plus, it's hardly fair on locals that go week-in week-out, to have to trek to [oh idk] Sydney to watch a potential huge/derby game.

I for one adhore this idea.

[stokeriño]

It's a horrible idea, it just shows how money-obsessed the game has become, and it'll widen the gap even further between the Premier League and the Football League.

Ugh.

Exactly this. Plus, it's hardly fair on locals that go week-in week-out, to have to trek to [oh idk] Sydney to watch a potential huge/derby game.

I for one adhore this idea.

I presume you mean 'abhor'.

Although the foreign games would be for the sake of the locals there, not the fans in England. They'd be expected to stay at home.

[METALMAN]

I knew a guy who always got his b's and d's mixed up. Was a bit of a shame.

I think as far as fairness goes it's a stupid idea. I think the previously mentioned idea of having some Carling Cup games abroad could be good. The competition as it is has gone a bit stale. Maybe the two-leg semi-finals could be replaced with a single game abroad or something.

[Lord Nibbler]

Another idea would be randomly draw out a week of fixtures and instead of playing them at home (in Britain), host them aboard. So teams are still playing 38 games, just one of them is a foreign country.

[Farmer Reil]

"When we find out more I'll be able to tell you if it is a good idea. We really are at step A and not step B or C."

Niall Quinn is really good at talking out of his arse, isn't he? ¬_¬

I mean, Ian Holloway could barely translate that into something that makes sense...

[IAceI]

yes, but at least it semi-effects us >_>

[YI]

yes, but at least it semi-effects us >_>

[Baddar]

Why has there got to be a 39th match? Is picking one out of 38 too difficult?

I can see it now aswell, Blackburn V Fulham in Tonga - attendence, 14 people, 3 monkeys and a donkey.

I'm guessing it's because you wouldn't be playing each team Home and Away then, you'd be playing all except one at (for arguments sake) Home, and not playing them Away, so it's quite unfair on that team as they have less Home games than the rest.

But, in saying that, I don't want to see it to be honest. I'm all for pre-season Friendlies/Tournaments abroad, but not League games as well.

As pointed out earlier, certain teams are going to get the "better draw" of it overall (Chelsea ) and end up playing one of the "smaller" teams, while others (Man Utd ) end up having to play a team pushing for Europe.

Edited February 7, 2008 by Baddar Davies

[ChrisSteeleAteMyHamster]

Bad bad idea. The Derby chairman came onto Talksport and told 'em that it would give them 10% worth of their annual income in one weekend, which is fair enough, but it's not good for the fans. The Premiership owes NOTHING to the countries who compete to buy the rights to televise it.

The biggie though is, when they take place in January...Say Wigan and Fulham are struggling to stay up. On this "extra" game, Wigan get Middlesbrough while Fulham end up having to play Manchester United or Arsenal (meaning they have to play one of the big teams three times in a season they're struggling in). It's just not fair, simple as that.