Premiership games abroad?

[stokeriño]

Well, quite.

[HailtotheYo]

This isn't just something that's open to America though, and Premiership games are broadcast all around the World. But my point about the time was that the Premier League selling TV rights is completely different to actually moving a game to another country.

I'm very aware of the fact that it isn't just America that this is open too. And uh, the NFL/MLB/NBA are broadcast all over the world as well. I'm using the United States not because I'm from here, but because the United States has the only sports leagues in the world that are comperable in name value and star quality as far as a world wide audience. Two of our leagues currently hold games overseas for foreign fans. Why can't the Premiership do the same ? TV times don't have to change at all for this to take place actually. Europeans would be getting "prime time footie" just like we would be watching one of our league games in "prime time."

No, it isn't, but how much opposition was there amongst American fans about the NFL game in London? I personally couldn't care less about the NFL/MLB etc, so it's not like I'm moaning about not having any games played over here and then opposing Premiership games being played elsewhere.

You personally may not care for the NFL/MLB, but there are plenty of fans in Europe of both leagues. Sure, your case might not be an example of what I'm talking about, but the massive outcry of "this is bullshit" from European fans seems kind of hypocritical. As I said, the current idea and scheme blows, but the fact that the idea was immediately viewed as complete and utter bullshit, .... is complete and utter bullshit.

[Darloboy]

As I said, the current idea and scheme blows, but the fact that the idea was immediately viewed as complete and utter bullshit, .... is complete and utter bullshit.

[therockbox]

Two of our leagues currently hold games overseas for foreign fans. Why can't the Premiership do the same ?

[-A-]

I actually don't even see the point in the suggestion that the top 5 teams have to be seeded, except that those teams view it as crucial that they be winning these foreign games to improve their image to the fans. It would seem a lot more sensible to do the reverse, and base the matches on the previous year's league standings, with 1st playing 4th and 2nd playing 3rd (or similar) and the bottom-half and promoted teams being jumbled up in the same fashion. That way, the matches are guaranteed to be significant for the overseas fans and still relatively fair in a league context - think of the SPL's split for the last 5 games. Each venue could have one top-half match and one bottom-half match to ensure that no region's getting a double-header of low-profile ties.

I don't see how the staging of NFL/MLB games has anything to do with the Premiership's decision, there are different economics and cultures at work and it's ludicrous to be so simple as to say that what works for one organisation would work for another. It's as ridiculous as suggesting that salary caps/drafts/collegiate systems should be introduced simply because they exist elsewhere. I'm not suggesting that they shouldn't be, but the simplistic argument that the NFL and Premiership should mirror each other is completely flawed.

[HailtotheYo]

I don't see how. Do American fans have a massive issue with games being played abroad? If so, why is nothing being done about it? Just because you're willing to accept your sports being played abroad doesn't mean everyone else should.

Fans weren't exactly thrilled with the idea of an NFL game being moved to foreign soil. The biggest objectors were in NY obviously. Nothing COULD be done about it. The NFL is a powerful business entity, and if they feel it best serves them to put a game in Europe, they'll do it. The NFL is trying to broaden the fanbase so they put a game overseas. Sure it's about the money, but hey, at least they're giving the fans overseas something more than a dry fuck from behind for the money they take them for in television and merchindise. It doesn't matter if we accept it or not, it's going to be done. We also understand that there is a huge overseas fanbase that SHOULD get an opportunity to see the players/teams.

If Americans/Australians/Asians want to watch 'top quality' football, why don't they support their own leagues' teams and bring them the revenue needed to get better players?

The MLS doesn't work like that. The teams are all controlled by the league as far as spending. There is a cap, and the two player "Beckham" rule that lets a team sign two players whose signing doesn't count towards the cap. We do support our teams leagues, but the MLS is about developing American players, hence the cap that keeps the teams able to compete with each other (as opposed to say the Derby incident this year in the Premiership or countless other teams that get mauled for a year) AND elevate the league as a whole rather than produce one or two top flight teams. The MLS teams ARE getting better players, but the league won't allow itself, or the teams to get bigger than the good of the game in America. It's actually very good business. Wow, if you think that the people owning the MLS teams don't have the money to spend, then wow .... There are huge fanbases here for the teams (I speak in relative terms). There are also pretty good fanbases for MANY European teams. Come on, you're telling me that people in the UK don't like any teams outside of the Coca Cola League teams ? Please ......

The difference is that with the different competitions, European countries get a few matches here and there with teams from other leagues/countries.

[HailtotheYo]

I don't see how the staging of NFL/MLB games has anything to do with the Premiership's decision, there are different economics and cultures at work and it's ludicrous to be so simple as to say that what works for one organisation would work for another. It's as ridiculous as suggesting that salary caps/drafts/collegiate systems should be introduced simply because they exist elsewhere. I'm not suggesting that they shouldn't be, but the simplistic argument that the NFL and Premiership should mirror each other is completely flawed.

Wow, talk about reading something that wasn't there. I merely stated that American leagues host games overseas for the foreign fanbase. I never once said, or even hinted at the fact that the two leagues should operate themselves in a similiar fashion. I never said that the two should mirror each other. I'm merely talking about a dynamic that overseas fans are getting from America, that overseas fans aren't getting from Europe (the premiership in this case). It may not work, but you don't know that until it is tried. Again, my original statement in all of this, is that I think it is amazing that the mere IDEA of it is seen as absolute bullshit by fans in the UK. Especially, when there are examples of how it HAS been successful (NFL/MLB).

[Dan]

Move the Premiership to slanteyeland and promote the championship to the new top league.

I live in hope for a football league breakaway from the Premiership.

[therockbox]

I don't see how the staging of NFL/MLB games has anything to do with the Premiership's decision, there are different economics and cultures at work and it's ludicrous to be so simple as to say that what works for one organisation would work for another. It's as ridiculous as suggesting that salary caps/drafts/collegiate systems should be introduced simply because they exist elsewhere. I'm not suggesting that they shouldn't be, but the simplistic argument that the NFL and Premiership should mirror each other is completely flawed.

Wow, talk about reading something that wasn't there. I merely stated that American leagues host games overseas for the foreign fanbase. I never once said, or even hinted at the fact that the two leagues should operate themselves in a similiar fashion. I never said that the two should mirror each other. I'm merely talking about a dynamic that overseas fans are getting from America, that overseas fans aren't getting from Europe (the premiership in this case). It may not work, but you don't know that until it is tried. Again, my original statement in all of this, is that I think it is amazing that the mere IDEA of it is seen as absolute bullshit by fans in the UK. Especially, when there are examples of how it HAS been successful (NFL/MLB).

Edited February 9, 2008 by therockbox

[-A-]

I merely stated that American leagues host games overseas for the foreign fanbase.

Edited February 9, 2008 by -A-

[HailtotheYo]

You're expressing irritation that American fans lose a game, and using that to justify the Premiership moving a game abroad. Just because the NFL made a business decision that took away some of the enjoyment of its fans doesn't mean that the Premiership has to do the same.

I was actually answering a question posed by RockBox about the fans when I stated that. That example was also to show that a major sports league has already had success hosting a game overseas because of the fanbase. You can try and make that into me saying whatever you like, but I actually stated that it was an example of a successful attempt at what the IDEA <-- behind this premiership "abroad" is.

Who are you talking about when you say 'you'll'? I didn't get any money from anyone, I don't care about the NFL at all, I'm a fan of a Premiership football club and I don't want the team I support traipsing off to far-flung corners of the world in the middle of an already crammed season just so they can all earn a little more money. I don't gain a fucking thing from this move, the businesses involved just want a few more pennies and don't care if it harms the integrity of the league (by giving uneven fixture lists) or the investment of season-ticket holders (by moving one of the 38 existing games abroad.)

Wow, really ? You didn't personally see a dollar ? No shit ..... Never would have figured that. Um, that is a figurative term, and one that also is used to describe the indirect object of a verb. In this case it would be YOU (the indirect) not minding the fact that "YOUR club" gets television revenue from the deal with America to televise the games. In general the fans of clubs don't mind the fact that there is extra monies for the club. Maybe you do, I don't know. Again, you personally may not care about the NFL but there are plenty of fans in Europe clamoring for more exposure from the NFL. The NFL gave it too them in the form of a game. Yeah, I'm pretty sure that the season ticket holders for NY were happy about the London "home" game. It's just funny to me that while the NFL will give the foreign fans something for their support, when an idea comes around to do something of the same nature to spread the game on your (not you personally of course) end, it's the most outlandish and bullshit thing ever.

You're clearly just looking on this whole topic as an Americans vs. Europeans issue, and then grasping for tenuous business reasons to justify it, your argument is paper thin and you show no understanding of how the Premiership works (for example, your suggestion of having half of the teams play games from the existing 38 game fixture list, which would clearly give an advantage to the teams that play 'away.')

Well, considering that my initial statement was that I didn't see why the fans over there blanket stated "bullshit" to the IDEA of an overseas game, then yeah I guess you could say that this is American fans vs European fans. I'm not trying to build a court case out of this. I merely stated that something didn't make sense to me, especially when I have an example of how/why it can work, and that the IDEA shouldn't be tossed off as the worst one ever. I don't ever remember claiming to know how the premiership works as far as the business side of things.

I didn't really put a suggestion out there, just more of a flinging of something besides the proposed "plan" to do this. The entire point I was making was that the actual IDEA of having a game/some games overseas shouldn't just be shit on. That's it, nothing more. If you want ACTUAL suggestions, I'd think that the Premiership should do something like the NFL does with its preseason games. Use them instead of actual "league" games. But I'm sure that would disrupt the integrity of the Premiership and unsettle something else, right ...

[Guest jonnocool91]

Basically, the Premier League is the competition that's there to determine what the best team in the country is. The League and FA Cups are Novelty competitions and don't do that. Even the Champions League is a Novelty competition and doesn't do that. I don't think the extra 10% revenue for teams is enough of an advantage to warrant ruining our competitive league.

[marksbros6]

Leaving aside the right/wrong-ness of actually playing the games abroad...and apologies if this has been brought up already, but how is the 'extra' 39th game of the season going to work? At the moment every club plays one another twice (home and away) another round of fixtures means some teams will play one another a third time (albeit at a neutral venue). Last time I checked these games will be awarded points, which will count towards the clubs final league standing.

So imagine say; Derby are 'drawn' against Arsenal for this 'extra' game. The Gooners thrash them in a match in Japan, both teams return home, and the 'normal' season resumes. Come the end of the season Derby are relegated by 3 points. If they'd not had to play this extra game they might have stayed up, or if they had been drawn against another team they might have won. Similarly if Man U miss out on the championship by 2 points, because they only drew their 'extra' fixture with, say, Man City, how will that effect the image of the league?

[ChrisSteeleAteMyHamster]

The top five would get seeded to make sure that five of the ten games would have a higher "draw" power for the bidders, nothing to do with the importance of the fixtures or whatever, cos actually it'd make more sense for teams to play those in a similar position to themselves in that extra game. It's purely a bidding reason.

Also, Prem games being played abroad is very different to, for example, the Dolphins game last year. Mainly due to it being an EXTRA game where teams will have to have a "draw" to play another team overseas. In a way it would actually make more sense for each team to play one home game and one away game aborad each season if that's how they want to do things, and to drop the season ticket price for the fans.

[-A-]

An another thing to add is that the NFL already has an uneven schedule of games, and a mechanism for adjusting for that in deciding who goes through to the playoffs. The Premiership doesn't have that, and any attempt to introduce a system like that (e.g. weighting points based on the league position of your opposition) purely to advance a blatant money-making scheme would never be supported by fans. That's another example of why the Premiership ISN'T the same as the NFL.

[HailtotheYo]

And it's reasons like those that I mentioned it being worked into the existing schedule (the whole half at one time and half at another thing). It goes along with the home/away deal CSAMH mentioned.

I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say that the NFL has an "uneven" schedule. All teams play a 16 game schedule and play their division opponents twice and play the other conference four times. What's uneven ? Oh, and who said that the NFL was the same as the premiership ?

[The Slickman]

I'd like to see if this goes any further. The fans and very against it but when has the FA given a damn about the general fan ? They cant wait till they try (and fail) to make all the Premiership is PPV. It's a spectator sport!.

I feel sorry for any struggling team like a Derby or Fulham because they may have to play a top 4 team 3 times in one season.

[Liam]

I was reading an interesting piece in the Racing Post yesterday, which suggested that the Premiership is really a house of cards, and further foriegn investment, in games abroad etc, is the only way to go. They did say that the current suggestiong is un-workable, but that there is a potential for something.

Basically, the Premiership has made a rod for its own back with all the money and debt, and if anything compromised the money that they are taking in at the moment, they'd be screwed. They may need to strike while the iron is hot in some of these other countries.

My main problem is more ethical, with the widening gap between lower leagues and the Premiership (a problem that is non-comparable to the US sports) a huge problem. Also, how important are home games in the US sports? I mean, on the whole from what I catch of the NFL, the best teams win, irrelevant of home ground for the most part. Whilst in football, teams like Fulham, who have struggled the last 3 seasons, stayed up purely because of a good home record. Taking away a home game could cause some teams to struggle potentially.

[HailtotheYo]

My main problem is more ethical, with the widening gap between lower leagues and the Premiership (a problem that is non-comparable to the US sports) a huge problem. Also, how important are home games in the US sports? I mean, on the whole from what I catch of the NFL, the best teams win, irrelevant of home ground for the most part. Whilst in football, teams like Fulham, who have struggled the last 3 seasons, stayed up purely because of a good home record. Taking away a home game could cause some teams to struggle potentially.

Perfect example of that is this year's game between Baltimore/NE ....... the ravens blew this year, but actually had the pats beat, but if that game was in NE .... forget about it

[IAceI]

Nah, home field in NFL will have a massive advantage. Just like it does in most sports.

Trying to call to your team with 92,000 Redskins screaming over it? Going to make life pretty difficult I can imagine, leads to a lot of false starts and penalties and gives the opposing team more chances to get the ball back.

In fact, the team with the best record will clinch homefield advantage for the play offs, meaning they will play 2 play off games, both at their home ground - that's how important it is.