With the prospect of the Premier League going abroad being discussed again, two TEAMtalk writers argue over whether it is a good idea.
The Premier League is reportedly considering plans to resurrect the controversial idea of each club playing one match abroad.
A similar proposal for a 39th game was abandoned in 2008 after outcry from supporters and was rejected again by Premier League chief executive Richard Scudamore in 2010.
However, it now appears that the Premier League may have altered their position following the success of NBA and NFL matches in England.
The revised proposal would not involve a 39th round of matches but instead see one of the existing rounds played in a foreign country, raising questions about unequal home and away programmes.
Should Premier League clubs play regular season matches on foreign soil?
YES - Ian Watson
Whether you like it or not, the Premier League will go on tour.
Premier League chief executive Richard Scudamore said in August that "it will happen at some point", while Swansea chairman Huw Jenkins thinks "it is inevitable it is going to happen".
We may as well get on board with it and ensure it is done in the right way.
The US sports have shown the way to go. The NFL, NBA and MLB have all successfully taken regular-season games abroad, and have succeded in improving their sports' profile, brand (yes, the B-word) and financial health. All three sports adopted a gradual implementation, with pre-season games first being taken to new markets before, over years later, competitive matches were exported.
The Premier League is already a long way down that road. Lucrative pre-season tours are a fixture in all the biggest teams' calendars, while the Premier League Asia Trophy - a bi-annual event which sees Premier League teams compete in places such as Malaysia, Beijing and Hong Kong - first took place 11 years ago.
The next obvious step is to take the Community Shield abroad, just as the French and Italian equivalents have already done. Purists have objected even to that development, but the tradational curtain-raiser hasn't been played in front of a capacity crowd in England for years. The only possible progression beyond that is to stage competitive Premier League matches in foreign lands.
The market will demand it. Over £2billion of the £5.5billion Premier League TV rights deal for 2013-16 comes from sale of overseas rights. Very soon, a sofa season-ticket and the odd PR-driven pre-season visit won't be enough to satisfy the insatiable hunger of supporters abroad. Other leagues and sports will be more than willing to fill the void if the Premier League isn't willing to travel.
The '39th game' is not the way to do it. Such a concept would alter the format and fairness of the Premier League too much. Even staging a full round of fixtures outside England is not ideal, as some teams would then have 19 home games, others only 18, and managers and fans won't shy away from using that as an excuse for a moan. But, aside from taking two matchdays abroad - one 'home' and one 'away' for each team - it is the best solution in the short term.
Given the revenue that could be generated, there would surely be scope for clubs to subsidise travel for match-goers who wish to follow their teams. For fans of the smaller clubs not versed in European competition, would that not be as attractive as yet another trip up the same-old motorway to an away ground they are already all-too-familiar with? The rewards reaped may even give clubs a nudge to reduce the often-outrageous prices they charge at the turnstiles though, admittedly, that is a wildly-optmistic suggestion.
Regardless, the Premier League roadshow will happen because the clubs want it to happen. And tradition, in this case at least, is not a strong enough argument to stop it.
NO - Mark Holmes
Like Ian, I have little doubt that competitive English football will be played abroad at some stage.
And, like Ian, I am not against it, even as something of a traditionalist. After all, although it clearly wouldn't be affordable to all, how great would it be for those of us that don't support one of the elite to watch our team playing abroad in front of thousands in the United States, China, Malaysia or some other far-flung destination?
Having followed Stoke across Europe during their Europa League adventure a few seasons back, I for one would jump at the chance to head overseas to watch us again.
However, it would never, ever be fair to host part of the regular Premier League season overseas, whether one round, two rounds or more.
Imagine, for example, a relegation-threatened team being handed a 'home' game against Manchester United in the Far East.
While a Burnley or QPR might ordinarily have a chance of causing a shock on their own patch, any home advantage would be completely taken away by playing at a neutral stadium in front of thousands of fans that would undoubtedly be cheering on the 'away' side.
You have to wonder how long this apparent support from clubs would last once points lost overseas started costing them crucial league places.
To avoid the league season being affected, how about setting up a new Premier League Cup for the top eight clubs to be played overseas?
Let's be honest, it's only the biggest clubs that overseas fans really want to see, and those eight clubs could be excluded from the League Cup (a sacrifice they would no doubt be willing to make given the money on offer), which would suddenly make that competition a whole lot more interesting for the remaining 84 clubs whose chances of winning it would suddenly be increased.
It is not a proposal without questions - would all three rounds be played overseas, for example, in which case when and over what time period? - but playing competitive league football overseas is guaranteed to cause problems.
What do you think? Do you believe the Premier League should play regular season games abroad? Have your say by voting in our poll and use the story comment facility to state your case.
0 comments: