I’ve seen it argued in numerous places that the plan all along has been for the Premier League to back down from such an audacious proposal as an entire extra round of games, argue there’s still a need for international exposure, and agree to a watered down plan that sees some teams sacrifice home games for abroad. The problem with this is it would do little for the smaller clubs, who know a Wigan-Birmingham clash won’t sell tickets in Shanghai. Moreover, it would have much less appeal to the big clubs, who already earn huge amounts at home games: the extra revenue they’d generate by playing abroad would be minimal. They’d rather play glamorous friendlies overseas instead as extra games, surely. Could be possible, but I think there’s a smarter and scarier alternative.

What’s needed is to find a way to play more meaningful games abroad with the biggest teams guaranteed to be involved, whilst not intruding on the league schedule and giving a chance for the smaller clubs to be involved and make money. Are you thinking playoffs, too? (Thanks to Dave Boyle for raising this prospect to me) Say the top eight qualify, for example.

Here are some reasons why this could work (note: “could” does not mean “should”):

• Playoffs already exist within the English league structure, having been introduced to the Football League in 1987. They are still used to determine the final promotion spot for the three leagues below the Premier League. Therefore, the Premier League will be able to say they are not a foreign concept to English league football.
• They will argue that a playoff to decide the winners will “even the playing field”. They will link it to the historic appeal of the F.A. Cup, as fans love a knockout tournament. They will say it gives smaller clubs a chance to compete with the biggest clubs, ending the endless and damaging hegemony of your Arsenals, Chelseas and Man Utds for the title. Smaller clubs will vote for it if it’s a playoff of six or eight teams, thinking they can sneak in at the bottom end and win the whole thing. It would be perfect for the likes of Everton and Tottenham.
• It will be a massive money-spinner. Think of the build-up a big Premier League clash gets on a given weekend and multiply that by four. Compared to the 39th game idea as a television event, why would fans in Asia be more interested in watching Man Utd-Wigan in a regular league game in New York than in Manchester? They would, in fact, be less so as it removes the heritage and atmosphere they’re interested in. But add an extra meaningful game that decides something, and it’d be a big television draw.
• They could play the games anywhere and there’d be fewer complaints than moving a league game abroad. Perhaps the first round would be home and away fixtures (thus giving local fans an extra game), then a final four-team tournament over a weekend in a different country each year — a real event that New York or Tokyo might actually want to bid for, three games with massive television exposure worldwide. They would sell-out anywhere for all games, unlike for many of the prospective 39th games.

None of those things, of course, make it the right thing to do. There are also some obvious negatives:

• It’s manifestly unfair to award the title to a team other than the one that won the “regular season” league based on everyone playing everyone twice. Why should the playoffs decide this? Playoffs in the North American sense are a reasonable way to decide things given the divided conference system, which mean not everyone plays everyone else an even number of times. Sure, it’s not as fair as a straight league, but it gives a reason for the playoffs to exist. This is not the case for the Premier League. Unfortunately, they can point to the Football League playoffs as an example of this unfair system already existing in England. There’s no reason in terms of fairness for the third placed Championship team not to be promoted automatically and to possibly lose out to the sixth place team via the playoffs, but it happens every year.
• The scheduling would be a serious problem. It’s hard to see how they could make room for an extra tournament at the end of the season, especially in World Cup years. It would further exhaust players.
• It would devalue the regular season enormously. Only Champions League qualification and seeding for the playoffs would give the race to the finish any appeal. The integrity of the league would be destroyed.
• It would also destroy the F.A. Cup. The big teams would treat it with even more cavalier contempt, as no-one would want that extra game interfering at the end of the season. It would introduce another knockout tournament with more television appeal. We know the BBC prefers to show Wigan-Chelsea than Liverpool-Havant & Waterlooville already.
• It would be a major challenge to other international tournaments if it was a commercial success. An early summer major event would impact on the Champions League, European Championships and World Cup negatively. It would also generate further huge revenue for the Premier League teams, furthering their international buying power and forcing La Liga or Serie A to pursue moneyspinning ventures themselves to compete or face losing the best players. But there’d be little anyone could do: it’d still be a money-spinner even if FIFA ensured they played the play-offs domestically.
• The rich would still get richer. Just as teams have bankrupted themselves chasing the pot of Champions League fools gold, so Premier League teams would burst a gut trying desperately to get into the playoffs. Even mid-table teams would feel the need to spend lavishly at the January break to give themselves a shot at the Big Title. But given their larger resources, we’d know the Big Four will always make it, and the rest would be fighting for a few spots. It’d be a big, tempting and foolish gamble for mid-level clubs to go for. Meanwhile, the likes of Liverpool would have ever more guaranteed lucrative income to pay down their massive debts.

That final reason is why this could still be pursued as an alternative. Even the elite Premier League teams need to find new revenue streams, and if the 39th game doesn’t work out, you can bet this will be a serious possibility. What do you think?

]]> http://pitchinvasion.net/blog/2008/02/15/premier-league-playoffs/feed/ 17 http://pitchinvasion.net/blog/2008/02/11/the-39th-game-maybe-they-can-play-it-in-space/ http://pitchinvasion.net/blog/2008/02/11/the-39th-game-maybe-they-can-play-it-in-space/#comments Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:33:17 +0000 Tom Dunmore http://pitchinvasion.net/blog/2008/02/11/the-39th-game-maybe-they-can-play-it-in-space/ The Premier League’s Chief Executive, Richard Scudamore, was on the BBC’s Sportsweek radio programme yesterday defending his plan for a 39th round of Premier League games played abroad, and gave a bravura performance in which he cleverly substituted the word “strategy” for “greed” without missing a beat.

Another word he liked to use was “globalising”. It seems that if the Premier League doesn’t do this, it will end up in the “slow lane” as everyone else is going to do it anyway. All, of course, to protect the domestic game.

The problem is, football is already a global game and the national federations and regional confederations who run the sport outside England don’t seem very keen on the idea of hosting matches.

An article this morning in the Daily Mail explained that:

Global opposition to the Premier League’s ‘international round’ is growing so fast that North America now looks to be the only region that will embrace the beleaguered project.

FIFA president Sepp Blatter, by demanding immediate discussion at the world governing body’s next executive committee meeting, and UEFA chief Michael Platini, with his withering criticism, have already demonstrated fierce resistance.

Now Mohammed Bin Hammam, the Asian confederation president and the third most powerful administrator in world football, has told advisers he is also massively opposed to the playing of a 39th Premier League match in five different countries over a weekend.

Hammam’s AFC football empire stretches to 46 member countries, including many of the destinations being pencilled in by the Premier League such as Australia, Hong Kong, India, Malaysia, Singapore and the United Arab Emirates.

And, together with his powerful ally, Japan’s Junji Ogura, the AFC high command could be a formidable bridge too far for the Premier League’s plans.

Premier League chief executive Richard Scudamore can also discount Africa where there is not the money available to make matches worthwhile.

The South American CONMEBOL have strong domestic leagues, while Oceania does not have the necessary infrastructure.

America, then: one of the first to embrace the idea was the L.A. Galaxy’s boss Alexi Lalas. But more importantly, U.S. Soccer head Sunil Gulati today suggested they would not be in favour of it if FIFA remain opposed, whatever Alexi Lalas’ demented dreams might be. He told BBC Sport that,

“We’ve been reluctant to have official games played in the US.

“We’ll be guided by Fifa on this matter. But if it’s not in line with its rules then we won’t sanction it.

“We had a similar proposal 10 years ago when a team playing in Los Angeles wanted to play in the Mexican league. We didn’t let that happen and Concacaf (the Confederation of North, Central American and Caribbean Association Football) said no.

“We understand it’s a global sport but it’s about nurturing the home game.

“If Fifa said ‘OK, it’s up to the relevant FA’s, then we would look at it (the Premier League proposal).

“We have got a great relationship with the English FA and there’s a lot of good reasons to look at it. But there are also some issues that we have got which would cause us to be very hesitant.”

Scudamore has suggested the Premier League might ignore the objections of FIFA and UEFA, saying there is no straight line of authority, but it looks like this won’t fly with the likes of U.S. Soccer. And why would it, when countries like the U.S. and Australia are gearing up for a battle with England for the 2018 World Cup?

But if FIFA does approve it — and I wouldn’t rule anything out if Jerome Valcke is the pivot man on this, as he apparently is — would Gulati be right to oppose it considering the interests of American soccer? We’ve heard a lot about the opposition of English fans concerned about the consequences for the game locally. But how do soccer fans in other countries feel? Would the publicity be good for the development of MLS by spreading the word about soccer, or would it set it back as Eurosnobs save their dollars for the annual Man Utd jaunt and ignore their local league? What’s your view?

]]> http://pitchinvasion.net/blog/2008/02/11/the-39th-game-maybe-they-can-play-it-in-space/feed/ 12