Ordinary Gweilo

Has the Premier League gone mad?  They have apparently decided that what they really need is an extra 10 extra games added to the season, and to play them overseas in January (Top clubs consider overseas games):

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

Those 10 extra games would be played at five different venues, 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.

So, in the middle of the season, players will have to travel thousands of miles to play one game at a neutral venue, and then travel back to England to continue the season.  Good thinking.

I can’t imagine them playing a midweek game and then rushing to Heathrow to catch a flight to Sydney or wherever, and it’s hard to believe that they’d get back in time for the following Wednesday, so this seems likely to cause severe disruption to the FA Cup and League Cup (which occupy most of the midweek slots in January). 

Well, yes, most of the bigger clubs field reserve and youth team players in the cup competitions and could theoretically manage it, but we have to maintain the fiction that they pick their strongest possible team, so the games would have to be re-scheduled.  Or maybe they’ll just abolish replays in the 3rd and 4th rounds and make the semi-finals of the League Cup into one-off games.  Not good for the smaller clubs, but who cares about them?

After the success of the Barclays Asia Trophy in Hong Kong last summer, it seems like a fair bet that we’d be seeing two of the games here.  The winning cities are likely to be the ones where the Premier League is already popular, and after PCCW paid a reported £100m for the Hong Kong rights they would probably be willing to fund a live game here (and would be able to attract other sponsors).  In addition, there may be bids from rich states such as Dubai.  Yes, it really is all about money.   

Predictably, the reaction of fans in the UK has been overwhelmingly negative.  It is seen as another example of the way that money is more important than the fans who pay to watch the games (following on from the lunchtime kick-offs that are mainly for the benefit of TV in Asia, and the priority given to the Champions League, amongst many other changes).  But what do you expect when clubs like Liverpool and Manchester United are owned by rich Americans who admit that they are in it for the money.  

Apart from anything else, I have considerable doubts about the idea of adding a 39th game to the season.  It’s a basic principle of league football that each team plays every other team at home and away (though admittedly the Scottish Premierleague has its own weird system and there are play-offs in the Football League). 

It adds an extra random game in a way that could be very unfair – consider, for example the prospect of Arsenal being drawn against Derby whilst Manchester United have to play Aston Villa.  Or Birmingham having to play Chelsea, whilst Fulham play Wigan. 

If they want to go ahead with this scheme, I think the fairest way to do it would be to determine the matches based upon the table at, say, the end of November, with 1st vs 11th, 2nd vs 12th, down to 10th vs. 20th.  This would also allow the games to be shared out reasonably equitably, so this year Hong Kong might have got Arsenal vs. Newcastle and West Ham vs. Derby, whilst Seoul would have had Manchester United vs. Fulham and Blackburn vs. Wigan.  Well, someone has to, I suppose.

Even with that arrangement it would still add a rather unwelcome random element to the season, and just imagine how the fans would feel if their team had lost the “extra” game and missed out on a UEFA cup place or been relegated as a result.  Taking a set of fixtures and moving them all overseas might be better, but is also unfair because half the teams in the league would miss out on a home game.  In fact, it’s hard to see how it could be done fairly.  Not that anyone seems to care if it brings in lots of lovely money.

There’s also the small matter of the the distance that the teams would have to travel.  If one host city was New York and another was Sydney, the teams playing in Australia would seem to have drawn the short straw.  Jet lag is another factor, and that game in Australia would be much more difficult than one in, say, Dubai.  I think we can also assume that the teams will be expected to take part in a few promotional activities whilst they are in the host city, so it’s not likely that they could fly in and out again. 

It’s hard to see why this is necessary.  There’s not much wrong with Barclays Asia Trophy, and if the demand is there it could be run ever year or even spread over multiple cities.  Are fans in Asia really so desperate to see a live Premier League game that they would want the season to be distorted in this way?  I don’t think so.

Are English clubs so desperate for money that they would really do this?  Probably.  Will UEFA stop them?  Possibly.