And so the world might be invited to view EPL Version 2011, that’s if the Premier League chief executive Richard Scudamore sees his brain child come to fruition.
This "avant-garde" initiative, reportedly precipitated by the success of the Dolphins/Giants game at Wembley last year, would see all EPL teams playing an additional 39th league fixture abroad in countries who successfully bid for the privilege.
Of course it has drawn mixed reviews even in its infancy. But some of the
vehement and rabid sentiment is staggering, considering that this is something that has been going on for years. Liverpool, as early as last preseason, played in a mini-competition – the Barclays Asia Trophy – in Asia, and Man U spread themselves quite liberally all over the Orient throughout July. Why choose now to wax philosophic about its pitfalls?
It is a simple marketing strategy. If a product is hot, sell it while it still is. Teams have used this tool to branch out into larger, burgeoning markets and cement their particular product into an essentially untapped fan base – a fan base that sets higher demands for jerseys and, more importantly, TV rights.
And it seems that this philosophy is en vogue. Domestically, the LA Galaxy with their brightly-gilded international icon – David Beckham – have plotted a course for China and Korea to trade their own branded baubles.
Those that use this money-grubbing as a point of contention are hypocrites. Where were these ardent naysayers when their squads were abroad printing their own money for exhibition matches in the preseason? It is exactly that added income which finances the dream of making a team more competitive by allowing the management to buy better players. You shouldn’t salivate over a cake you can’t eat.
Of course it’s about the money. When is it not? Whatever altruistic PR spin EPL execs might try to put on this, this internationalizing of the EPL amounts to nothing more than bottom line. But this has a twist. The proposal benefits all 20 EPL teams, not only the “Big 4.” This is an attempt at a parity that doesn't, nor has, existed in quite some time – a parity estimated to be in the $10m per team range.
And for those that hare off to “ever-growing financial disparity between leagues” defense, this initiative should not become the convenient fall guy for the massive disparity that already exists. Even if this initiative crashes and burns, top flight teams will continue to use their brand as leverage to elicit higher and higher revenues no matter how much it infuriates fans.
While we bemoan the fate of the small clubs, the nostalgia of an age gone by must have its healthy dose of realism. For as long as football has been a professional sport, better financial acumen has long served as a base for the most successful teams. This is just on a bigger scale. Eventually, four teams will go down. Four will come up. When these teams that deem themselves worthy of the EPL come up, they will play for their share of the treasure, too.
The EPL has effectively acknowledged that there are some creases in the plan, by admitting that there will be a three year ironing period. The biggest obstacle will be the unanimous backing of all teams involved. If one of the big four pulls up lame, this would severely hinder his chances of securing bids. So the first fatal blow may already have been struck.
Liverpool chief Rick Parry has already put the kibosh on any involvement by the Reds, quoting new stadium's interests as coming before any foreign involvement. It is a curious position to take considering the much publicized financial woes they are currently suffering under their new stewardship.
There is also the issue of premiership minnow match ups and their lack of interest. Representatives from Saudi Arabia and Qatar, who have already proven themselves a huge potential for revenue with the $2m they put up for the Man U “friendly”, have suggested they would very much be in favor of hosting these extra fixtures, but only if the bigger squads were involved. I have a feeling Derby County representatives aren’t on their “buddies” list.
Savvy managers like Arsene Wenger have lauded the idea in its essence, but wisely maintain that there must be some caveats in place. It is when you
read the comments of one who is not so polished, like Harry Redknapp, it suggests that there is perhaps something more sinister at the root of the disdain.
One newspaper headline went so far as to say: "For Sale, Our national game." Should we congratulate this as a shining example of healthy national pride or as simple ethnocentrism? This strikes me as being very un-British. A country once so eager to spread its culture to all and sundry is now so outwardly reluctant to share its most recognizable commodity with the rest of the world.
Watching a game on a static-addled box 4,000 miles away from Stamford Bridge doesn’t make you any less of a Chelsea fan. It just means you don’t live in London. And perhaps this is the real issue for fans adamantly opposed to the venture. Because in the ever shifting sands of the transfer market and readily-replaced management, the true fan has the distinction of saying he has been there, at the stadium, watching as they come and go. His very presence inherently makes him more of a fan. And when you farm that privilege out to interlopers, the sanctity of that unique bond is forever broken.
So perhaps it is more basic than ethnocentricism. Perhaps it is just a selfish unwillingness to share “our” teams. But the only thing left that is “ours” is the venue. Perhaps we shouldn’t forget that the whole is not greater than the sum of its parts. By and large, “our teams” are made up in the majority by foreign born players. It is exactly this expensive gumbo that makes it so appealing to the rest of the world and it is exactly that reason a Man U fan in Mexico City should be allowed to access the magic that is the EPL.
It was only ever a matter of time before the whole global village got to see the crown jewel of world football for itself. My hope would be that we make them welcome when the curtain goes up.