International $occer
>> Thursday
The English Premier League has announced that they will look into the possibility of one-upping the NFL and having each team play one game on foreign soil each season. I'm sure we'll hear the same refrains of "for the good of the game" "expanding our international exposure" or "bringing the game to the world's fans."
I don't buy it for a second.
EPL officials have brought up the NFL playing games at Wembley as an incentive for the change; a way to expand internationally when the market is tapped-out domestically. Just as the NFL cannot get any bigger in the US than it already is (Hence the "Toronto Bills"), the EPL cannot get any bigger than it is in England. It is also the most widely-followed league in the world. It is also a completely different situation from the NFL.
COMPETITION
The NFL schedule is a 16-game slate; six division games, four games against an intraconference division, another four against a division from the opposite conference, and two games chosen for a variety of reasons, which is a catchphrase for TV (This is partly why the Colts and Patriots have played each other every season the past five years.) Each season, any given team will not play 18 of the teams in the NFL.
The EPL schedule is a 38-game double round-robin. Every team plays each of the other 19 teams once at home, and once on the road. The team with the most points at the end of the season wins the title. In case of a tie, goal difference is the first tiebreaker. Under the "International EPL" plan, there would be a 39th game, with pairings decided by a blind draw, so that no team loses a home game.
The blind draw is presumably to give it a color of parity. Though it seems odd that the EPL seems so eager to protect the comeptitve integrity of the competition by not scrapping any home games, yet tosses away the "Every team twice" rule that has been part of English football for over a century so easily. In the end though, there WILL be winners and losers. One team will get to play Wigan Athletic three times, and one team will have to play Manchester United three times. This could very easily lead to unjust results. While it would seem exceedingly rare that a team would lose the title on goal difference, other harmful results could come about just as easily.
The top four teams at the end of the season qualify for the next season's Champions League, a finish that is worth tens of millions of dollars to teams. Even more valuable is what happens at the bottom of the table. While if the Miami Dolphins lose a bit of competitive advantage by giving up a home game, and finish in last, the only punishment is a couple of Leno jokes and the difficult decision of what to do with that #1 draft pick. In England there is no draft. The teams that finish at the bottom are relegated to their AAA. This can mean Darwinistic ruin very quickly. Leeds United was in the semifinals of the Champions League as recently as 2001, but following two relegations, they are now plying their trade in England's AA level, on a budget relative to their former EPL rivals as the Toledo Mud Hens would have to the Boston Red Sox. If another club finished in 18th and dropped, just because they couldn't make up a goal difference in a made-for-TV game against Arsenal while their 17th-place (and surviving) team got a patsy for their international game, there would be outrage.
SPREADING THE GAME
Who are we kidding? I can't blame the NFL for attempting to take the game international. Its following is only in a handful of countries, and has its largest popualrity in North America. Soccer is the most popular team sport in the world. FIFA has more member countries than the United Nations. Any idea that this is "spreading the popularity of the game" is a naked lie. This is nothing more than a cash grab, plain and simple. In addition, it will be a cash grab for the clubs who don't need it. While there might be packed stadiums in New York and Sydney to see Liverpool, Arsenal, or Chelsea, will there be the same kind of revenue injection for a neutral site game between Bolton Wanderers and Sunderland? (Bonus points if any YCS staff member has heard of EITHER of those teams). The rich will get richer, and the gap between the Big Four and the rest of the EPL will widen. The EPL does not have revenue-sharing in the sense that we would recognize it.
INTERNATIONAL IMPACT
And what would any of this money be used for? To buy more players? Are there any players left? The EPL is the most lucrative league on the planet. More international stars ply their trade in England than anywhere else. League leader Arsenal does not start a single English player. The International appeal of the EPL is one reason why FIFA's president is suggesting a rule prohibiting teams from starting more than 5 international players (The so-called "6+5" Rule).
In addition, the playing of EPL games in foreign countries does nothing to help promote those countries' domestic leagues. How does an EPL game in New York help the development of MLS? Red Bull New York draws sellout crowds for exhibitions against foreign superclubs, but draws 15,000 for league games. However, even that game presumably brings in a few people who have not followed RBNY before, and if they get a good result, maybe picks up some fans. How does a game in Tokyo help the J-League, or a game in Sydney help the A-League; two successful, but relatively fledgling leagues in the same position as MLS, with the skilled players but without the tradition and big names of the English top-flight?
I may be wrong, but I'm having a really hard time seeing how this move is good for anyone besides the owners of the Big Four.
Posts
7 comments:
I've heard of Kiefer Sunderland. Oh, it's Sutherland? My bad.
Also, I'm not sure I agree that the blind draw is such a big deal, based on the fact that it would account for just 1/39 of the season. Compared to the "unjust"ness of wild card spots in both the NFL and MLB (or for that matter, playoff spots that go to winners of shit divisions), one game seems pretty tame.
That's a valid point, but the concern here is different. In the NFL or MLB, even if a team misses out on the playoffs, they get "rewarded" with a higher draft pick, or by reaping the benefits of revenue sharing, or both.
Across the pond, the difference between the Premiership and the Championship (second-level, their AAA) is reported at 60 million pounds, or roughly 120 million dollars...per season. So with that kind of revenue at stake, anything that tips the competitive balance could have huge consequences.
Last year, 17th place Wigan Athletic stayed in the EPL with a record of 10-20-8. 18th place Sheffield United was relegated with the same record, but with a goal difference of -23 to Wigan's -22. One goal. Worth 120 million dollars.
How hard is it to get back to the Big Boys league?
Also, my solution for the problem you pose...why not make that "international game" not count in the goal difference?
Depends. Some teams recover very well and are back in the next season. Case in point, Birmingham City and Sunderland were both relegated in 2006, promoted in 2007, and look like they might be on their way back down this year (18th and 16th place). However, some clubs never recover.
Leeds United were relegated in 2005 and are currently in League 1 (Double-A). In 2006, Leeds United were one game away from returning to the Premiership. The next season, they were relegated to League 1. You can see how quickly things can fall apart once that EPL television revenue isn't coming in. It makes it harder and harder to sign world-class players.
In addition to Leeds, the competitive landscape is strewn with other fallen teams. Bradford City was relegated in 2001 and are currently in League 2 (Single-A). Coventry City were relegated in 2001 and are probably headed down to League 1 after this season.
Generally, because of the disparity in revenue between EPL and non-EPL teams, the more time you spend out of the Premiership, the harder it is to get back in.
---------------------------
As to not having goal difference count in the 39th Game, that's good creative thinking, but at the same time, you'd have people who scream bloody murder should (taking last year's teams) Wigan finish in 17th place after tying a lousy team, while the 18th place team loses to Man United by one in an American or Chinese stadium filled with Man U fans.
Great run down of the EPL and the impact of the interantional games. I agree with the idea that the blind draw games should not count on the standings.
I am fired up about about the idea of these teams playing in the U.S.. There is already talk that my hometown, Rochester, NY, will host a game.
Thanks for chiming in, Rochester.
Rochester's a great soccer town, and the Rhinos are certainly one of the top organizations in the USL First Division (US Soccer's AAA to the rest of our readers), but I don't think the EPL is headed for Upstate New York.
Potential EPL games (looking less likely due to the backlash they've received in the UK and International Press) in the United States are either going to be in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, or Houston. I would be VERY surprised to see them played anywhere else in the US (MAYBE Seattle, Boston, or Miami).
Wouldn't be surprised to see a match in Toronto or Montreal closer to your neck of the woods.
Post a Comment