by Alex Allen
aaa
Following the of controversial plan by the Premier League clubs, who on Thursday unanimously agreed to further examine a proposal to extend their season to 39 games by staging a new round of competitive fixtures outside the UK from January 2011, the Premier League stands on the brink of its most radical shake up since the league’s conception in 1992. Premier League chief executive Richard Scudamore, has described the proposed, additional ‘international round’ of fixtures as ‘an exciting and innovative proposal that needs careful consideration before being introduced’.
aaa
The Premier League would not be the first sporting franchise to try and hauk it’s product overseas. Roger Goodell, league commissioner of the NFL, described the scheduling of the first regular game outside North America as one of the highlights of the 2007 season. It wasn’t just for the benefit of good public relations and furthering the NFL brand either. The game itself between the Miami Dolphins and the New York Giants in October 2007 was an 82,000 sell out, and is estimated to have generated 20 million pounds in revenue for London with nearly 10,000 visiting for the game. Further more, the game was broadcast in 212 countries in 21 languages, which appeared to vindicate the NFL’s decision to pursue new markets. The recent Superbowl, won dramatically by the unfancied New York Giants, was watched by 93.2 million people in the US alone, and this, in addition to the potential worldwide television audience which approached a billion people, is further evidence of the potentially lucritive markets which lie further afield. Now the Premier League wants to crash the party. It is estimated that the proposed ‘international round’ could generate an additional 5 million pounds for each club who participates, and the increased revenue could be reinvested in to the league attracting better players and improving stadiums and facilities.
aaa
However, the proposals have received a lukewarm reception from fans, who feel that the proposals are nothing more than Premier League clubs disregarding their own supporters in a move motivated only by the prospect of further lining their own pockets. Malcolm Clarke, chairman of the Football Supporter’s Federation, has challenged the Premier League to, ‘scrap the plans if the majority of football fans in this country don't want matches to be played abroad’. He added, ‘the FSF has no doubt whatsoever that the vast majority of supporters are against this, and believe it would drag the Premier League into the realms of farce. When this ludicrous idea was first mooted in October last year, we ran a poll here on our website and a huge majority of supporters, 80% who took the trouble to vote, were in complete opposition to this’.
aaa
Whilst the big four clubs, Manchester United, Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool are undoubtedly box office attractions worldwide, what of the rest? Middlesbrough regularly struggle to even fill their own stadium, with an average of just 26,809 supporters coming to the 35,000 capacity Riverside stadium in the 2006-7 season. Wigan Athletic attracted even less, just 18,439 supporters came to the JJB stadium on average last season, a smaller number than some MLS attendances, as they perenially do battle with the town’s first love, rugby league. Surely it is naïve to think that either could generate enough global interest to fill a venue the size of Pasadena’s 90,000 capacity Rosebowl arena. Whilst Dubai, Tokyo and Sydney may dream of seeing Ronaldo, Ronaldo and Drogba in the flesh, what would they make of Bramble, Savage and Cattermole? Even if the fixtures were drawn randomly, with the top four seeded to avoid each other and to spread the league’s biggest assets evenly, several dead ties are unavoidable. Downgrading certain fixtures to smaller stadia due to a reduced demand for tickets would undermine the Premier League’s standing as a world brand of high enough quality to be a global spectacle. Further more, whilst in the initial development stage the twenty clubs have committed to sharing the financial rewards of this global enterprise equally, as the biggest teams with the most attractive and saught after players, will the big four be permanently content to receive the same sum as the clubs battling relegation at the other end of the table when it is they that provide the majority of the Premier League product?
aaa
There are a number of other potential hurdles to clear. Would the price of the proposed additional fixture be included in the cost of a standard season ticket? Given that Manchester United, Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool regularly fill their stadiums to capacity, what sort of compromise could be reached to satisfy the demand for tickets from domestic supporters, and those eager to grasp the unique oppurtunity to see their team in the flesh from abroad? The 10,000 strong support that the New York Giants took to London to face the Dolphins in October, demonstratest the afinity supporters have for their team.
aaa
Following the of controversial plan by the Premier League clubs, who on Thursday unanimously agreed to further examine a proposal to extend their season to 39 games by staging a new round of competitive fixtures outside the UK from January 2011, the Premier League stands on the brink of its most radical shake up since the league’s conception in 1992. Premier League chief executive Richard Scudamore, has described the proposed, additional ‘international round’ of fixtures as ‘an exciting and innovative proposal that needs careful consideration before being introduced’.
aaa
The Premier League would not be the first sporting franchise to try and hauk it’s product overseas. Roger Goodell, league commissioner of the NFL, described the scheduling of the first regular game outside North America as one of the highlights of the 2007 season. It wasn’t just for the benefit of good public relations and furthering the NFL brand either. The game itself between the Miami Dolphins and the New York Giants in October 2007 was an 82,000 sell out, and is estimated to have generated 20 million pounds in revenue for London with nearly 10,000 visiting for the game. Further more, the game was broadcast in 212 countries in 21 languages, which appeared to vindicate the NFL’s decision to pursue new markets. The recent Superbowl, won dramatically by the unfancied New York Giants, was watched by 93.2 million people in the US alone, and this, in addition to the potential worldwide television audience which approached a billion people, is further evidence of the potentially lucritive markets which lie further afield. Now the Premier League wants to crash the party. It is estimated that the proposed ‘international round’ could generate an additional 5 million pounds for each club who participates, and the increased revenue could be reinvested in to the league attracting better players and improving stadiums and facilities.
aaa
However, the proposals have received a lukewarm reception from fans, who feel that the proposals are nothing more than Premier League clubs disregarding their own supporters in a move motivated only by the prospect of further lining their own pockets. Malcolm Clarke, chairman of the Football Supporter’s Federation, has challenged the Premier League to, ‘scrap the plans if the majority of football fans in this country don't want matches to be played abroad’. He added, ‘the FSF has no doubt whatsoever that the vast majority of supporters are against this, and believe it would drag the Premier League into the realms of farce. When this ludicrous idea was first mooted in October last year, we ran a poll here on our website and a huge majority of supporters, 80% who took the trouble to vote, were in complete opposition to this’.
aaa
Whilst the big four clubs, Manchester United, Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool are undoubtedly box office attractions worldwide, what of the rest? Middlesbrough regularly struggle to even fill their own stadium, with an average of just 26,809 supporters coming to the 35,000 capacity Riverside stadium in the 2006-7 season. Wigan Athletic attracted even less, just 18,439 supporters came to the JJB stadium on average last season, a smaller number than some MLS attendances, as they perenially do battle with the town’s first love, rugby league. Surely it is naïve to think that either could generate enough global interest to fill a venue the size of Pasadena’s 90,000 capacity Rosebowl arena. Whilst Dubai, Tokyo and Sydney may dream of seeing Ronaldo, Ronaldo and Drogba in the flesh, what would they make of Bramble, Savage and Cattermole? Even if the fixtures were drawn randomly, with the top four seeded to avoid each other and to spread the league’s biggest assets evenly, several dead ties are unavoidable. Downgrading certain fixtures to smaller stadia due to a reduced demand for tickets would undermine the Premier League’s standing as a world brand of high enough quality to be a global spectacle. Further more, whilst in the initial development stage the twenty clubs have committed to sharing the financial rewards of this global enterprise equally, as the biggest teams with the most attractive and saught after players, will the big four be permanently content to receive the same sum as the clubs battling relegation at the other end of the table when it is they that provide the majority of the Premier League product?
aaa
There are a number of other potential hurdles to clear. Would the price of the proposed additional fixture be included in the cost of a standard season ticket? Given that Manchester United, Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool regularly fill their stadiums to capacity, what sort of compromise could be reached to satisfy the demand for tickets from domestic supporters, and those eager to grasp the unique oppurtunity to see their team in the flesh from abroad? The 10,000 strong support that the New York Giants took to London to face the Dolphins in October, demonstratest the afinity supporters have for their team.
aaa
For those unable to afford the inflated cost of a three and a half thousand mile round trip to see their team in action, would the game be televised at a time which would suit the home supporters, or the audience abroad? Given the prospective income that the proposed ‘international round’ of fixtures is projected to generate, I suspect it would be the latter. In the midst of the whole proposal, is the detrimental effect it might have on the teams themselves. Sir Alex Ferguson’s comments that, ‘"they [the Premier League] can't keep their mouth shut down there. I think if they are going to do these things they should have been enquiring and having discussions with managers and players before they come out with all this stuff and make an issue of it’, are indicative of the gulf which has grown between the football’s chairmen and the players on the field. Manchester United are, of course, all too familiar with the lure of the foreign dollar, having recently earned a reported 1 million pound gift from the Saudi Arabian royal family for participating in Sami Al- Jaber's testimonial. As Ferguson commented after the game, ‘"I must admit that when the decision was taken to play in Saudi Arabia I had not expected such a tough FA Cup tie against Premier League opposition," he conceded, in regard to the home FA Cup tie against Tottenham Hotspur on the following Sunday. "I reckoned the odds were on us drawing a team from lower down the divisions because we had had a run of nine draws against teams from the Premier League." In other words, Ferguson took a risk. He gambled that Manchester United could pocket an easy million pounds, and still maintain their consistent domestic form. When Robbie Keane poked home Aaron Lennon’s cross after 24 minutes to give Spurs the lead at Old Trafford five days later, he must have wondered if it had been a gamble that was to backfire rather emphatically, leaving him a host of uncomfortable questions to ponder.
For those unable to afford the inflated cost of a three and a half thousand mile round trip to see their team in action, would the game be televised at a time which would suit the home supporters, or the audience abroad? Given the prospective income that the proposed ‘international round’ of fixtures is projected to generate, I suspect it would be the latter. In the midst of the whole proposal, is the detrimental effect it might have on the teams themselves. Sir Alex Ferguson’s comments that, ‘"they [the Premier League] can't keep their mouth shut down there. I think if they are going to do these things they should have been enquiring and having discussions with managers and players before they come out with all this stuff and make an issue of it’, are indicative of the gulf which has grown between the football’s chairmen and the players on the field. Manchester United are, of course, all too familiar with the lure of the foreign dollar, having recently earned a reported 1 million pound gift from the Saudi Arabian royal family for participating in Sami Al- Jaber's testimonial. As Ferguson commented after the game, ‘"I must admit that when the decision was taken to play in Saudi Arabia I had not expected such a tough FA Cup tie against Premier League opposition," he conceded, in regard to the home FA Cup tie against Tottenham Hotspur on the following Sunday. "I reckoned the odds were on us drawing a team from lower down the divisions because we had had a run of nine draws against teams from the Premier League." In other words, Ferguson took a risk. He gambled that Manchester United could pocket an easy million pounds, and still maintain their consistent domestic form. When Robbie Keane poked home Aaron Lennon’s cross after 24 minutes to give Spurs the lead at Old Trafford five days later, he must have wondered if it had been a gamble that was to backfire rather emphatically, leaving him a host of uncomfortable questions to ponder.
aaa
These new proposals could well put every Premier League club in much the same position. Come the end of the season how much will those additional three points be worth? Even taking the increased parachute payments from 7.75 to 11 million pounds in to consideration, the television rights alone generate 30 million pounds for the clubs involved per season, in comparison to less than 1 million for their Championship counterparts. In the 2005/6 season €430 was distributed between the 32 teams that qualified for the Champions League group stages. Even taking the most generous projections of the financial benefit overseas fixtures for Premier League clubs to be true, those figures are still dwarfed by the financial incentives for clubs fighting to break in to Europe’s elite competition, or simply fighting to maintain their Premier League status. By pursuing their latest cash cow abroad, English clubs could find themselves in severe danger of a Leeds United-esque financial melt down because they spread themselves too thinly to remain afloat domestically. Although a firm decision from the twenty Premier League clubs regarding the issue will not have to be made until January 2009, before then there are difficult obstacles which must be overcome, opposition, notably FIFA and Gordon Brown, to convince and appease, and players and managers to consult. Despite only agreeing to further examine to the proposal of an additional weekend of overseas fixtures, the prospect of its realization has already caught the imagination of the football community. Now, the serious business of evaluating whether the expansion of the Premier League in to new, foreign markets is really a viable and sensible option begins.
These new proposals could well put every Premier League club in much the same position. Come the end of the season how much will those additional three points be worth? Even taking the increased parachute payments from 7.75 to 11 million pounds in to consideration, the television rights alone generate 30 million pounds for the clubs involved per season, in comparison to less than 1 million for their Championship counterparts. In the 2005/6 season €430 was distributed between the 32 teams that qualified for the Champions League group stages. Even taking the most generous projections of the financial benefit overseas fixtures for Premier League clubs to be true, those figures are still dwarfed by the financial incentives for clubs fighting to break in to Europe’s elite competition, or simply fighting to maintain their Premier League status. By pursuing their latest cash cow abroad, English clubs could find themselves in severe danger of a Leeds United-esque financial melt down because they spread themselves too thinly to remain afloat domestically. Although a firm decision from the twenty Premier League clubs regarding the issue will not have to be made until January 2009, before then there are difficult obstacles which must be overcome, opposition, notably FIFA and Gordon Brown, to convince and appease, and players and managers to consult. Despite only agreeing to further examine to the proposal of an additional weekend of overseas fixtures, the prospect of its realization has already caught the imagination of the football community. Now, the serious business of evaluating whether the expansion of the Premier League in to new, foreign markets is really a viable and sensible option begins.
No comments:
Post a Comment