“No” To Game 39 – Part 2: Exploring The 'Cons'

Following on from my previous piece looking at the apparent 'Pros' of an additional overseas match in the Premier League, this post looks at the Cons. For me, these are:

- Imbalance of the league through unfair fixtures
- Seeding system flaws
- Impeding on other national leagues
- Damage to the national team
- Complete disregard for regular match-attending supporters

Firstly, the English football league has historically been conducted on the basis that each team plays each other twice, home and away. This promotes a level playing field in the fixtures list as no team can claim to have an easier ride than another – each team will have to play Man United twice for example.

Adding an extra game completely throws this concept of a balanced league out of the window. An extra game means potentially playing Man United, Arsenal or Chelsea 3 times in a season. It means a team could win the league on the basis of getting an easier match than a rival, or on the flipside a team could be relegated due to an additional hard fixture.

This, coupled with the proposed concept of seeding, only exacerbates the potential injustice that could be served up by an additional fixture. Any kind of seeding to 'protect' the top teams would be inherently biased against the needs of the teams facing relegation, and turns the process into a lottery.

Also, at what point would seedings take place? The fairest possible time to take seedings would be the last minute before the games would be played. However, this would be logistically impossible as the teams would need to prepare for where they would travel to, and the venues would need to promote the games in advance. Seedings made in December or at the start of the season could be vastly inaccurate when it comes to the time the matches are played.

Playing games abroad will also tread on the toes of national leagues that are already struggling to promote themselves in the face of popularity of the European leagues. Stamping on the leagues emerging in Asia and the USA will have a negative impact on the development of World football, as it is likely that many foreign fans will only be interested in attending Premier League matches rather than those of their local clubs.

There could be disappointment in the fixtures for the bidding countries – everyone will want Man United, Arsenal, Liverpool and Chelsea, but will nations bid the anticipated sums for Wigan and Fulham?

This could also damage the national team for two reasons. Firstly, I've lost count of the times I hear the FA and managers complain that players have too many matches a season. There has continually been talk of reducing the Premier League to 18 teams. Yet, they are considering bringing an additional match into the calendar that would not only tire players with an additional fixture, but risk further injury, illness or tiredness due to the effects of a different climate and unnecessary travel.

The other impact on the national team could come from the increased revenue. If the teams receive more money, this will simply be used for wages to buy the best players, or to keep them if they already have them. We are already seeing the policy of buying abroad in action in the top league, and with the additional money I can't see this improving.

Alongside the imbalance of the league, the most important issue for me is the disregard for the loyal football fan. The suggestion has been made that this has no effect on supporters, as it i an additional gam and therefore they don't 'lose' one as such.

However, fans will want to attend any game they can. As a season ticket holder I attend every home match, and around half the away fixtures. I would obviously want to attend the additional game if I could, which is likely to be at considerable expense. There are also fans out there who have never missed a game in years, and the thought of missing a their team in these cases must be unbearable.

The arrogance of the League is shocking – to think it doesn't affect us as the game is an additional one frankly shows what regard they have for the loyal football fan. The clubs are the heart and soul of many parts of this nation, and any attempt to devalue the input of fans that have built and supported the clubs for so long is one that is hard to stomach.

One thing that isn't beyond the bounds of possibility is that of teams uprooting. If foreign fixtures are successful, why would a team need to be constrained to their current homes? What would be the need for a club having a stadium when playing around the world is more profitable? One Premier League manager has already been quoted that this could turn clubs into the football equivalent of the Harlem Globetrotters.

An extreme thought maybe, but in a world where money is running our game as a commodity and the average football fan is becoming a smaller part of the equation, are we that far away?