The Debate: ‘The dreaded 39th game is about to rear its ugly head again’

As Manchester United and Portsmouth prepare to play an exhibition match in Abuja on Sunday, in front of 60,000 fanatical Nigerians, you can almost hear the sound of hands being gleefully rubbed together at the headquarters of the Premier League. By all accounts, the match could have been sold out several times over – something that is certain to crop up when the 20 Barclays Premier League clubs get together for their annual meeting next month.

Remember the dreaded “39th game”, or, to use its working title, the “Premier League international round”? Well, it is about to rear its ugly head again. The league has until the end of the year to formulate its proposals, with a view to including them in the invitation to tender for the next set of live broadcast rights. Failure to do so would effectively put the project on hold for two or three years, so, like it or not, this is something the Premier League will be pushing hard over the coming months.

Almost six months have passed since the misjudged fanfare that accompanied the Premier League’s initial announcement and there is a belief among the clubs that, now that people have had time to get used to the idea – and that the league has had the opportunity to review its original plan of creating an extra round of fixtures to be played in cities around the world on the same weekend – the resistance from supporters and from the global football authorities may have lessened.

Has it really, or is the league and its clubs underestimating the strength of feeling on this matter? Because, from where I am sitting, the idea sounds every bit as repulsive now as it did five months ago.

What do you think? Should Premier League clubs play a round of matches on foreign soil? Post your views below.

OLIVER KAY

Comments

[Rich]

If we have a 39th game counting towards the PL standings, the league becomes a farce and nobody can argue otherwise. Scudamore and his cronies will continue to use their best spin and PR to gradually push this through, but it is a hideously flawed, purely money driven idea.

By all means find a way to have a pre-season or mid season series of games abroad, but they cannot be a part of the PL season. My only suggestion would be small friendly tournaments in pre season (along the lines of the Amsterdam or Emirates tournaments) or perhaps one or more rounds of the league cup.

And another thing, even if the games are all seeded to put bigger sides against smaller sides, you would still end up with games like Blackburn vs Middlesbrough or Bolton vs Everton for example - are these really going to fill grounds in Sydney or Kuala Lumpur without the "big 4"? Because let's face it, they are the only teams in the PL with truly global appeal!

[will]

a 39th game would be stupid because it isnt fair. based on last season it would have been manu v derby and chelsea v reading (i think) which would have probably been to guranteed wins for manu and chelsea, but it would have meant more than likely that manu would get an advantage in goal difference as derby routinely lost 4s or more against the top clubs. while reading where less abject and probably only would have lost by 2 or 3. which doesnt sound alot, but 1 goal is enought to decide the title, and if those chelsea played derby instead the winner of that hyperthetical league would have been reversed.

However, the premier league must begin to play some form of foreign competitve matches, because if we dont, spain or germany or italy or even the US will and then the prem will go back to being the standard that it was in the mid 90s when the top british teams where likely to go out of europe to teams like trelleborg.
the charity shield should be the first semi competitive match played abroad,(after all how many people will cry about not being able to go to the charity shield?) then it should probably be the 2 of 4 quarter finals in the fa and league cups. that way you can choose the biggest games that foreign fans will want to watch and if there are league 2 or other small clubs still in the competition, you can choose not to play there games abroad so that the samll clubs fans dont miss out on seeing their club in an fa cup quarter final.

[Richie Woodcock]

Instead of worrying about playing an extra game so that the greedy corporate forces of modern football can further line their own pockets clubs and the league should really be worrying about falling EPL attendances and further alienation of everyday loyal fans.

[Lance Poll]

The 39th game should be played between teams adjacent in the table, i.e., the first team plays the the second team, the third team plays the fourth team. Then the matches would have the potential to change the positions of the teams, i.e., they might change the Champion, the UEFA Cup entrants, and those relegated. Using this method many matches would have great interest with the tension of cup ties. So before the end of the season the overseas venues would be chosen, but only later would the teams would be matched to the venues. For example, the venue for the first two teams would be decided but only at the end of the season would that town know whom they would be hosting. The above idea would spread interest in the Premiership internationally as the matches would have real meaning and effect on the table and it's rewards. See it?

[Jon Leigh]

I was going to post but David Bewley - July 22, 2008 at 07:50 AM says it exactly as I would have.

Greed Greed Greed.

[Tim]

Money can get you most things in our sell-out society, but it can't change the basic mathematical laws of the universe. 39 games each for a league competition featuring 20 teams just doesn't go. It doesn't matter what a great experience the 39th game would be, or how it would reward loyal fans around the world... the numbers don't add up.

Imagine the arguments:

Arsenal fan: Double winners!
Spurs fan: Yeah, but not a proper Premier League championship, though, was it?
Arsenal fan: Well... um, it's still pretty impressive though.
Spurs fan: But not like Man United in '99 or '08. It's not a REAL double.

Wiki will say: Arsenal - Premier League and Champion's League double winners in 2010 (39 game season).

It's even possible that a future Premier League regime would remove 39 game seasons from the record books altogether, thus rendering any doubles or trebles nul and void.

What kind of English football fan would rather watch a Premier League game in Australia than have their team win a genuine Premier League season? Prawn sandwidges, anyone?

[Dave]

Matthias, I would argue to the contrary that this is very much FIFA's business. The Premier League has been an outstanding success which should be recognised, butit should not be allowed to muscle into other countries and disrupt their leagues fanbases anymore than they already have done. The league should only ever be played in England, it is the English league after all. This is nothing but a cynical, disgusting money making drive by the greedy, power hungry individuals at the top of the game in England, and I very much hope that FIFA makes it their business that this bird brained idea is never allowed come to fruition

[Owen]

I'm extremely concerned with this proposal. I totally agree with Martin's comments both in this debate and his previous columns.

What concerns me is that the increase in wealth of the clubs seems to have had a direct and inverse relationship with the quality of the national side.

Surely it can be no coincidence that 2 years prior to winning the world cup, domestic Italian clubs suffered a massive recession, resulting in a firesale of the best foreigners.

Germany have suffered a similar fate, and their national side seems to be doing pretty ok, thank you very much.

I think my club, Spurs, would benefit greatly on a purely monetary basis. I could therefore see better players and standard of football at the Lane. However, the standard will have raised throughout the Prem, meaning the status quo is likely to remain.

I remember some mention of the format being seeded - this would therefore help the top 4, and be to the massive detriment of those that finished in the bottom half and those recently promoted.

I want to see greater competition in the prem, not an overall increase in the standard of football played by foreigners maintaining the status quo. The template of 80 and 90's Scottish leagues is not one that should be followed.

[Chris Allison]

I personally agree with the 39th plan although I do understand alot of the reservations about it except for people who say the local fans made the game what it is, what a load of baloney. How much money did the league receieve a year or so ago for selling overseas TV rights? Its Jonny foreigner who has put the money in and should be rewarded.

[Brian Jupp]

I am a Palace fan, if we ever get promoted we could be relegated by being unlucky enough to get Man Utd for the 39th game.

Therefore a very bad money grabbing keep football rich who cares about the ordinary working class support that took the game from where it was to where it is today idea.

[Philip N]

At least the 39th game fiasco proves what all England fans have always known - the FA/Clubs don't give a hoot about the national team. How many times have we heard it said 'we play too much football' when it comes to releasing players for England?? Odd they seem so keen on game 39.

[Mike Pacy]

I personally don't see a problem. I agree there is a lot of money in the game already, but if the money from this extra round was shared equally amongst the teams then it's something that could benefit the smaller teams more than the bigger teams. I think it should be the first game of the season as it's a time when upsets and form haven't quite set in and a time close to all these overseas friendlies anyway. The games should be based on previous seasons finishing positions, so 1st plays 11th, 2 plays 12th etc, with the promoted teams filling the 18th to 20th spots based on their position in the Championship. As for fans at home, they are not losing anything, they'll still be able to see 38 games and if they want to see the oversea game they can travel, what's the problem???

[Howard]

It would suit me down to the ground if every Premier$hip game were held overseas. Good riddance!!

[Paul]

Yep - it's still a cr*p idea for any local football federation.
Just trying to make the EPL 'brand' stronger...just about money

[David Bewley]

The Premier League is already the richest in the world. Why does it need more money? Football clubs are typically run on financial models that would see businesses in any other sphere go to the wall. We have seen that any additional money that comes into the games goes straight into the players' and agents' pockets. None is invested in grass roots players and coaches. None goes to cheaper match tickets. So after this hare-brained scheme comes in Frank Lampard will have 6 Lambhorginis instead of only 5. It is all very pointless and very depressing. Part of me hopes that this whole football money bubble will burst so that maybe we can have our game back.

[Johnny Mac]

In order to maintain the integrity of the competition, the argument that an additional game should not count for points is unassailable, so why don't the Premier League teams arrange games overseas on the weekends when International games are played and no league fixtures are scheduled? If they are correct in their assumption that Premier League teams will draw a crowd wherever they play (and hence add more to the clubs coffers), it shouldn't make a blind bit of difference that no points are up for grabs.

[Dave]

The implementation of a 39 game season will have wide ranging benefits for everyone connected with football in England.

The cash made from the extra game abroad will allow the clubs to invest more in good causes in the community. In addition more money will filter down through the lower leagues right down to grass roots. Finally, the clubs will be able to pass some of the extra revenue onto their fans by way of lower ticket prices.

So lets have less negative feedback and look at the many positives.

Picture this. Fly to Dubai to watch Bolton -v- Man Utd, enjoy a week in the Dubai sunshine before flying on to Hong Kong to watch Chelsea -v- Newcastle. A few days shopping in Hong Kong, before jetting back to Qatar to catch Arsenal -v- West Ham. A few more days in the sunshine before heading back to the freezing cold of England. Mouth watering stuff eh?

I can foresee lots of genuine football fans taking the month of January off to fly around the world taking in lots off top class EPL action. I cant wait!

[Mike]

Just as bad an idea now as it was when first brought up. Besides the issue of asymmetry (which is totally unavoidable and renders the whole idea moot in any case), the question has never really been whether the 39th game would work for Manchester United. There aren’t too many countries where Manchester United wouldn’t draw a nice, profitable crowd.

But where would a nice West Ham vs. Blackburn match do well? Not here in the United States. This isn’t 1990. We now have options for decent football on the pitch and excellent football on the television. I doubt a match of Premier League also-rans would draw more than 10,000 – 15,000 in any most major cities.

[Joseph Brown]

I think the 39th game is dead in the water, but as Blatter recently said, the Premier League wants to export the league cup.

[Jayraj Jog]

In addition, Richard Scudamore's view that if the BPL doesn't do, someone else will, is completely wrong. If FIFA bans this sort of thing altogether, no one can do it. Yeah, I know, FIFA can't be trusted when it comes to England. They may ban it when the BPL wants to go global but then bend over for La Liga or Serie A. But it can be done, given the will. Game 39 is just an attempt to extract every last penny from viewers worldwide.

[Jayraj Jog]

Game 39 is a terrible idea. I'm an MUFC fan living in India and all my mates support MUFC or one of the other big four (since we don't live in England, we're not shy about picking the best team over the "local team"). The chances of any of us ever watching our teams live in a competitive game are pretty slim. Nevertheless, the idea sounds pretty horrible to me. It's an insult to tradition, history and to football fans in England. Moreover, it'll only serve to smother local football here; clubs like East Bengal(1920) and Mohun Bagan (1889) are as old as most European clubs. Most kids here don't know the name of a single player playing in the Indian league. The players and clubs may not be world-class but how will they get better without popular support?

[Josh]

There's actually a very simple, fairly acceptable, solution here.

Problem 1: The game must not affect the league table, for all the obvious reasons of integrity set out at great length in the media.

Problem 2: The game must have more weight than a mere friendly, otherwise it will not be competitive.

Solution: Rather than splitting the extra money from the matches evenly between 20 teams (figures quoted: around £3-5 million each), split it evenly between the 10 winners of the matches. £6-10 million is enough to make even Man Utd or Chelsea take it seriously.

The biggest problem I see is that, with apologies to supporters of those clubs, (for example) Sunderland-Derby is not the same draw as Man U-Arsenal. In order to even it out, you probably end up playing Derby-Man U, in order to get the fans in, and that might be as good as handing the money for their match straight to the league champions each season. I don't know, though; maybe the extra money from having Man U-Arsenal in LA will even out Reading-v-Fulham in Bishkek - as long as it's shared evenly between all the winners, you could play 1st-v-2nd, 3rd-v-4th and so on.

[Rob]

Just plain bloody marvelous. You report that 46 football clubs some of whom are premiership sides owe the tax man. These same clubs pay players salaries way above the national average in fact some salaries we can only dream of, I ask the question, "What is the tax man doing? You ask about the 39th game, my reply who gives a toss!

[John Stephens]

The match between Manchester United and Portsmouth is a friendly. The 39th games should equally be classed as friendlies with no league points at stake.
Problem solved

[Mike]

"from where I am sitting, the idea sounds every bit as repulsive now as it did five months ago."

Ditto. This is still a cynical money making sell-out no matter how you spin it, and no matter how long you leave it.

Given the fact that the premier league are still trying to sell it after six months of strong opposition from virtually everybody within the game gives you an idea of how little regard the people at the very top of the game have for anyone's opinions other than their own. I suspect, therefore, that this will be pushed through eventually regardless of the opposition.

[Dave]

Once the integrity of the league setup goes then the league is done.
Stupid idea and Scudamore should be sacked. The only thing in its favour is that Blatter and Platini are against it, and I find it hard to accept that I agree with those 2

[Matthias]

Premier League gets the most money out of TV revenues compared to the other leagues in europe. That is because it has the most TV viewers all over the world. Therefore it would be fair to give the people who contribute to the global success the possibility to see a game live. On the other hand i think the execution is very complicatet so perhaps it should not be Premiere League games but League Cup for example. But one thing is withou doubt. FIFA and UEFA should get a firm signal that this question is no'n of their business!

[Archie]

Back to the 39the game again? These arrogant 'leaders' of the game show as much consideration for fans' as the EU does for Irish opinion.
What happened to the clubs' complaints about too many games for their overworked 'slaves'?
It's all about the money, stupid!

[Paul]

The issue (asymmetry of the league with a 39th game - any team getting derby 3 times last season would have had a distinct advantage over any team getting, say Villa) remains the same. At present the league is a fair competition because of te format of playing every team twice, home and away.
Of course, I'm not even opening the emotional can of worms that is the fan-club relationsip here; I'm sure others will do that.
So, fundamentally, bad idea then, bad idea now.