Talk of the 39th game has come up again.

For those of you who don't know or remember what this is it was a proposal to play a 39th round of league fixtures abroad to showcase the Premier League overseas much like the NFL does by playing a game at Wembley each year.

The proposal was widely ridiculed last time around due to the logistics of playing an extra fixture when the current format of playing each team in the league twice is as fair and perfect as it gets.

New proposals would see the 39th game become the 38th game meaning half the league would play one home game fewer due to playing abroad.

Basically this is putting profit ahead of the league's integrity yet again and I think and hope that the idea will again be quickly dismissed for the nonsense it is.

Every year this idea comes up

 

And every year it is still bad.

 

Last game of the season to tie up the title... played in another country.

 

Sounds awful.

Edited October 8, 201411 yr by Stim

One game in the middle of the season wouldn't be the worst thing in the world, provided it was worked in that teams got a good rest - obviously I prefer it the way it is now.

Playing the 39th game abroad, in a foreign land where the English premier league could potentially be decided, is just stupid.

However, how does this work for teams like Burnley? How many Americans are going to make the effort to travel distances to come and watch them?

The abroad game is only really something that would work for global, household clubs.

Edited October 8, 201411 yr by Zola

There are already games like that. They're called pre-season friendlies...

Its just dumb and pointless, it wont happen

There are already games like that. They're called pre-season friendlies...

 

Yep, spot on.

 

 

How long before the Rangers/Celtic to the Premiership debate comes up again also.

There are already games like that. They're called pre-season friendlies...

Exactly. Clubs can choose where they want to go for pre-season friendlies to increase coverage, sales etc. Perhaps the 39th game is a ploy by the Premier League to dictate where clubs should play. Or am I just being cynical?

I'm not sure why people keep calling it the "39th game" when it would be one of the existing fixtures.

 

I'm not opposed to the idea of playing an existing game abroad. It's no bother to me and it might be nice for football fans to get to see their clubs who would never otherwise get the opportunity. Of course it's not really about the fans and is entirely about expanding the Premier League's share of the foreign market, but that's modern day football for you. My main reservation is that important title/relegation deciding matches might get played abroad, it would be hugely unfair on regular fans who have been attending matches and supporting their clubs throughout the season to miss out on seeing those matches.

NO NO NO !!!!

 

How can this ever be considered ?

 

Pre-season tours are fine.

 

But imagine, one match abroad, hows that going to work ? 

 

Will it be our Citeh away game that we have to play abroad ?

 

Or will it be our Burnley home game ?

 

You cannot mess about with a billion £ industry like this, imagine Coca-Cola changing their cans to blue.

 

Pre-season tournaments are the best option.

Maybe Scudamore is worried about something else ?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29490112

Idiotic idea.

Do we all not pump enough into the EPL clubs with Sky and BT?

Why should we have to play a game in the English Premier League in New York or Dubai?

It's a joke tbh and I wish they would spend their time making improtant changes/decisions rather than keep bringing up this god awful idea.

Although I'm totally against this full stop, I'd love to hear some more details on how they expect it to work. I presume that it would be something like the top four playing top half sides in huge stadiums in the US, Gulf States and Far East while Burnley play Stoke in front of some passers by in a park in Albania.

I actually like the idea of playing a regular season game overseas or elsewhere (the EPL is no longer exclusive to England, sorry) but the logistics of it mean that the only teams to benefit would be the top 4-5. It would essentially be another Champions' League style revenue stream that would seperate the top 5 from everyone else.

I don't like the idea at all. I just don't see how it makes logical sense. Everyone would have to play a game otherwise it's not fair, and even then some would travel further than others etc.

 

It's funny because I'm a big fan of the NFL living in London yet I actually don't like the principal of them playing games over here. It's fun to go once a year and see a game, yes, but ultimately It's America's game, and it should remain that way IMO. They are even talking about relocating a team to London which would just be ridiculous.

Burnley play Stoke in front of some passers by in a park in Albania.

Still a vast improvement in playing the match at . . . Burnley or Stoke ;)

Yep, spot on.

How long before the Rangers/Celtic to the Premiership debate comes up again also.

They'd be relegated imo (no offence to Rangers' fans).

I wish people would just leave the game, the rules, format, etc, alone.

I live in Australia nowadays, but even I think this is a sh*te idea and would still think it was a sh*te idea if the game was going to be played in my back yard.

A few comments:

 

If, rather than a 39th game being played overseas, one of the current 38 is moved abroad does that mean a ST holder will have the cost of their ST reduced by one-nineteenth as they will be watching 18 rather than 19 games?

 

What next? Playing more than one game overseas?

 

Could football go the way of both codes of rugby? I.e. have play-offs at the end of the season. I've never understood that in rugby. If you're top at the end of the season you should be champions. I really hope I'm wrong about play-offs in football.

Playoffs are just to create more revenue. The lower league playoffs at least still recognise the league leaders as champions who are promoted. Rugby howevrt finishing first just gives you an advantage over the other playoff teams. The Champions are recognised as the winners of the playoffs which I find rather ridiculous but thats where Rubgy makes its money.

If that happens in football or this extra game I mat seriously lose interest. Dont even get me started on the so called super league they've been trying to start for years.

I actually like the idea of playing a regular season game overseas or elsewhere (the EPL is no longer exclusive to England, sorry) but the logistics of it mean that the only teams to benefit would be the top 4-5. It would essentially be another Champions' League style revenue stream that would seperate the top 5 from everyone else.

 

The English Premier League is exactly that, the ENGLISH Premier League. While fans from oversees are welcome to follow Chelsea and visit Stamford Bridge (it isn't exclusive in that way) to watch a game, Chelsea is still Chelsea and the club is still English. It's based in a specific area of London, in England and that's it. Chelsea, is exclusive to Chelsea and I would never like to see a league home game anywhere other than London.

 

There's a huge difference from oversees fans supporting the club and actually sending Chelsea around the world to play what should be a home game. 

Would this mean we'd get foreign teams playing a game in England too? Do season ticket holders get a right to attend the game abroad too? Will this benefit the clubs with less of an international fanbase as much as the bigger sides?

 

I suppose this is the flipside to the Premier League getting such a good TV deal. It seems very arbitrary to me, I'd rather keep the home/away balance and not cowtow to financial interests any more than we are already doing. As much as I enjoy integration with other foreign countries in other fields, I would rather keep the national leagues separate. We already have the Champions League (as well as the World Cup, African Cup of Nations, Copa America, European Championships, etc...) for the international glamour ties. If we really want to make extra money from one-off massive fixtures, the pre-season friendlies seem like a better route (e.g. the ones we played against Man City at the end of last season) than to change the setup of the league.

The English Premier League is exactly that, the ENGLISH Premier League. While fans from oversees are welcome to follow Chelsea and visit Stamford Bridge (it isn't exclusive in that way) to watch a game, Chelsea is still Chelsea and the club is still English. It's based in a specific area of London, in England and that's it. Chelsea, is exclusive to Chelsea and I would never like to see a league home game anywhere other than London.

 

There's a huge difference from oversees fans supporting the club and actually sending Chelsea around the world to play what should be a home game. 

Unfortunately, this right was forfeited when the premier league was formed. It's all about revenue now and I wouldn't be surprised to see this happen in the future. 

The English Premier League is exactly that, the ENGLISH Premier League. While fans from oversees are welcome to follow Chelsea and visit Stamford Bridge (it isn't exclusive in that way) to watch a game, Chelsea is still Chelsea and the club is still English. It's based in a specific area of London, in England and that's it. Chelsea, is exclusive to Chelsea and I would never like to see a league home game anywhere other than London.

 

There's a huge difference from oversees fans supporting the club and actually sending Chelsea around the world to play what should be a home game. 

 

Don't know how I spelled overseas wrong twice by the way. 

Objective comments all round once again largely for this proposal and rightly so. The latest I read is that UEFA could possibly overrule the playing of overseas matches.

Elsewhere I read that Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool and Manchester United are among the most high profile teams said to be against the idea.

Playing  in the heat of some of the countries being mentioned to host the games would remove what attracted the foreign fans to the English game in the first place.

 

 

As for the fans in England are we at all surprised by this? The game has been governed by money for too long now and the true fans are now secondary in importance.