[gonzo]

An audacious and depressing voyage to the end of the earth
The Premier League's plans to go global will surely only entrench further the top-flight's money-making oligarchies
Sean Ingle February 7, 2008 3:47 PM

Today's news that the Premier League plans to literally go to the ends of the earth to wring every last cent out of its product is at once audacious and depressing, inevitable and sad. Come 2010-11, the Premier League season is likely to be extended to 39 matches, thus allowing every team to play an additional game overseas in January. These won't be exhibitions either: teams will be drawn out of pots, points awarded, fates potentially decided on some foreign field in front of transient, happy-snappy fans.

The immediate reaction of most UK football supporters to these proposals will be outright horror. The flaws are certainly legion. Is it fair that one team will face Manchester United three times, while others play them only twice? Is it right that the top five sides may be seeded to avoid meeting each other? And is it ever right that all the sorrow and suffering, glory and pain of a league season could be affected by the whims of a spinning tombola at Premier League HQ?

The clubs are said to be "enthusiastic" about these proposals. You bet they are. As their squads romp and roast their way around Rio de Janeiro or Beijing or whichever city gets the right to host a Premier League match, they will be coining in cash from TV, advertising and sponsorship, as well as jet-boosting their brand further into the stratosphere. This afternoon government ministers expressed "concern" that the plans aren't in football's best interests. But, crucially, there is no outright opposition, no this-far-and-no-further statements of intent. One wonders what the new culture secretary Andy Burnham, who in 2004 attacked the "the unpleasant stink around the modern game", makes of the news. So far he's not saying.

The Premier League has its counterstrikes ready. It claims the additional money the clubs make will be ploughed back into English football (although we all know what happened to its lofty launch ambitions to advance the cause of the England team) and - not unreasonably - that its duty is to take its product to a global fanbase. Fans might still squabble about whether the Premier League is the best in the world, but it is certainly the richest. This is about keeping it that way.

And these days the competition cuts across sports too. With the NFL, NBA and NHL going global, the Premier League believes football must do the same. Before this year's Super Bowl, the NFL commissioner Roger Goodell approved a plan to host a game in the UK every year until 2010, and there are whispers that the NFL may expand to a 17-game season to allow every team to play an extra game outside of the US. Sound familiar?

As familiar, perhaps, as the sight of seeing Manchester United, Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool at the top of the league. It's amazing to think that, only 15 years ago, when Manchester United won the first Premier League title, Aston Villa finished second, Norwich third, Blackburn fourth and QPR fifth. Since then, the quality of English league football has soared, but the competition has become as predictable as a Steven Seagal movie. It's always the usual suspects, the same faces, familar outcomes. These proposals will surely only entrench the status quo, the same money-making oligarchies. The biggest clubs will attract the biggest TV rights deals, ergo they are likely to have the financial clout to keep winning the most trophies.

Sadly, this is the way of modern football. Not so very long ago, Kofi Annan claimed that "arguing against globalisation is like arguing against the laws of gravity." The implication was clear: kick and flap and scream all you like, gravity will always win. Today's news provides further evidence that he was right.