Sadiq Khan has suggested that the long rumoured prospect of Premier League fixtures being played in the United States is now inevitable. Khan, a Liverpool supporter (largely an armchair one), told the Sports Agents podcast that he believes a stateside ‘international round’ of Premier League fixtures, similar to the NFL and NBL games played in London, was ‘the way things were going’: ‘They (the big clubs) have big fans in America. Why can’t those fans see a competitive game?… All 32 NFL teams have played in London, all of them have had a great experience. We have some of the top baseball teams playing in London’, Khan explained.
Nearly all the top clubs go on the road already
The idea provoked howls of outrage from the FSA (Football Supporters Association) earlier this year and a promise to oppose such a move with a ‘full blown two feet off the ground, studs up to the knee tackle’. The FSA will be up for the fight as they strenuously opposed the previous iteration of ‘game 39’ as it was known in 2008, as did the FA.
But perhaps the idea was just ahead of its time back then. With half of Premier League clubs having at least a minority stake from the US, the timing could be more propitious. Things have certainly been building: NBC Sports executive Jon Miller, whose network has the US Premier League rights, expressed in May his network’s desire for US Premier League fixtures, and the Premier League’s chief executive Richard Masters followed up on his comments by saying ‘the door is ajar’ for such an initiative. We’ve also had La Liga’s president Javier Tebas revealing plans to stage top flight Spanish fixtures in America in the 2025/2026 season. And now Khan.
Nearly all the top clubs go on the road already, pre-season, in what are clearly business trips, so a step up to competitive fixtures must seem like a logical progression to some. After all, there is a limit to what can be achieved in pre-season tours. The games, glorified kickabouts, are a bit lame, with players under strict orders not to get injured. I watched Man City in Yokohama once and thought that Michel Platini’s wild idea that the game would be improved one day by the removal of tackling had finally been realised.
Competitive fixtures would be another story entirely. Imagine Liverpool vs. Man City in the Rose Bowl Pasadena with crucial Premier League points at stake. The diehards might be appalled but it would be a genuine event, with a cup final atmosphere, for which you can imagine there would be huge interest. And why stop at one? Why not play three or four, or more, Premier League fixtures overseas? Auction them off to the highest bidder. I’m sure Riyadh would be keen to get in on the act given the Saudis’ omnivorous appetite for sport and need to build interest ahead of the 2034 World Cup.
As for Fifa, who blocked the previous attempt by Tebas for a stateside La Liga fixture, the world football governing body are apparently reviewing their regulations, which suggests they may be, like the Premier League, ‘ajar’ to the idea. I imagine they will in fact be wide open to it, given their pressing need for the cooperation of the elite clubs for their ludicrously expanded World Club Cup scheduled to kick off in June 2025. As for the sceptical Premier League owners, such as Bournemouth’s American owner Bill Foley, given that other clubs with US owners such as Arsenal and Chelsea are understood to be more enthusiastic, he may soon find himself outnumbered.
Which may just leave the long-suffering fans, for which this issue neatly illustrates the delicate balance of power in the ‘greed is good’ Premier League between, with reference to David Goodhart, the ‘somewhere’ fans, for whom attendance at the stadium (the stadium) is akin to a fortnightly pilgrimage; and the ‘anywhere’ owners, for whom the holy ground and hallowed turf are not that holy or hallowed, and for whom traditions and sentiment mean nothing against the chance to make a buck.
Do the fans have the right to be outraged? Yes, and no. Those that have stood up to the corporate soul destroying winnowing away of every tradition that didn’t contribute to capital generation – yes. But to those that have, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, welcomed or at least tolerated the big corporate money men and enjoyed the top quality players and improved stadia while persuading themselves that the clubs still valued them, not so much. Can they really object if hard nosed businessmen behave like hard nosed businessmen?
As for those shocked by it all, anyone who retained a quaint belief that the corporate titans who run their ‘clubs’ had serious regard for its spirit and traditions, or for the fans, well…seriously? This seems sadly naïve. It made me think of a scene in the great Sydney Lumet film The Verdict where Jack Warden attempts to wise up his friend ‘Frankie’ (Paul Newman), an idealistic lawyer who still believes in justice and can’t believe he has just been betrayed by his ruthless, wealthy in-laws:
‘For chrissakes, Franky, wake up. These people are sharks. How the hell do you think they wound up with all that money? From doing good?’
Comments