Playing Domestic Matches Abroad

[Cake]

I don't know about Infantino but football as a 'competitive' sport is "Finito" when, not if, this happens.

It's also got Masters' name on it, which is always a good sign isn't it. Maybe we could have a World Super League instead of a European Super League? That would be sooooo much 'better'. Customers, sorry, fans could have a subscription and a VR headset to watch their heroes 'live' in Bangkok, Beijing and beyond. Maybe a premium subscription and an AI VR headset where they get to walk out with 'the boys' at the start of the match as well. How exciting! Progress, eh!

Fifa exploring impact of playing domestic matches abroad

Fifa are examining the impact of moving domestic competitive matches abroad.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Acrobat]

This will go down well.

 

[Pittsburgh Footy]

I thought it was a bad idea when the NFL moved a few games a year to Europe or Mexico. It actually hasn't changed much, and provides different eyeballs on the sport. Overall, most fans would agree it's been a net success.

If the EPL were to keep it to a couple games a season, it's possible it could work. The huge difference here would be addressing the balanced schedule and the very real downside of losing a home match when the threat of relegation matters.

Not sure how exactly to address that, but there would need to be ways to do that.

 

[toffee82]

Ridiculous idea and destroys the integrity of the competition if you don't play each team home and away but it's probably going to happen because of the money involved.

Cup semi finals or finals could work on a neutrality basis but shafts the fans who couldn't afford to travel or get the time off work.

 

[TrailerTrash]

Yeah, don't know how that would work with home advantage being lost.

Seems like a crud idea.

 

[9LeagueTitles5FACups]

I strongly oppose this, if it's true. First of all, the league would be turning their backs on domestic, long-standing fans in favour of modern fans.

Then you've got the issue of implementation - do you play the standard 38 fixtures in the UK and then play extra fixtures abroad. If that happens, we could end up playing Man City once more than other teams, whilst West Ham (for instance) could end up playing Nottingham Forest once more.

If you move one of the standard fixtures to a neutral venue abroad (say the Merseyside Derby is played in New York), how do you replace that fixture?

Overall, it's neglecting traditional fans in favour of money. So it's a no from me.

 

[Runub]

Stupid money driven idea

 

[Vintage]

Works for NFL because teams play eachother over vast distances anyway and their season is much shorter and less games. American sports are money driven franchises that have no problem moving cities for better revenue. NFL needs to promote their business/sport in other areas of the world alot more than football needs to even though football is alot lower down the pecking order in the states.

 

[Walken]

I thought it was a bad idea when the NFL moved a few games a year to Europe or Mexico. It actually hasn't changed much, and provides different eyeballs on the sport. Overall, most fans would agree it's been a net success.

If the EPL were to keep it to a couple games a season, it's possible it could work. The huge difference here would be addressing the balanced schedule and the very real downside of losing a home match when the threat of relegation matters.

Not sure how exactly to address that, but there would need to be ways to do that.

It also doesn't matter in NFL when they move cities or the rich fella lifts the trophy in a suit after his employees have ust developed long term brain injuries at his behest.

They are different sports with a very very different heritage, its an awful greed ridden idea and should be fought tooth and nail

 

[Brett Angell Delight]

Works for NFL because teams play eachother over vast distances anyway and their season is much shorter and less games. American sports are money driven franchises that have no problem moving cities for better revenue. NFL needs to promote their business/sport in other areas of the world alot more than football needs to even though football is alot lower down the pecking order in the states.

I came to say this, but in a much less eloquent way.

 

[Yarrgh]

I for one don't want to see the Everton Blue Sox take on Man City Oilers in Liverpool when they should be playing in the town of Everton.

Boooo!

 

[Pittsburgh Footy]

Works for NFL because teams play eachother over vast distances anyway and their season is much shorter and less games. American sports are money driven franchises that have no problem moving cities for better revenue. NFL needs to promote their business/sport in other areas of the world alot more than football needs to even though football is alot lower down the pecking order in the states.

While I agree with most of this sentiment, I find it a bit naive to think that all top leagues in the western world, of any sport, are not money driven.

It's the world we live in now

 

[Huyton Layne]

I thought it was a bad idea when the NFL moved a few games a year to Europe or Mexico. It actually hasn't changed much, and provides different eyeballs on the sport. Overall, most fans would agree it's been a net success.

If the EPL were to keep it to a couple games a season, it's possible it could work. The huge difference here would be addressing the balanced schedule and the very real downside of losing a home match when the threat of relegation matters.

Not sure how exactly to address that, but there would need to be ways to do that.

I think it helps that the NFL fixture lists are already a mess. Last year the only fixtures the Packers and Lions played that were exactly the same were the 6 divisional games. Every other fixture was either a home and away swap or a completely different team.
Footy fixtures have always been exactly equal.

 

[wandyr79]

I thought it was a bad idea when the NFL moved a few games a year to Europe or Mexico. It actually hasn't changed much, and provides different eyeballs on the sport. Overall, most fans would agree it's been a net success.

If the EPL were to keep it to a couple games a season, it's possible it could work. The huge difference here would be addressing the balanced schedule and the very real downside of losing a home match when the threat of relegation matters.

Not sure how exactly to address that, but there would need to be ways to do that.

The American models just do not sit right with the extreme majority of European football fans.

You just have to look at the franchise backlash that MK (not the real) dons still get to this day to say that any Americanised model is not and never will be welcome by football fans.

 

[longers]

We say football will be over, but it won't be... it will become the norm, younger generations won't care much and then new generations will be born when the rule is already the standard and it will just be completely normalised within a few years. Also the majority of people who hate the idea (with good reason) will still watch their team play the match because that's what football fans do.

If I had a quid for every time myself or someone else on this forum said they were sacking Everton off only to turn up the following week in the match thread or Goodison ready for some more doom scrolling and misery...