Oliver Kay's debate replies: ‘The dreaded 39th game is about to rear its ugly head again’

This week's debate asked if, in the light of Manchester United and Portsmouth selling 60,000 tickets for a showpiece match in Nigeria, the Premier League's plan for a 39th game is about to become an issue once more.

Predictably it received a vigorous response from our readership and not some many in the negative as you might have expected.

The issue remains the same. At present the league is a fair competition because of the format of playing every team twice, home and away. Any team getting Derby three times last season would have had a distinct advantage over any team getting, say, Aston Villa. I'm not even opening the emotional can of worms that is the fan-club relationship here. I'm sure others will do that. So, fundamentally, bad idea then, bad idea now. Paul

OK: Asymmetry is the first issue that comes to mind and it causes obvious problems. Introducing an extra round of fixtures, even on neutral ground, instantly compromises the fairness of a league system. I cannot see a way around that, but that is not my biggest objection to this plan.

Just as bad an idea now as it was when first brought up. Besides the issue of asymmetry, the question has never really been whether the 39th game would work for Manchester United. But where would a nice West Ham vs. Blackburn match do well? Not here in the United States. 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 th an 10,000 to 15,000 in most major cities. Mike

OK: And that's two top-half teams you're talking about. But I think you're underestimating the appeal of English football, at least in the football-mad cities that the Premier League would pick. A year ago Portsmouth and Fulham attracted a full house of 40,000 in Hong Kong, while Bolton drew a crowd of 48,000 in a game in Seoul. The demand is certainly there. My concern is more about the league's motives in looking to meet that demand.

The Premier League is already the richest in the world. Why does it need more money? 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. 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. David Bewley

OK: You know what? Part of me feels that way too. Slowly but surely, some of the soul has gone out of English football over the past decade and more. We have a far superior product -- top-class players playing in front of capacity crowds in top-class stadia -- but it has come at a cost.

At least the 39th game fiasco proves what all England fans have always known -- that the FA and 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 that they seem so keen on game 39. Philip N

OK: Spot on. When the Premier League was formed in 1992, one of the stated aims was to assist the England team and to reduce the league to 18 teams. But why would they vote for a smaller league when that means fewer fixtures and a greater chance of missing out? The players are nothing like so keen. When I interviewed Owen Hargreaves in February, he said he opposed the idea because of the "extreme" physical demands that players already face. Given that these extra games would be played in far-flung corners of the globe -- Australia, North America, the Far East, possibly Dubai for the lucky ones -- the extra travel would genuinely be a burden, as would the increased media demands to promote the game. But if it's all in the name of money, what would the clubs care?

I don't see a problem. If the money from an extra round was shared equally amongst the teams, it's something that could benefit the smaller teams more than the bigger teams. As for fans at home, they are not losing anything. They will still be able to see 38 games and, if they want to see the overseas game, they can travel. What's the problem? Mike Pacy

OK: The problems, I see it, are numerous. The complaint about asymmetry is an obvious one for those of us who feel that leagues should be transparent and equitable, but there are more serious concerns. Globalisation is unhealthy in many industries, but particularly so in football, where such enormous gulfs in wealth exist. There are sporting issues and there are moral issues. Put them together and you get what I feel is a20deeply unappealing greed that is taking the game away from its traditions and in a direction where it should not be going.

The Premier League gets more TV money revenue than the other leagues in Europe 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 complicated so perhaps it should not be Premier League games but the League Cup for example. But one thing is without doubt. Fifa and Uefa should get a firm signal that this question is none of their business. Matthias.

OK: Some good points, Matthias, but I disagree about the last one. I think it's very much Fifa's business. If this league of ours is able to do as it wants, the sky really is the limit. I agree that the overseas supporters should be able to see their heroes in the flesh, but this happens on an almost annual basis anyway now. Right now Chelsea are in China, Manchester United in South Africa, West Ham United in the United States. To use Richard Scudamore's phrase, the majority of clubs have already begun to "embrace the challenges of globalisation". Scudamore's problem is that these are independent ventures, rather than driven by the league.

I personally agree with the 39th plan although I do understand a lot of the reservations about it. Except for the people who say the local fans made the game what it is -- what a load of baloney. How much money did the league receive a year or so ago for selling overseas TV rights? It's Johnny Foreigner who has put the money in and should be rewarded. Chris Allison.

OK: Johnny Foreigner, as you call him, is indeed a passionate follower of English football, but you're severely underestimating the value of the fanbase in this country, both as active supporters and as couch potatoes. The UK television market remains is almost three times more lucrative than the overseas market for the Premier League. Maybe that will change in time, but I don't think "rewarding" foreign supporters is top of the Premier League's agenda. When were supporters in this country ever rewarded?

It would suit me down to the ground if every Premiership game were held overseas. Good riddance! Howard.

OK: Next.

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? If they are correct in their assumption that Premier League teams will draw a crowd wherever they play, it shouldn't make a blind bit of difference that no points are up for grabs. Johnny Mac

OK: The problem with that is that the majority of the players, certainly the top players, would be on international duty, which would lessen the app eal of the games. And international football has been undermined enough already without clubs trying to keep their players out so that they can make cameo appearances in money-spinning friendly matches abroad.

The 39th games should equally be classed as friendlies with no league points at stake. Problem solved. John Stephens

There's actually a very simple, fairly acceptable solution here. 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 ten winners of the matches. £6-10 million is enough to make even Man Utd or Chelsea take it seriously. Josh

OK: Some interesting ideas, but how about this one: an annual Premier League pre-season tournament or a series of tournaments involving all 20 clubs, played out in cities all over the world. It would almost certainly impact on the clubs' individual pre-season plans, but, seeing as there would be a considerable commercial upside, they could deal with that. Such a tournament might not necessarily carry huge prestige or importance to us, but it would to the locals.

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 c lubs will be able to pass some of the extra revenue onto their fans by way of lower ticket prices. So let's 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? Dave

OK: Two questions, Dave. Are you made of money and do you still believe in Santa Claus? If this project generated, say, £100 million a season across the board (a conservative estimate), how much of that do you think would make it down to grass-roots football, directly or otherwise, or to local communities? Lower ticket prices? Sounds great in theory, but it just wouldn't happen. It never does.

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. 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? Jayraj Jog.

OK: Very interesting, Jayraj. I would be interested to know how many other Asian football fans feel as you do. Whenever English clubs go to Asia, they talk of "putting something back" into the community, but I'm struggling to see the great footballing legacy of various visits to Malaysia, for example. In any case, Malaysia is no longer en vogue for the Premier League giants. They prefer to go to Macau these days, now that the huge casinos and hotels are willing to pay big bucks to get them there.

The Premier League has been an outstanding success, which should be recognised, but it should not be allowed to muscle into other countries and disrupt their leagues fanbases anymore than they already have done. This is nothing but a cynical, disgusting, money-making drive by the greedy, power-hungry individuals at the top of the game in England. I very much hope that Fifa makes it their business that this bird-brained idea is never allowed come to fruition. Dave.

OK: Come on, Dave. Tell us what you really think. That's another one in the "against" column, I think. And I agree with every word of it.

Comments

[Matt]

There's actually a very simple, fairly acceptable solution here. 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 ten winners of the matches. £6-10 million is enough to make even Man Utd or Chelsea take it seriously

[Tony]

Given that the passion, fervour and colour of English football stadiums appears to be a major part of the TV 'product' that is sold for such riches around the world, why am i not (as a passionate, fervent and colourful fan in the stands) paid for my part in producing this? Maybe my contribution to the TV spectacle will be recognised once Stoke V Fulham is played out amongst the tumbleweed of the Rose Bowl!