Partners: GoodsFromJapan | JapanVisitor | PortugalVisitor

Interview With Alex Fynn

Alex Fynn talks with Sean O'Conor on the Premier League's Foreign Ambitions

The Premier League's radical plan to play ten additional games overseas has gone down a storm all right, though not as they might have intended.

With all 20 of the club chairmen on board, the league have the green light to press ahead with plans to add a single match to each team's fixture list in 2010/11.

Sunderland manager Roy Keane and Newcastle's Kevin Keegan are two who have welcomed the move, but other coaches such as Manchester United's Sir Alex Ferguson and Portsmouth's Harry Redknapp have expressed their disapproval.

The fans' reaction in England has largely been one of complete horror at what they see as the most blatant abandonment of the game's traditions yet, and the Football Supporters' Federation are already launching a campaign to say 'No to GAM£ 39'.

The press reaction has been largely hostile too, outside of the Rupert Murdoch-owned outlets, whose sister television companies have vested interests in transmitting the games in question. The Mirror was perhaps the most vocal in its dismay. Its front page today cried out: 'For Sale: Our National Game' and inside its writer Oliver Holt titled his piece succinctly: 'It's Pure Greed'.

Soccerphile spoke to Alex Fynn, well-known guru of football's financial affairs, author of several books about the soccer industry and a former adviser to the Premier League, Arsenal and Manchester United, among others, to ask his expert opinion on what awaits us three years from now.

In your opinion, Alex, does the Premier League need to play games overseas?
Firstly, for some time, I have believed the Premier League believe they are in charge of an international league, which happens to be played in England .

Then, a lot of the clubs also need more money because they are not well-run businesses. Despite all the income the clubs get from commercial activities, match days and broadcasting, a lot of them still manage to make a loss before tax because they pay the players too much, and what better way to get more money than play more matches, particularly to a new and seductive market.

Isn't this all down to the fact overseas TV rights have the potential to mushroom?
If you compare the last two contracts - domestic and overseas, around £2.7 billion v £660 million over three years, then the overseas contract has probably not yet reached its limit. But maybe the Premier League think this is just an easier way to raise money overseas.

I don't think there is a huge potential in terms of straight overseas rights, because in any market you need a dominant player to get the best price.

Now in some countries' markets they have gone to a free-to-air broadcaster, in others a pay broadcaster, have given the rights to an agency who can then sell them on at whatever price, or have gone to ITTV (wireless broadcast). People may also increasingly access games on their computers without actually paying any fees for them, which will affect the price charged for the product at the market.

There are several options now for broadcasting overseas, so when the contract is renegotiated, the revenue might not increase at the rate the Premier League might be expecting.

BBC Online have projected domestic and overseas rights will be neck and neck at around £2 billion a season from 2010 to 2013.
Let's assume I'm wrong about this, but if they project overseas TV rights to draw level with domestic rights, then why on earth do they need to do this sort of thing?

Why do they need to change a winning formula - the structure of the league, and play more matches, instead of going back to the basics of improving the quality of the product - making the games more meaningful and providing a live television spectacular, and then wait for the commensurate increase in fees. There should be no need for this sort of stunt at all.

Do you think the NFL & NHL playing in London influenced the Premier League?
You have to remember the NFL is a fairly democratic organisation where the whole is greater than any individual parts. They strive to prevent what the Premier League is trying to do - the creation of dynasties. If they bring a game overseas it is to take a game beyond America but it doesn't matter who they take because the NFL as a whole is still the priority. In America they have league-think and over here we have club-think, where the clubs are more important than the structure in which they play.

The NFL game at Wembley was a regular season game removed from Miami, but the PL are wanting to add on an additional game overseas against a random league opponent.
I can't see the logic of it as the best team is surely the one who plays every other team home and away and ends up top of the league. Whilst you can muck around with a cup competition to some extent, you can't do that with a league and pretend you are having an above board competition. The way it will probably work out is just more money for the bigger teams.

Is our approach sustainable long-term?
It is, but it comes at a price. If only 20 clubs matter, then only 20 academies matter. This means you set the National Team back ten years, the effects of which you can see now. Plus, it was only the arrival of gifted foreign players, tempted by the high wages paid as a result of broadcasting revenue, which allowed English clubs to compete for the Champions League with the Latin teams which had previously dominated it.

It has taken us a number of years to reach this situation but we are still behind many of the continentals in terms of academies and it is going to take some time for the national team to overcome the obstacles our successful clubs have placed in its path.

Is this a slippery slope to a Formula One-style globalised league?
What matters with the Premier League is where they can earn the best revenue, and if it means one game in Singapore is worth half a dozen in Manchester or wherever, then of course they will gravitate to that.

With this latest announcement, I am more pessimistic for the future than ever .
I am pessimistic, too. For me, the glass is always half empty because I have seen how people have vested interests and try to derive short-term benefit from them.

The Premier League believe there are two sets of fans - those who go to games and those who watch on television and they think that there are millions out there around the world who have yet to be attracted to their product.

They hope to bring these people closer by doing this, while strengthening a sense of identity with existing overseas fans, all so there will be commercial spin-offs as a result. The big clubs are hoping their businesses become truly international brands, which is the driving force behind this announcement.

Alex Fynn is the author of a number of books on football including Cantona on Cantona and The Glorious Game.

Sean O'Conor

"The Onside In-Site" Copyright © From 2000. All rights reserved. Soccerphile Ltd.