The WaPo has a critical article on friendlies like organized by the people behind the "International Champions Cup". https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...u-line-up-for-tickets/?utm_term=.95788d3f2720 What pulled my interest was this quote from the article: "By the time visiting Euro teams step foot on the field, their job is already done: They’ve sold 30,000, 40,000, 50,000 or more tickets. It doesn’t matter what unfolds on the field. If clubs want to provide authentic competition — something that is worthy of the ticket prices they’re demanding — agree to a league or cup match here." It reminded me about an idea by the Dutch FA, KNVB to play our seasons' kick off match between the champion and the cup winner in the USA. If that would have been done this year, it would have ment Feyenoord vs Vitesse with Matt Miazga in the line up. Would there really be interest in such matches, like the WaPo wants to see, instead of those gloryfied friendlies?
I've read about if the Premier League should add a 39th game to be played in the USA, but that would make the schedule unbalanced. Considering the FA Cup doesn't do any rounds with two legs, I could see weekends where FA Cup games with the most popular clubs were played in the USA with games between less popular clubs staying in England. Starting with the Third Round when the Premier League clubs enter, there is a round every three weeks, and with replays there are times when the clubs aren't determined until a week and a half before the game. You couldn't sell tickets at a neutral site to a game that could be Manchester United vs. Watford or Reading vs. Watford depending on a replay between Manchester United and Reading. The Third Round has 32 games. Maybe 8 games with the most popular clubs could be in the USA with 24 games in England. Going to the USA would mean additional travel for the players, but the games in the USA could go extra time if necessary to determine who advances that day so the clubs would know they couldn't have a replay. I wouldn't expect much interest in Feyenoord vs. Vitesse. If it's a game between two clubs in a league that isn't on TV in the USA, I wouldn't expect there to be much interest. If the Spanish Super Cup between Barcelona and Real Madrid or the Community Shield between Arsenal and Chelsea was in the USA it could sell a lot of tickets.
Count me as a solid "F*** no." It's an insult to the domestic fans of every club and in the long-term adversely impacts the local leagues for wherever they would end up playing, I feel. We need less of touring cap that only benefits the wealthiest clubs, anyway.
The popularity of these exhibitions tells us that soccer is popular in the US and that domestic leagues in this country have their work to do to appeal to them.
David Squires' cartoon view: https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...on-the-premier-leagues-audacious-game-39-plan
The big question is, why would Stoke want to play in front of 25,000 here when they could be playing in front of 60,000 here? Globalization man!
I dont see it happening because they plan their season during the fall and winter, when in America football and basketball are also playing their seasons. Right now, they get very good draws because they play during the midsummer, when its just baseball season but European football cant compete with American football and basketball.
Most of the FA Cup Third Round (the round Premier League and League Championship clubs enter) games will be on January 6, 2018. This will be the first day of the NFL playoffs when the first game is at about 4:35 P.M., and most NBA and NHL games are at night even on weekends. The FA Cup could play games in the USA starting at 1:00 P.M. or earlier without competing with the NFL and while having a start time that isn't too late for fans in England.
Would a meaningful match ( ergo, not a glorified friendly) draw attention when there is a Yank playing? Or does it require famous names to get the stands filled?
There won't be 39th game in the Premier League and I think the Community Shield has too much tradition. But the Super Cup could be played here.
Pretty much against all of these ideas. As a ssupporter of an English team part of the appeal is the city and the stadium they play in. Yes it was fun to go up to LA last summer and see Liverpool but it's nothing compared to going to Anfield. I would actually be angry if Liverpool traded this... for this...
This lies at the heart of it. If teams turn their focus more and more toward the global fans versus the local fans then they compromise their very identity. In that sense we cease to root for a home team but more of a corporate team. "Hooray for Coca Cola United!" If this happens invariably it moves us further along the trend of just a handful of teams fighting to be among the few true global brands that stand out, pushing your middling clubs even further behind. That's what makes the ICC particularly galling. It's brand power is based on landing big teams, thus creating a vehicle to exaggerate the perpetual cycle of wealthy clubs getting wealthier. Unless, of course, that event has plans to showcase the likes of Sampdoria, Shaktar and West Brom, in which case I'll relent. Otherwise this is all a big cashgrab for the established elite clubs, which is about about as sporting as the dictator's son playing chess with about 3 extra pieces.
But if it would be the FA to promote the league like for instance the KNVB's idea to play the johan Cruijff Shield in the USA it would be different I think.
The idea of bringing the pre-season super cups/charity shield type matches to the US is an intriguing one though. It's kind of a halfway house. Can't speak for other countries but in England the Charity Shield is taken more seriously then other pre-season friendlies, and you're all but guaranteed at least one if not two big teams. The only issue I would have is that in England you'd be taking away a "Wembley Day out" from the fans. I actually had this discussion with some Liverpool supporting friends, a few of which were expats. The general consensus was that missing a Wembley date wasn't a big deal, the FA cup winner had just had two Wembley matches the previous season, and the league winner had probably been there recently as well. So we reasoned that most supporters wouldn't be that bothered and might even look forward to following the club stateside for a pseudo competitive match. So I think going this route might be a good call, as long as it wasn't used as a step towards league matches.
Yes, but I hate when the NFL and NBA do this, so I do not want European soccer leagues also doing this. They should leave US based matches to exhibitions only, as should the NFL and NBA leave London based matches to preseason exhibitions.
But than the US fans are at the mercy how the hat of the players hang that day if there is no trophy to win that is recognized as a true one. What stadium would be big enough to accommodate the US fans that really would watch the Supercup match between Real and Manchester due to take place in a few weeks? The real trophy guarantees a match in contrast to the same match between them for that glorified friendlies goldfinger cup or how it is called if they would get into that final. Edit: goldfinger cup=International Champions Cup
Agreed. This is essentially about extraterritoriality or colonialism. (pick the allegory of your choice!) The idea that any other foreign league or competition can come and plant their flag on US soil without deference to either a) the impacts of the local league or b) whether or not those benefits reach all of their own members is, to put it mildly, shameless. That mass media makes it possible to watch Bundesliga matches around the globe doesn't alter the nature of the product or its relationship to its domestic fans or foreign consumers. It's also available as an equal opportunity for all. Altering that product to induce more of a global presence, however, changes those relationships and directly impacts other leagues. MLS fans want their league to close the gap on the world's best leagues. Even if that's generations away, do you think the leaders of the Prem or La Liga want that to happen? Of course not, so they pursue policies that force leagues in a race toward globalizing the brands so as to cut into the prowess of domestic leagues in any market where they can glean more money for themselves. Allowing tours and friendlies is fine, but they should remain friendlies, be less frequent within the same foreign country, and we should not be indulging the wealthier teams by concocting an event just to fluff their feathers all the more. Says I, anyway.
I think there is some lost in translation because I don't understand everything you just said. As far as stadiums go, pretty much any city that has an NFL team, or major NCAA football school would have a stadium big enough. We build football stadiums to hold between 70k and 120k fans.
I agree with the idea of keeping these games friendlies and nobody looks at the ICC as a real tournament. It's just a showcase. We don't get many chances to see any top level teams play live, so for me it's worth it. We traveled to Nashville for the Manchester City vs. Tottenham match. Man City came to play. Tottenham, aside from Harry Kane, didn't get up for the game and you could tell. Dele was half-assing it around the pitch, but I can live with that. The biggest thing I took away from it is there were 57,000 people in the stands watching a professional soccer match. I never thought I would be in that atmosphere. To those who say this kind of thing hurts local pro teams, I'd have to disagree. The Nashville Soccer Club was promoting themselves heavily at the game, because I believe they start in the USL next year. What better way for them to do it than directly to thousands of soccer fans at the game?