Remember now that sports culture in the US is quite different from in Europe. NHL, NBA and so on have been corporations on their own for a long time and I have the impression that the big team sports in the US have been an "entertainment business" all the time. On the other hand, professional football in England were established by "everyday people" in their local communities. Many in connection to a church, a school or a specific working place. For example, Coventry City was founded by workers at the Singer factory and Manchester United was founded (under the name Newton Heath) by railroad workers in a part of Greater MAnchester. The connection between the football clubs and their local community, be it the Tottenham district in London or Salford in Manchester, has traditionally been very strong.
What upsets the English football fans is that ever since the Premier League was established as a brand (and as a "corporation" consisting of the clubs that at any time play in the highest division in England) in 1992, it seems like the clubs don't care as much for their fans and local community, but instead see themselves as products to sell and the supporters as customers. Moving league games abroad will be a large manifestation of this - as it shows that the clubs want to exploit their fanbase abroad. Many football fans frown just upon hearing the word "franchise" in relation to football clubs.
This is the emoitonal bit around this idea. There is also a competition side to it: The proposal says 39 games a season with some kind of seeded draw for the additional 10 games (who are to be played abroad). This means two sides competing for the league title can draw very different opposition. Say the top 5 are seeded (and thus cannot play each other) but apart from this the draw has no limitations. Team A are 1 point ahead of team B when the 39th game is not counted. But team A draw the 6th best team and have to play in Tokyo. At the same time, team B draw team 19 who are already relegated and have f*ck all to play for. And the game is to be played in South Africa (thus no jet lag). It will most certainly alter the fairness of the competition.
I think, if the Premiership clubs feel they need to play abroad then they could stick to playing pre-season friendly matches away from home. ANY decisive matches should be played where their local fans can go and see them
without having to splash out £1000 in plane tickets! Imagine Liverpool securing their first league title since 1990 playing Derby County
in Singapore ... sure, it would be great fun for those who live in Singapore. But for those who live in Merseyside and have to watch the game on TV before noon and wait for a day or two before they could welcome the players with the trophy?
(It should be said that I wouldn't like Liverpool to win the league in a long time yet, after all I follow one of their rivals, but I didn't feel I could use Man United as the example yet again
)
No. The league, the games, the clubs, belong to the places where they have been established. Where their season-ticket holders, the week in-week out fans, live. Where the heart and soul of the clubs is located.
Further - building this distance to local fans is a two-edged sword. Sure, it gives the clubs a potentially greater annual turnover. But, if a club should fail to have success (as in failing to qualify for the European cups) for a couple of seasons - or if the league itself should lose some of its attractivity - then the clubs would really suffer if their local support isn't there for them. And with today's rapidly rising ticket prizes, more and more traditional working fans can't afford season tickets, so it is an actual risk. The big clubs have to qualify for the Champions League and the bottom sides at least have to stay up, or it could mean big trouble.
What I say is that the Premiership clubs are gambling with their future. All their marketing cannot and won't secure loyalty from those who have helped the league to become big.
(As an end comment I must, as a follower of Manchester United, say that I am puzzled thinking of how Sir Alex Ferguson, who comes from a family of Glasgow shipyard workers, can stay at one of the clubs that, unfortunately, are leading in the commercializing of English football. Has he become part of the moneymaker society that runs the show in the PL, or has he just accepted that football has become what it has and to keep United on top, he realizess the board has to do it this way? I like to think that he, and the other managers, are against the development just like many supporters, and have closer emotional bonds to the fans than to the club and league boards. But am I thinking too well about the managers? Perhaps they too are enthusiastic about branding and exploiting markets?)
Well. Writing this hasn't made my mood any better. I think I'll get down to the city centre, more precisely to the record store, and get the Live After Death DVD, and then enjoy it with some beer tonight. That might help.
. I mean, are there anything to motivate this, except milking the money cow even more? Isn't the Premiership commercial enough? If they put this through I think I'll have to give up on PL and if I'm going to follow an English team besides my Norwegian one I'll have to find something in League One. 
