The overwhelming benefits of playing a Premier League game 39 abroad | OneFootball

Are the immense benefits of playing an extra match week of Premier League Game 39 abroad going unappreciated by others?

Imagine a scenario where all 20 teams are randomly paired to create 10 matches, transforming it into a significant television event.

International cities would then compete to host these matches, similar to the bidding process for the Olympics and the World Cup.

For instance, Tokyo and New York could secure the rights to host the most appealing games, possibly featuring one or two of the “big global six” teams, while cities like Kuala Lumpur, Singapore, or Riyadh might host the less prominent matches.

This could result in three games in the USA, one in Australia, one in South Africa, and one each in a selection of Asian and Middle Eastern cities.

All the revenue generated from these bids would be pooled together, benefiting all 20 teams. The television revenue from the draw and the announcement of bidding results alone would be substantial, not to mention the additional income from each match. With the matches scheduled across different time zones, each game would kick off at separate times, creating 10 distinct events.

To minimise the impact on the season, these matches would all be considered as Game 1. Since the introduction of three points for a win in 1981, only 13 seasons have been decided by a margin of three points or less. Game 39 would enhance international recognition, attract new fans to various clubs, and solidify the Premier League’s status as the foremost global domestic league, drawing top talent from around the world.

For example, if Burnley were drawn to play Bournemouth and Manila won the bid to host that game, the local fans would likely support one of the teams and develop a lasting affinity for that club, an opportunity that wouldn’t exist without Game 39.

No team would miss out on a home match, as they would still have 19 home games. The schedule could be arranged so that teams with the furthest travel play their games first, ensuring equal preparation time for Game 2.

Aside from objections based on sentiment, tradition, and history—which I acknowledge and respect—I am eager to understand why there is so much opposition to this idea.