There's an interesting story today in the Guardian about the continuing fallout/reaction to the EPL's brave plan to expand abroad. As most folks already know, FIFA honcho Sepp Blatter came out strongly against the plan yesterday in comments made to BBC. Read the story after the jump carefully; there's a key line in it that I excerpt below:
 
"The manner in which the proposal was made public has put relations under strain, with Blatter offended that the Premier League had not informed him ahead of the announcement."
 
For my money, this sums just about everything one would want to know about the reaction to the EPL's plan: It's visceral, it's personal, and the debate is largely being controlled by soccer politicians.
 
Let's step back for a second and really think about this: So far, the voices that have been given air on this debate are, by and large, elected heads of organizations that have a financial stake in domestic soccer. Their power derives from their membership, which in most cases means their domestic leagues and grassroots organizers. Domestic leagues are right in some cases to fear the development of a de-facto world league, especially in an era where the Internet and satellite TV presents top-class soccer for a pittance on a daily basis.
 
But, keep in mind how different the reactions are from leagues that actually have a marketing arm to stage events? MLS' SUM arm would be delighted to stage EPL games in America for the simple reason that the proceeds from these games would help shore up a league that is still trying to find its place in the national sports landscape. In contrast, Australia — which has enjoyed rabid support for the A-League — is right to be nervous about teams from the "old country" coming over and poaching some of those dollars.
 
But, when it comes right down to it, opposing the expansion of sports leagues in this global market is a bit like trying to bail a ship out with a spoon.
 
Like it or not, technology and money have radically altered the landscape of sport in the past twenty years and the fact is that many of the gambles — be it stadium spending, development of players or transfer fees — were predicated on the idea that revenue sources would continue to emerge. (FIFA has made many of the same gambles too, betting that the World Cup will continue to be a huge global TV and sponsor draw despite the fact that the winners of the tourney have remained rather static.) The EPL has successfully placed itself in America and China, enjoys fans across Asia and South America, and has accepted players and owners from across the globe. Now, logically, it must service them.
 
This is a very different situation from the one the NFL is in: That league is trying to expand the reaches of its sport having found that American revenue streams are beginning to become maxed out. This is a missionary endeavour — there are very few American football fans among Europeans, so the NFL needs converts. In contrast, EPL teams have fans around the world and have for ages, long before the Premier League was even formed.
 
The EPL is no longer really an "English" league, or even a “British” league, as the old First Division truly was.  The EPL’s current leader employs but two "homegrown" players, after all, and most of the league employs a polyglot, cosmopolitan lineup. So, it is simply wrong-headed to argue that the overseas fans are somehow worth "less" than those who happen to live on an island off the rest of Europe. Yes, money is involved, but it's not just about cash — despite the yowling of the self-appointed "fan groups," it really is about taking some games to where their other fans are.
 
And, call me cynical, but it's been clear for decades now that what FIFA really would like is a way to skim a bit of cash off the top and be able to throw their weight around at the same time. UEFA and FIFA both feel they dodged a bullet with the settlement of the G-14 case, and now have been blindsided to discover that someone else is audacious enough to suggest that a global league might actually be a good thing.
 
But an uncomfortable truth is that FIFA, and many soccer pols around the world, are like our bosun with the spoon. FIFA has assumed that a sharp blazer and a nice title mean that its views really matter in the face of overwhelming monetary evidence that their time is fading. Blatter's current regime is predicated on the support of African and CONCACAF bloc delegates, all of which require regular injections of cash to prop up largely unsustainable leagues and efforts. That cash comes from the Europeans, Asia and from us here in the USA. Sooner or later, someone was bound to see through the "good of the game" rhetoric and realize that there is simply no reason not to take the game directly to the people paying the bills. The English were just the first ones to be smart enough to do it.
 
If you can criticize the EPL for one thing, it's in how it presented its plans to the public. Instead of maintaining a unified front, and giving the plan the air of inevitability, the EPL has allowed various clubs and coaches to say whatever they wish about the plan. This was not only poor public relations, but poor strategy. The fact is, the EPL is already a global league. It's just time for it to start acting like one.