Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Paul Scholes: Overseas Premier League games make no sense for big guns

Why should big teams profit-share with smaller clubs?

Paul Scholes
Tuesday 14 October 2014 18:16 BST
Comments
An aerial view of the Michigan Stadium
An aerial view of the Michigan Stadium (GETTY IMAGES)

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

In his latest column for The Independent, Paul Scholes talks about the potential of Premier League games going abroad...

The idea of staging Premier League games overseas seems to have gathered momentum again. I make no apologies for sounding like a traditionalist: I just cannot see why the clubs would pursue it.

Manchester United can go to most big countries in the Far East and the United States and fill a stadium on pre-season. We saw that with the 109,318 attendance for the game against Real Madrid in Michigan this summer.

What puzzles me is how some of the smaller clubs in the league, with a much lower profile, are going to attract the same crowds.

Will they have to play in the same stadium as a warm-up act for the more popular games? Equally, who gives up the advantage of playing one fewer home game a season?

I have heard the argument that it gives all Premier League clubs the opportunity to trade on the overseas popularity of the competition, rather than just the big clubs on their pre-season tours.

I don’t see why a club like United would be prepared to go to all the hassle of playing a league game overseas just to profit-share with West Bromwich Albion or Stoke City.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in