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.Reuse content