October 9, 2025 • 31 mins
The Football War: Europe's League Games Sold to Miami and Perth, Gutting Integrity for Global Cash🎧 Listen now on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music and other streaming services! Don’t forget to subscribe, share, and leave a ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ review to help more players and coaches discover the power of Techne Futbol and Data Technology in the beautiful game.We discuss the controversial decision by UEFA to approve, albeit reluctantly, the staging of two European domestic league matches abroad: a La Liga game between Barcelona and Villarreal in Miami, and a Serie A game between AC Milan and Como in Australia. This move has drawn significant opposition from various stakeholders, including rival club Real Madrid, who released a strong statement citing concerns about competitive integrity and the lack of consultation, appealing to FIFA and UEFA to block the fixture. Critics argue that moving these games is an act of "extraction" designed to profit from the lucrative US market without investing in the development of American soccer leagues like MLS, potentially undermining the local football identity and financially benefiting only the biggest European clubs like Barcelona and Real Madrid. Despite widespread concern from fans and leagues, the approval was granted due to a lack of clear and detailed FIFA regulations prohibiting such overseas matches, though UEFA maintains its opposition to the practice.
#TechneAfricaFutbol #TechneFutbol #TrainWithTechne #Playermaker #TraceFutbol #Hudl #FootballTech #FootballInnovation #PlayerDevelopment #CoachTools #SmartFootballTraining #AfricanFootball #CAFOnline #FIFA #FIFAYouth #CAFDevelopment #YouthFootballAfrica #NextGenFootball #FootballScouting #TalentIdentification #DigitalScouting #EliteYouthDevelopment #FootballJourney #FootballAnalytics #FIFAForward #FutebolAfricano #TrainTrackCompete #FootballExcellence #FootballAfrica #TheFutureOfFootball
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
We thought we knew the map of global football, right?
Pretty straightforward. You know, your domestic leagues,
they play in their home stadiums.
And sure, the big clubs might jet off for a summer friendly,
maybe send the reserves, grab some cash in the US or Asia.
But it's, well, it's always beenunderstood those don't really
count. That was kind of the deal,
wasn't it? Yeah, that was the sort of
(00:20):
unwritten contract of the sport,meaningless games for global
marketing. But now that contract, it feels
like it's being completely torn up.
The whole map is being redrawn. Yeah, and pretty aggressively
too. Exactly because this isn't about
preseason tours or exhibition matches anymore.
We're talking about official, meaningful, honest to goodness
(00:42):
league games. The ones that decide titles, who
gets into Europe, who goes down.These crucial fixtures are
literally jumping continents. It's staggering really.
We're looking at the top tiers of European domestic football
like La Liga and Syria, decidingthat, you know, their home game
could just as easily be in Miami, FL, or even Perth,
Australia. Perth It's not just a simple
(01:03):
business decision, is it? This feels like a a fundamental
shift, a tectonic shift maybe, in how sports are governed
globally. It absolutely is.
So our mission today for you listening is to really conduct a
deep dissection of this whole massive controversy.
We need to get beyond just the headlines and look at the the
furious arguments happening inside the leagues, the sort of
(01:24):
reluctant responses from the governing bodies who seem caught
off guard, and crucially, the backlash, that real, visceral
cultural reaction from fans who feel like their experience,
their home game, is being well auctioned off overseas.
Yeah, sold off to the highest bidder.
And that brings us to the core conflict we need to analyze
today, right? Is this genuinely about growing
(01:44):
the game globally like the proponents claim?
Or is it, as the critics fiercely argue, actually gutting
it, undermining that deep seatedcompetitive integrity that
really defines European sport? That's the heart of it.
It's this raw kind of explosive collision between these huge
global commercial ambitions and,well, the sanctity of Fair
(02:05):
domestic competition. That's what we're examining.
Hashtag tag one the concrete proposals and reluctant
approval. OK, so to really get a handle on
how big this moment is, we need to look at the specific games
that actually sparked this wholeinternational firestorm.
Let's start with La Liga, the Spanish league.
They clearly wanted to be first movers here.
Oh, absolutely. La Liga was the trailblazer, no
(02:27):
question. They pushed incredibly hard for
an official league match, Villarreal versus FC Barcelona
to be played in Miami, FL, and they had a date I2 December.
This wasn't just talk, it was a formal plan to move a game with
three crucial league points on the line right across the
Atlantic. And that specific game,
Villarreal versus Barcelona, it was supposed to be Villarreal's
(02:47):
home game wasn't. It that's key, Yes, they were
giving up their home advantage, their match at the Estadi de la
Ceramica, their fans. That's a huge competitive factor
to just give away, even if there's a big paycheck attached.
It really is. And then almost immediately,
Syria in Italy jumped on the bandwagon, didn't they?
Which kind of shows the pressurethese leagues feel to go global.
Exactly The speed was telling. Syria proposed its own overseas
(03:10):
fixture, AC Milan, against Komo,but instead of the US they
picked Perth, Australia, targeted for early next year.
Perth, Australia. I mean, the distance alone is
just mind boggling for a domestic league match, but the
AC Milan situation had a little extra twist in this sort of
logistical cover story. It did, yeah.
Well, the main goal, let's be honest, is tapping into global
(03:32):
markets, especially Asia, and finding new revenue.
The timing for the Milan game offered a specific, convenient
justification. AC Milan's home ground, the
famous San Siro, is needed for the opening ceremony of the 2026
Milan Cortina Winter Olympics around that time.
So they have this unique kind ofdomestic scheduling conflict for
that particular home game, and they cleverly used that
(03:55):
necessity as a springboard for this big international push.
It allowed them to frame it slightly less like a pure money
grab and more like, well, we hadto move it anyway.
So one on Australia, a logistical problem turned into a
global opportunity. Right.
Makes sense from their perspective, I suppose.
OK, so you've got these officialleague games, points on the line
scheduled outside Europe. How did UEFA react?
(04:18):
They're the governing body for European football.
Surely they can just say no? Or were their hands tied
somehow? Well, that's where it gets
really interesting and frankly abit messy.
From a regulatory standpoint, UEFA was officially very much
against it. Their stated position was clear.
Domestic league games belong in the domestic country, full stop.
(04:38):
Their president even called the whole idea regrettable.
Regrettable strong word. Very.
And they didn't just say it, they apparently did
consultations. And those confirmed what you'd
expect a widespread lack of support from fans from other
clubs, even from other leagues, who are probably worried they'd
be next. The feeling from the European
football establishment seemed pretty unified.
(04:59):
E Games stay home. OK, so if UEFA was so strongly
opposed, how on earth did La Liga and Syria get the green
light? This must be where that infamous
regulatory loophole comes in. That seems crucial here.
That's exactly it. UEFA eventually granted
permission but, and this is the key phrase, only on an
exceptional basis, their hands were essentially tied.
(05:21):
The analysis suggests it's because the rule book written by
FIFA, the global governing body,just wasn't specific enough on
this issue. Really.
FIFA's rules didn't cover movingdomestic league games overseas.
Apparently not clearly enough togive UEFA the solid legal
grounds to block it. Historically, FIFA's rules
focused more on international competitions.
(05:41):
You know, World Cups, continental tournaments.
They didn't really dictate precisely how individual
domestic leagues manage their own fixture lists within their
own borders. That ambiguity, that lack of
detail, created the opening La Liga in Syria needed.
Wow, so UEFA was basically forced to concede even though
they hated the idea because the global rules weren't tight
(06:03):
enough. A technical knockout for the
leads, then. Pretty much a humiliating
position for Uatha really. And they knew the danger this
created immediately. They put out a very strong
warning alongside the approval. They stressed this was strictly
exceptional. It shall not be seen as setting
a precedent, which of course everyone knew it probably would.
Yes, saying it's not a precedentdoesn't mean it won't be treated
(06:24):
like 1. Exactly what it really signals
is that the league's won this round because of a flaw in the
global system, and now FIFA and UEFA are scrambling like mad to
fix that flaw, to close that loophole.
And that fixing process that's happening right now, they're
rewriting the rules. Yes, UEFA confirmed they're
working urgently with FIFA on a major review of the regulations.
(06:46):
The goal is specifically to revise the global rulebook to
explicitly uphold competition, integrity and territoriality
going forward. And that's what makes these
specific games, Villarreal, Barca and Miami, Milan, Como and
Perth so significant historically.
They've literally forced a change in the fundamental
governance of global domestic sport.
(07:07):
By exposing this weakness. They've changed the game, maybe
forever. OK, so UEFA was forced into it,
but the resistance didn't stop there, did it?
Some of the strongest oppositionactually came from inside Spain
itself, from one of the biggest names in football.
Absolutely. The moment this news broke,
arguably the most powerful pushback came from within La
Liga, specifically from Real Madrid, CF, Barcelona's eternal
(07:30):
rival. We really need to unpack Real
Madrid's statement here, becauseit wasn't just a grumpy
complaint, was it? It was structured like a legal
and, well, almost philosophical rejection whole idea.
It was remarkable, very lengthy,very firm, and crucially, they
focused almost entirely on sporting integrity, carefully
avoiding getting dragged into purely commercial arguments.
(07:51):
At least on the surface, they made a big point.
Right at the start. This proposal was pushed through
without any prior information orconsultation involving all the
clubs in La Liga. And that lack of consultation
immediately makes it unfair in their eyes.
Yes. Their view was clear.
If you don't involve everyone who competes in the league, the
decision itself lacks competitive legitimacy from the
(08:12):
get go. It's inherently unbalanced.
And their main argument, the onethey really leaned on, was this
idea of territorial reciprocity.Can you explain for listeners
exactly what that means in a league context?
It sounds important. It's absolutely fundamental to
how leagues work. Territorial reciprocity is the
basic principle that in a standard league season, every
team plays every other team twice.
(08:35):
Ones at their home stadium and ones at the opponent's stadium.
Home and away. That guarantee playing half your
games on your turf, with your fans, your familiar pitch,
making your opponent travel. That's the bedrock of
competitive balance. It's meant to even things out
over a season. OK, so how did Real Madrid argue
the Miami game violated that? Their point was simple.
The Villarreal Barcelona game was designated as Villarreal's
(08:58):
home game. Moving it to Miami strips
Villarreal of that guaranteed home advantage.
More importantly, from a Druids perspective, perhaps it strips
Villarreal's opponent Barcelona of having to endure a proper
tough away day at Villarreal Stadium, the Ceramica, which is
known to be a difficult place toplay.
So it makes the game easier for Barcelona, competitively
speaking. That was precisely Real Madrid's
(09:20):
claim. They said it grants an undue
sporting advantage to the clubs involved in the overseas game,
Villa Real and especially Barcelona.
Barsa gets to play what should be a tough away game in a
neutral, likely less hostile environment in Miami.
Real Madrid argue that doing this unilaterally, changing the
venue based on non sporting factors, compromises the
(09:40):
legitimacy of the entire league's results.
It breaks the equality between contenders.
Strong stuff. They basically said it taints
the whole competition. It is sound very high minded,
all about fair play. But let's push back a bit here.
We know Real Madrid is a commercial juggernaut
themselves, always looking for financial advantage, pushing for
bigger slices of TV money. Is this really just about pure
(10:02):
sporting principles? Or is it also a strategic power
play away from Madrid to maybe undermine La Liga's leadership
or position themselves better for future revenue fights?
Look, that's the $1,000,000 question, isn't it?
And the honest answer is it's almost certainly both.
The principles they're citing, territorial reciprocity,
competitive balance, are genuinely important for any
league's integrity. Their arguments hold water from
(10:24):
a sporting perspective, but the sheer force and frankly the
expense of their opposition suggests a strategic layer too.
If La Liga under its current leadership proves I can just
create massive new money streamslike this independently, that
strengthens the league's power relative to its biggest clubs.
Real Madrid, and Barcelona too for that matter, have always
(10:46):
thrived on their outsized influence.
This move potentially dilutes that.
So yes, they're defending a principle, but they're also
likely trying to ensure that anyfuture moves like this require
their explicit sign off, keepingcontrol in their hands.
Protecting their leverage. Exactly, And they didn't just
release a statement and hope forthe best, they went on the
offensive legally and regulatorily.
(11:07):
Yeah, talk us through that. They appeal to multiple bodies,
right? They executed a full court
press, very tactical. First they went straight to
FIFA, the global body, framing it as an international rules
issue. They asked FIFA not to authorize
the game unless all the Liga clubs agreed unanimously.
Putting pressure on the top. Right second, they appealed
(11:29):
directly to UEFA, reminding themof Uefa's own past stance
against playing official games outside national borders.
Specifically citing a 2018 decision or criterion, they
urged UEFA to push the Spanish FA to withdraw the request.
Using Uefa's own words against them potentially.
Clever, wasn't it? Yeah.
And 3rd, they took it to the Spanish government, the CSD, the
(11:50):
High Sports Council. They asked the government not to
grant the necessary administrative permissions for
the match to happen without again unanimous consent from the
clubs. Wow, so they were fighting it on
the global, European and national levels simultaneously.
Serious stuff. Absolutely.
They show they were prepared fora legal and political battle on
every front imaginable to stop this.
(12:10):
OK, so we have the clubs, the regulators, but what about the
fans? The actual people who buy the
tickets, wear the shirts? Surely they had something to say
about their home games being shipped overseas.
Oh, The fan reaction was immediate.
And it was furious. Across Europe, really, but
especially in Spain and Italy. Football supporters Europe FSE,
(12:32):
a major umbrella group, they didn't mince words.
They called the decision disgusting and horrendous.
Strong language again. What was their main objection?
It's simple and it cuts right tothe heart of being a fan, Taking
actual league games, the ones that matter for the standings,
away from the loyal home supporters who turn up week in,
week out, rain or shine, they see that as fundamentally
(12:53):
damaging. Because your season ticket
suddenly doesn't guarantee you'll see the biggest game of
the year at home. Precisely the whole point of the
home fixture, the atmosphere, the tradition, that potential
giant killing moment or title deciding clash on your own turf,
that's sacred to fans. Shipping it off thousands of
miles away shatters that bond. FSE made it clear they were
(13:14):
standing with the Spanish and Italian fans and they vowed to
explore every possible way to fight these plans.
And their big fear. Their deep fear, the one they
articulated very clearly, is that leagues like La Liga and
Syria are literally risking undermining their own history.
They're potentially inflicting long term cultural damage on the
very soul of European football, all for what might be a
(13:35):
relatively short term financial gain.
It's that classic painful conflict.
Commerce versus culture. Yeah, that feeling that money is
just steamrolling culture bringsus right to the economics of
this whole thing. Why?
Why would these incredibly proudhistoric leagues risk alienating
their most loyal fans, risk provoking their biggest internal
rivals like Real Madrid? What's the overwhelming economic
(13:56):
pressure here? It.
Boils down to two things really.Generating new revenue and
crucially, accessing new markets.
The league's president, Javier Tabas, has been very open about
this for years. He's explicitly stated the
league needs to build a strongerpresence internationally,
especially in North America, to create new money streams and
(14:18):
reach new potential fans. And why is that so urgent?
Because they know they're falling behind the English
Premier League in terms of global revenue and reach
significantly behind, they see tapping into wealthy overseas
markets as the quickest, maybe the only way to try and close
that financial gap. OK, but why the US specifically?
It's a big world out there. Why is North America the prime
(14:40):
target for these high stakes, controversial games?
The US market has a unique combination of factors that
makes it incredibly attractive right now.
It's described as open, wealthy,and willing.
You've got huge disposable income, you've got
state-of-the-art stadiums and event infrastructure already
built for other sports, and you have a rapidly growing soccer
fan base that's becoming more engaged and knowledgeable.
(15:02):
Although we'll come back to how knowledgeable later.
And crucially for leaks like La Liga, tapping EU allows them to
diversify their income. They can become less reliant on
domestic TV deals within Europe,which might be plateauing or
even shrinking in value. It's about finding new growth
where the money seems easiest toget quickly.
Makes sense. And this is where the defenders
(15:25):
of these overseas games always bring up the comparison to
American sports leagues, right? They say, look, the NFL plays in
London and Germany. The NBA plays games abroad.
MLB goes to Asia and London. Why can't European soccer do the
same? It seems like a valid blueprint.
It's the go to justification. Absolutely, and on the surface
it sounds reasonable. Those leagues do play meaningful
(15:46):
regular season games internationally, and they're
generally seen as successful ventures.
However, critics, especially those within the soccer world,
argue very strongly that this comparison is fundamentally
flawed. It's irrelevant, even invalid,
when you apply it to global football.
Why? What's the key difference?
The crucial distinction when youlook at the global sports
landscape is this. The NFL, The NBAMLB, The NHL.
(16:10):
They are, without any real dispute, the absolute pinnacle
of their respective sports worldwide.
They essentially hold a global monopoly on the highest level of
play. OK, so when the NFL sends, say,
the Kansas City Chiefs to Frankfurt, they're exporting the
only place you can see that level of American football.
There's no real German equivalent competing.
(16:33):
Exactly. They're exporting a unique top
tier product that has no local rival at that elite level.
Soccer is completely different. Top quality football exists all
over the world. You've got strong leagues in
Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, nevermind MLS, which is growing
rapidly in the US itself. So when La Liga brings
Villarreal and Barcelona to Miami, they aren't exporting a
(16:54):
global monopoly. They're importing a foreign
domestic league to compete directly against the existing
local soccer structure. MLS, the USL, Academy teams,
everything. So the dynamic changes
completely. It's not exporting the best,
it's extracting audience and revenue from a market that
already has its own football ecosystem.
Precisely the term extraction isused deliberately by critics.
(17:17):
It's seen less is growing the global game and more as pulling
resources out of a specific lucrative market, potentially at
the expense of local development.
And pulling off these huge international trips, flying
teams, staff setting up in Miamior Perth, that can't be cheap.
Who's actually footing the bill?Are the clubs like Villarreal
(17:37):
and Milan paying for all this themselves?
That's another key piece of the financial puzzle.
It's highly unlikely the clubs are bearing the full cost.
These kinds of roadshow events are typically heavily
subsidized. International sponsors.
Often large corporations based in North America or Asia looking
for global exposure, step in andcover a significant portion of
the costs. Travel logistics, venue fees.
(17:59):
So the sponsors get massive advertising reach.
Exactly. By attaching their brand to a
high profile La Liga or Saria match in a foreign market, they
get huge visibility. And for the clubs involved,
Villarreal, Barcelona, Milan, Como, this sponsorship cushion
makes the deal incredibly attractive.
It minimizes their financial risk and maximizes the profit
(18:20):
they make from that single game.It makes sacrificing a home
fixture seem like a rational business decision.
Even if it causes cultural uproar back home, the structure
almost encourages it. OK, let's put the perspective
now and look at the receiving inthe United States.
This whole venture hasn't exactly been welcomed with open
arms by everyone there, has it? There's been a pretty
significant backlash from withinthe US soccer community itself.
(18:42):
No, absolutely not. University perfectly welcomed.
There's been a very serious, coordinated pushback from
American soccer advocates, people involved with MLS, the
USL, youth academies, even dedicated fans.
They see this move very differently.
They view it not as some benign effort to grow the game, but as
a direct, almost hostile move. Some have called it a blatant
(19:05):
attack on MLS and on the whole effort to build a sustainable,
high level soccer infrastructurewithin the United States.
An attack? Why such strong language?
Because they see these European leagues as directly competing
for the very same resources theyneed to survive and grow.
The same fans, the same sponsors, the same media
attention, the same limited poolof American sports dollars.
(19:27):
Right, it's not an infinite pie.Exactly.
And this is where that powerful extraction argument really comes
into focus. It's not just about who sells
more tickets on one specific weekend, it's about where the
money ultimately flows. Can you?
Trace that money trail for us. If someone buys a ticket or a
Barcelona jersey at the game in Miami, where does that money
actually end up? That's the crux of the
extraction argument. Virtually every single dollar
(19:50):
generated by that European league game in the US, ticket
sales, local broadcast rights, merchandise sold at the venue
flows directly back overseas. It funds the operations of La
Liga or Syria. It pays for European player
salaries, European coaching development, European stadium
upgrades and. Crucially, what doesn't it fund?
Crucially, none of it gets reinvested into the American
(20:11):
soccer system. $0.00 go towards supporting US youth academies,
training US coaches, funding scholarships for young American
players, or building community pitches in American
neighborhoods. Meanwhile, as the advocates
point out, you have American leagues like MLS Next Pro, the
USL clubs, the NWSL trying to expand all of them quote
grinding, building real community football from the
(20:34):
ground up. The perception is that these
European leagues are just swooping in to skim the easy
profits off the top of a market that domestic leagues are
working incredibly hard to cultivate debate organically.
That paints a pretty stark picture, and it leads to
concerns about how this looks internationally, right about the
perception of American soccer itself.
It does. There's a real concern about the
message it sends to the rest of the footballing world. the
(20:55):
United States is hosting the next men's World Cup in 2026,
the biggest sporting event on the planet.
Yet this move seems to suggest that the US, even as the
upcoming host, can't even protect its own professional
game, as some have put it, that it prefers to import another
country's domestic league ratherthan fully backing its own.
(21:16):
IT projects a sense of weakness or maybe a lack of confidence in
the domestic product. Potentially, yes, a perception
of financial vulnerability or maybe even cultural dependency,
like the US market is just seen as territory to be exploited by
richer, more established foreignleagues.
Which ties back neatly to that argument about authenticity we
touched on earlier if American fans really want the European
(21:37):
football experience. Then the clear message from
domestic advocates is go get thereal thing.
Go to Europe, they say. Buy a ticket to the camp new in
Barcelona, Stand on the cop in Liverpool.
Experience the passion, the history, the culture in his
actual authentic home. Because moving the game
physically removes that context.Absolutely.
They argue that airlifting a league game to Miami, playing it
(22:00):
in a likely half full NFL stadium with neutral fans,
strips the event of its core meaning.
It substitutes a kind of shallow, convenient spectacle
for the deep, embedded authenticity of watching the
game where it belongs. Seeing Villarreal versus
Barcelona in Florida, they argue, isn't the same thing at
all. It fundamentally degrades the
integrity and the specialness ofthe league season itself.
(22:23):
Beyond the cultural arguments, though, there's also a question
about whether the strategy is even commercially sustainable
for La Liga or Syria in the longrun.
The US market is big, sure, but is its appetite for all European
soccer really that deep? That's a very important point
and potentially a major flaw in the strategy, especially for La
Liga. The critics highlight something
crucial. Historically, the US market has
(22:43):
only ever shown consistent largescale interest in a very small
number of European sewer clubs. Maybe 10 teams total if you're
generous. The household names Real Madrid,
Barcelona, Man United, Liverpool.
It's exactly the global mega brands.
While the novelty of seeing any official European league game
might draw initial interest, that novelty will likely wear
off. The market is actually quite
(23:04):
discerning. So yes, Real Madrid or Barcelona
playing anyone in the US will probably draw a big crowd.
But what happens when a Liga tries to stage, say, Gatafe
versus Sevilla in Miami, or Athletic Bilbao versus Real
Sociedad? The draw's much smaller.
Much smaller, those games would likely struggle to attract more
fans or generate more revenue than a standard MLS match.
(23:26):
The financial viability isn't league wide, it's concentrated
entirely around those one or twoclubs with genuine global appeal
in the US. That creates a whole different
set of problems internally for the league.
Hashtag tag 5 Internal risks andthe imbalance of power in the
Liga. Right.
And that takes us right back inside La Liga itself.
Because this whole push overseas, which seems designed
(23:46):
to help La Liga compete better globally, especially against the
Premier League, it seems like itcould actually make La Liga's
own internal problems much, muchworse.
This is possibly the most critical and perhaps ironic
aspect of the whole strategy. You have to connect it to the
underlying structure of Spanish football.
Liga suffers from a profound competitive imbalance, far more
(24:08):
severe that you see in England, Germany or even Italy.
Historically it's just utterly dominated by two clubs, Real
Madrid and Barcelona. Just look at the numbers right?
How many titles have they won between them?
It's staggering. Out of 94 Spanish league
championships decided up to thispoint, Real Madrid and Barcelona
combined have won 64 of them. That's over 2/3, nearly 70%.
(24:30):
That level of dominance by just two teams is almost unheard of
in a Major League. It's fundamentally anti
competitive in many ways. And we know historically a big
driver of that was money, especially back when clubs
negotiated their own TV deals, creating huge gaps.
Hasn't that changed with collective rights selling?
It has changed. Yes, they moved to a collective
model like the Premier League, but, and this is crucial, even
(24:53):
the collective agreement in Spain is structured in a way
that still funnels A disproportionately large share
of the TV revenue to Real Madridand Barcelona based on
historical performance and viewership.
So the rich basically stay rich,maybe get richer.
Pretty much. The gap remains enormous,
allowing those two clubs to maintain vastly higher wage
bills, attract better players and perpetuate their dominance.
(25:16):
That financial reality is the essential backdrop to this Miami
adventure. OK, so how does playing games in
the US potentially make that imbalance worse?
Because as we just discussed, the commercial viability of
these overseas games in the US market hinges almost entirely on
the participation of Real Madridor Barcelona.
American fans by and large are going to pay premium prices or
(25:38):
TuneIn in massive numbers to see2 mid table Spanish teams play.
They want the stars, the global brands.
The US market isn't a lifeline for the whole league.
Equally, it's a revenue stream that can basically only be
accessed via the two clubs that already dominate everything.
That's the devastating feedback loop.
This strategy, intended to boostthe league's overall global
(26:00):
standing, actually ends up dramatically increasing the
power and the financial leverageof Real Madrid, Barcelona over
La Liga itself. Because if future overseas games
depend on their willingness to play, they can demand a bigger
cut, more favorable scheduling, more concessions.
The league becomes even more beholden to them.
Look at the reported figures forthe Miami game.
(26:20):
Eston suggests Barcelona stands to earn the vast majority, maybe
5 to $7,000,000, from that single away match.
Even Villarreal, the club actually giving up its home
advantage, reportedly gets a much smaller slice.
Wow, so the club making the sacrifice doesn't even get the
main reward Barcelona does. Exactly.
So instead of lifting all boats,this strategy risks dramatically
(26:41):
widening the financial chasm between the top 2 and everyone
else in Spain. If playing abroad becomes a
regular thing, it's effectively a massive ongoing financial
bonus handed directly to the twodominant clubs, making the
league even less competitive internally.
Which is completely counterproductive if the goal is
to make La Liga more attractive globally, like the Premier
League with its broader title race potential.
(27:04):
Precisely. It's a self defeating strategy
in that sense. La Liga is trying desperately to
catch the Premier League globally, but if the Premier
League, with its six or seven clubs that have significant US
fan bases, decides to follow suit and play games abroad,
they'll likely have more successgenerating revenue across more
(27:24):
of their clubs. Because they have more teams
Americans actually want to see. Right, so the ironic outcome
could be that this strategy actually widens the gap between
the Premier League and La Liga, further hurting La Liga's global
competitiveness, because La Liga's approach inherently
concentrates the benefits on just two clubs.
And underpinning all this is theneed for these leagues to
(27:44):
recognize that American fans aren't naive anymore, are they?
They won't just turn up for any old European team out of
curiosity. Absolutely not.
That era, if it ever truly existed, is long gone.
American soccer fans are sophisticated.
They have access to more football from around the world
than ever before on TV, streaming everywhere.
Their choices about which games to attend in person, especially
(28:07):
at premium prices, will mirror their established viewing
habits. They'll pay for the global
elite, Barsa, Real, the Premier League's Big 6, maybe a couple
of others. That's largely it.
So the final verdict on this strategy for La Liga?
It looks incredibly risky tryingto solve an external problem.
How to compete financially with the Premier League by adopting a
(28:27):
strategy that seems guaranteed to worsen their biggest internal
problem. Crippling competitive imbalance
could backfire spectacularly. The land of opportunity in the
US might just become La Liga's land of disappointment once the
initial novelty fades #tag outro.
What a fascinating tangled web this is.
It really lays bare that core tension, doesn't it?
(28:47):
You have the undeniable financial pull, the need for
these European leagues to find new money, especially in that
wealthy U.S. market, butting right up against this fierce,
principled and sometimes self interested defense of sporting
integrity, territoriality and tradition from rivals and fans
alike. It feels like a really delicate,
maybe even impossible, balancingact.
(29:08):
It really does. And this decision, these
specific games being approved, it already feels like a genuine
turning point in the world of football governance, as some
have called it. It's not just hypothetical
anymore. We saw UEFA, a major
confederation, essentially forced to concede because of a
gap in FIFA's global rules, and that act has now forced FIFA's
hand. They had to rewrite the rulebook
(29:28):
to explicitly address territorial integrity for
domestic leagues. So this isn't just market
expansion talk, it's a real fundamental shift in how the
global game is regulated, prompted by commercial pressure
pushing up against sporting tradition.
And that commercial pressure, aswe saw, triggered such a strong
extraction argument from US soccer advocates, all based on
that principle of protecting domestic territory and
(29:50):
investment. Which leads to a really
provocative final thought for you, the listener, one that
circles right back to Real Madrid's initial argument about
reciprocity. Right.
If European leagues continue down this path, if they keep
extracting value from the US market, potentially hindering
local gross and ignoring competitive fairness, well, what
happens if the shoe ends up on the other foot?
(30:12):
What would the conversation in Europe sound like if a major MLS
rivalry game, something that really matters domestically in
the US, say LAFC versus Inter Miami with all its star power,
was suddenly scheduled to be played not in LA or Florida, but
in Madrid or London for MLS league points?
Can you imagine the reaction? Exactly that scenario, which
(30:33):
seems utterly unthinkable right now, highlights the kind of
reciprocal pressure that could emerge.
It wood forest European leagues and fans to confront the very
same arguments about competitiveintegrity, fan displacement and
economic extraction that they'recurrently imposing on others.
And perhaps that potential future, that potential flip, is
exactly what the new FIFA regulations currently being
(30:56):
drafted or designed to prevent, locking in the current advantage
while they can. These games might be remembered
as opening a door that FIFA and UEFA are now desperately trying
to slam shut again. A really intriguing high stakes
future for the global game. It's certainly something to keep
a close eye on. Thank you for joining us for
this deep dive.
We thought we knew the map of global football, right?
Pretty straightforward. You know, your domestic leagues,
they play in their home stadiums.
And sure, the big clubs might jet off for a summer friendly,
maybe send the reserves, grab some cash in the US or Asia.
But it's, well, it's always beenunderstood those don't really
count. That was kind of the deal,
wasn't it? Yeah, that was the sort of
(00:20):
unwritten contract of the sport,meaningless games for global
marketing. But now that contract, it feels
like it's being completely torn up.
The whole map is being redrawn. Yeah, and pretty aggressively
too. Exactly because this isn't about
preseason tours or exhibition matches anymore.
We're talking about official, meaningful, honest to goodness
(00:42):
league games. The ones that decide titles, who
gets into Europe, who goes down.These crucial fixtures are
literally jumping continents. It's staggering really.
We're looking at the top tiers of European domestic football
like La Liga and Syria, decidingthat, you know, their home game
could just as easily be in Miami, FL, or even Perth,
Australia. Perth It's not just a simple
(01:03):
business decision, is it? This feels like a a fundamental
shift, a tectonic shift maybe, in how sports are governed
globally. It absolutely is.
So our mission today for you listening is to really conduct a
deep dissection of this whole massive controversy.
We need to get beyond just the headlines and look at the the
furious arguments happening inside the leagues, the sort of
(01:24):
reluctant responses from the governing bodies who seem caught
off guard, and crucially, the backlash, that real, visceral
cultural reaction from fans who feel like their experience,
their home game, is being well auctioned off overseas.
Yeah, sold off to the highest bidder.
And that brings us to the core conflict we need to analyze
today, right? Is this genuinely about growing
(01:44):
the game globally like the proponents claim?
Or is it, as the critics fiercely argue, actually gutting
it, undermining that deep seatedcompetitive integrity that
really defines European sport? That's the heart of it.
It's this raw kind of explosive collision between these huge
global commercial ambitions and,well, the sanctity of Fair
(02:05):
domestic competition. That's what we're examining.
Hashtag tag one the concrete proposals and reluctant
approval. OK, so to really get a handle on
how big this moment is, we need to look at the specific games
that actually sparked this wholeinternational firestorm.
Let's start with La Liga, the Spanish league.
They clearly wanted to be first movers here.
Oh, absolutely. La Liga was the trailblazer, no
(02:27):
question. They pushed incredibly hard for
an official league match, Villarreal versus FC Barcelona
to be played in Miami, FL, and they had a date I2 December.
This wasn't just talk, it was a formal plan to move a game with
three crucial league points on the line right across the
Atlantic. And that specific game,
Villarreal versus Barcelona, it was supposed to be Villarreal's
(02:47):
home game wasn't. It that's key, Yes, they were
giving up their home advantage, their match at the Estadi de la
Ceramica, their fans. That's a huge competitive factor
to just give away, even if there's a big paycheck attached.
It really is. And then almost immediately,
Syria in Italy jumped on the bandwagon, didn't they?
Which kind of shows the pressurethese leagues feel to go global.
Exactly The speed was telling. Syria proposed its own overseas
(03:10):
fixture, AC Milan, against Komo,but instead of the US they
picked Perth, Australia, targeted for early next year.
Perth, Australia. I mean, the distance alone is
just mind boggling for a domestic league match, but the
AC Milan situation had a little extra twist in this sort of
logistical cover story. It did, yeah.
Well, the main goal, let's be honest, is tapping into global
(03:32):
markets, especially Asia, and finding new revenue.
The timing for the Milan game offered a specific, convenient
justification. AC Milan's home ground, the
famous San Siro, is needed for the opening ceremony of the 2026
Milan Cortina Winter Olympics around that time.
So they have this unique kind ofdomestic scheduling conflict for
that particular home game, and they cleverly used that
(03:55):
necessity as a springboard for this big international push.
It allowed them to frame it slightly less like a pure money
grab and more like, well, we hadto move it anyway.
So one on Australia, a logistical problem turned into a
global opportunity. Right.
Makes sense from their perspective, I suppose.
OK, so you've got these officialleague games, points on the line
scheduled outside Europe. How did UEFA react?
(04:18):
They're the governing body for European football.
Surely they can just say no? Or were their hands tied
somehow? Well, that's where it gets
really interesting and frankly abit messy.
From a regulatory standpoint, UEFA was officially very much
against it. Their stated position was clear.
Domestic league games belong in the domestic country, full stop.
(04:38):
Their president even called the whole idea regrettable.
Regrettable strong word. Very.
And they didn't just say it, they apparently did
consultations. And those confirmed what you'd
expect a widespread lack of support from fans from other
clubs, even from other leagues, who are probably worried they'd
be next. The feeling from the European
football establishment seemed pretty unified.
(04:59):
E Games stay home. OK, so if UEFA was so strongly
opposed, how on earth did La Liga and Syria get the green
light? This must be where that infamous
regulatory loophole comes in. That seems crucial here.
That's exactly it. UEFA eventually granted
permission but, and this is the key phrase, only on an
exceptional basis, their hands were essentially tied.
(05:21):
The analysis suggests it's because the rule book written by
FIFA, the global governing body,just wasn't specific enough on
this issue. Really.
FIFA's rules didn't cover movingdomestic league games overseas.
Apparently not clearly enough togive UEFA the solid legal
grounds to block it. Historically, FIFA's rules
focused more on international competitions.
(05:41):
You know, World Cups, continental tournaments.
They didn't really dictate precisely how individual
domestic leagues manage their own fixture lists within their
own borders. That ambiguity, that lack of
detail, created the opening La Liga in Syria needed.
Wow, so UEFA was basically forced to concede even though
they hated the idea because the global rules weren't tight
(06:03):
enough. A technical knockout for the
leads, then. Pretty much a humiliating
position for Uatha really. And they knew the danger this
created immediately. They put out a very strong
warning alongside the approval. They stressed this was strictly
exceptional. It shall not be seen as setting
a precedent, which of course everyone knew it probably would.
Yes, saying it's not a precedentdoesn't mean it won't be treated
(06:24):
like 1. Exactly what it really signals
is that the league's won this round because of a flaw in the
global system, and now FIFA and UEFA are scrambling like mad to
fix that flaw, to close that loophole.
And that fixing process that's happening right now, they're
rewriting the rules. Yes, UEFA confirmed they're
working urgently with FIFA on a major review of the regulations.
(06:46):
The goal is specifically to revise the global rulebook to
explicitly uphold competition, integrity and territoriality
going forward. And that's what makes these
specific games, Villarreal, Barca and Miami, Milan, Como and
Perth so significant historically.
They've literally forced a change in the fundamental
governance of global domestic sport.
(07:07):
By exposing this weakness. They've changed the game, maybe
forever. OK, so UEFA was forced into it,
but the resistance didn't stop there, did it?
Some of the strongest oppositionactually came from inside Spain
itself, from one of the biggest names in football.
Absolutely. The moment this news broke,
arguably the most powerful pushback came from within La
Liga, specifically from Real Madrid, CF, Barcelona's eternal
(07:30):
rival. We really need to unpack Real
Madrid's statement here, becauseit wasn't just a grumpy
complaint, was it? It was structured like a legal
and, well, almost philosophical rejection whole idea.
It was remarkable, very lengthy,very firm, and crucially, they
focused almost entirely on sporting integrity, carefully
avoiding getting dragged into purely commercial arguments.
(07:51):
At least on the surface, they made a big point.
Right at the start. This proposal was pushed through
without any prior information orconsultation involving all the
clubs in La Liga. And that lack of consultation
immediately makes it unfair in their eyes.
Yes. Their view was clear.
If you don't involve everyone who competes in the league, the
decision itself lacks competitive legitimacy from the
(08:12):
get go. It's inherently unbalanced.
And their main argument, the onethey really leaned on, was this
idea of territorial reciprocity.Can you explain for listeners
exactly what that means in a league context?
It sounds important. It's absolutely fundamental to
how leagues work. Territorial reciprocity is the
basic principle that in a standard league season, every
team plays every other team twice.
(08:35):
Ones at their home stadium and ones at the opponent's stadium.
Home and away. That guarantee playing half your
games on your turf, with your fans, your familiar pitch,
making your opponent travel. That's the bedrock of
competitive balance. It's meant to even things out
over a season. OK, so how did Real Madrid argue
the Miami game violated that? Their point was simple.
The Villarreal Barcelona game was designated as Villarreal's
(08:58):
home game. Moving it to Miami strips
Villarreal of that guaranteed home advantage.
More importantly, from a Druids perspective, perhaps it strips
Villarreal's opponent Barcelona of having to endure a proper
tough away day at Villarreal Stadium, the Ceramica, which is
known to be a difficult place toplay.
So it makes the game easier for Barcelona, competitively
speaking. That was precisely Real Madrid's
(09:20):
claim. They said it grants an undue
sporting advantage to the clubs involved in the overseas game,
Villa Real and especially Barcelona.
Barsa gets to play what should be a tough away game in a
neutral, likely less hostile environment in Miami.
Real Madrid argue that doing this unilaterally, changing the
venue based on non sporting factors, compromises the
(09:40):
legitimacy of the entire league's results.
It breaks the equality between contenders.
Strong stuff. They basically said it taints
the whole competition. It is sound very high minded,
all about fair play. But let's push back a bit here.
We know Real Madrid is a commercial juggernaut
themselves, always looking for financial advantage, pushing for
bigger slices of TV money. Is this really just about pure
(10:02):
sporting principles? Or is it also a strategic power
play away from Madrid to maybe undermine La Liga's leadership
or position themselves better for future revenue fights?
Look, that's the $1,000,000 question, isn't it?
And the honest answer is it's almost certainly both.
The principles they're citing, territorial reciprocity,
competitive balance, are genuinely important for any
league's integrity. Their arguments hold water from
(10:24):
a sporting perspective, but the sheer force and frankly the
expense of their opposition suggests a strategic layer too.
If La Liga under its current leadership proves I can just
create massive new money streamslike this independently, that
strengthens the league's power relative to its biggest clubs.
Real Madrid, and Barcelona too for that matter, have always
(10:46):
thrived on their outsized influence.
This move potentially dilutes that.
So yes, they're defending a principle, but they're also
likely trying to ensure that anyfuture moves like this require
their explicit sign off, keepingcontrol in their hands.
Protecting their leverage. Exactly, And they didn't just
release a statement and hope forthe best, they went on the
offensive legally and regulatorily.
(11:07):
Yeah, talk us through that. They appeal to multiple bodies,
right? They executed a full court
press, very tactical. First they went straight to
FIFA, the global body, framing it as an international rules
issue. They asked FIFA not to authorize
the game unless all the Liga clubs agreed unanimously.
Putting pressure on the top. Right second, they appealed
(11:29):
directly to UEFA, reminding themof Uefa's own past stance
against playing official games outside national borders.
Specifically citing a 2018 decision or criterion, they
urged UEFA to push the Spanish FA to withdraw the request.
Using Uefa's own words against them potentially.
Clever, wasn't it? Yeah.
And 3rd, they took it to the Spanish government, the CSD, the
(11:50):
High Sports Council. They asked the government not to
grant the necessary administrative permissions for
the match to happen without again unanimous consent from the
clubs. Wow, so they were fighting it on
the global, European and national levels simultaneously.
Serious stuff. Absolutely.
They show they were prepared fora legal and political battle on
every front imaginable to stop this.
(12:10):
OK, so we have the clubs, the regulators, but what about the
fans? The actual people who buy the
tickets, wear the shirts? Surely they had something to say
about their home games being shipped overseas.
Oh, The fan reaction was immediate.
And it was furious. Across Europe, really, but
especially in Spain and Italy. Football supporters Europe FSE,
(12:32):
a major umbrella group, they didn't mince words.
They called the decision disgusting and horrendous.
Strong language again. What was their main objection?
It's simple and it cuts right tothe heart of being a fan, Taking
actual league games, the ones that matter for the standings,
away from the loyal home supporters who turn up week in,
week out, rain or shine, they see that as fundamentally
(12:53):
damaging. Because your season ticket
suddenly doesn't guarantee you'll see the biggest game of
the year at home. Precisely the whole point of the
home fixture, the atmosphere, the tradition, that potential
giant killing moment or title deciding clash on your own turf,
that's sacred to fans. Shipping it off thousands of
miles away shatters that bond. FSE made it clear they were
(13:14):
standing with the Spanish and Italian fans and they vowed to
explore every possible way to fight these plans.
And their big fear. Their deep fear, the one they
articulated very clearly, is that leagues like La Liga and
Syria are literally risking undermining their own history.
They're potentially inflicting long term cultural damage on the
very soul of European football, all for what might be a
(13:35):
relatively short term financial gain.
It's that classic painful conflict.
Commerce versus culture. Yeah, that feeling that money is
just steamrolling culture bringsus right to the economics of
this whole thing. Why?
Why would these incredibly proudhistoric leagues risk alienating
their most loyal fans, risk provoking their biggest internal
rivals like Real Madrid? What's the overwhelming economic
(13:56):
pressure here? It.
Boils down to two things really.Generating new revenue and
crucially, accessing new markets.
The league's president, Javier Tabas, has been very open about
this for years. He's explicitly stated the
league needs to build a strongerpresence internationally,
especially in North America, to create new money streams and
(14:18):
reach new potential fans. And why is that so urgent?
Because they know they're falling behind the English
Premier League in terms of global revenue and reach
significantly behind, they see tapping into wealthy overseas
markets as the quickest, maybe the only way to try and close
that financial gap. OK, but why the US specifically?
It's a big world out there. Why is North America the prime
(14:40):
target for these high stakes, controversial games?
The US market has a unique combination of factors that
makes it incredibly attractive right now.
It's described as open, wealthy,and willing.
You've got huge disposable income, you've got
state-of-the-art stadiums and event infrastructure already
built for other sports, and you have a rapidly growing soccer
fan base that's becoming more engaged and knowledgeable.
(15:02):
Although we'll come back to how knowledgeable later.
And crucially for leaks like La Liga, tapping EU allows them to
diversify their income. They can become less reliant on
domestic TV deals within Europe,which might be plateauing or
even shrinking in value. It's about finding new growth
where the money seems easiest toget quickly.
Makes sense. And this is where the defenders
(15:25):
of these overseas games always bring up the comparison to
American sports leagues, right? They say, look, the NFL plays in
London and Germany. The NBA plays games abroad.
MLB goes to Asia and London. Why can't European soccer do the
same? It seems like a valid blueprint.
It's the go to justification. Absolutely, and on the surface
it sounds reasonable. Those leagues do play meaningful
(15:46):
regular season games internationally, and they're
generally seen as successful ventures.
However, critics, especially those within the soccer world,
argue very strongly that this comparison is fundamentally
flawed. It's irrelevant, even invalid,
when you apply it to global football.
Why? What's the key difference?
The crucial distinction when youlook at the global sports
landscape is this. The NFL, The NBAMLB, The NHL.
(16:10):
They are, without any real dispute, the absolute pinnacle
of their respective sports worldwide.
They essentially hold a global monopoly on the highest level of
play. OK, so when the NFL sends, say,
the Kansas City Chiefs to Frankfurt, they're exporting the
only place you can see that level of American football.
There's no real German equivalent competing.
(16:33):
Exactly. They're exporting a unique top
tier product that has no local rival at that elite level.
Soccer is completely different. Top quality football exists all
over the world. You've got strong leagues in
Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, nevermind MLS, which is growing
rapidly in the US itself. So when La Liga brings
Villarreal and Barcelona to Miami, they aren't exporting a
(16:54):
global monopoly. They're importing a foreign
domestic league to compete directly against the existing
local soccer structure. MLS, the USL, Academy teams,
everything. So the dynamic changes
completely. It's not exporting the best,
it's extracting audience and revenue from a market that
already has its own football ecosystem.
Precisely the term extraction isused deliberately by critics.
(17:17):
It's seen less is growing the global game and more as pulling
resources out of a specific lucrative market, potentially at
the expense of local development.
And pulling off these huge international trips, flying
teams, staff setting up in Miamior Perth, that can't be cheap.
Who's actually footing the bill?Are the clubs like Villarreal
(17:37):
and Milan paying for all this themselves?
That's another key piece of the financial puzzle.
It's highly unlikely the clubs are bearing the full cost.
These kinds of roadshow events are typically heavily
subsidized. International sponsors.
Often large corporations based in North America or Asia looking
for global exposure, step in andcover a significant portion of
the costs. Travel logistics, venue fees.
(17:59):
So the sponsors get massive advertising reach.
Exactly. By attaching their brand to a
high profile La Liga or Saria match in a foreign market, they
get huge visibility. And for the clubs involved,
Villarreal, Barcelona, Milan, Como, this sponsorship cushion
makes the deal incredibly attractive.
It minimizes their financial risk and maximizes the profit
(18:20):
they make from that single game.It makes sacrificing a home
fixture seem like a rational business decision.
Even if it causes cultural uproar back home, the structure
almost encourages it. OK, let's put the perspective
now and look at the receiving inthe United States.
This whole venture hasn't exactly been welcomed with open
arms by everyone there, has it? There's been a pretty
significant backlash from withinthe US soccer community itself.
(18:42):
No, absolutely not. University perfectly welcomed.
There's been a very serious, coordinated pushback from
American soccer advocates, people involved with MLS, the
USL, youth academies, even dedicated fans.
They see this move very differently.
They view it not as some benign effort to grow the game, but as
a direct, almost hostile move. Some have called it a blatant
(19:05):
attack on MLS and on the whole effort to build a sustainable,
high level soccer infrastructurewithin the United States.
An attack? Why such strong language?
Because they see these European leagues as directly competing
for the very same resources theyneed to survive and grow.
The same fans, the same sponsors, the same media
attention, the same limited poolof American sports dollars.
(19:27):
Right, it's not an infinite pie.Exactly.
And this is where that powerful extraction argument really comes
into focus. It's not just about who sells
more tickets on one specific weekend, it's about where the
money ultimately flows. Can you?
Trace that money trail for us. If someone buys a ticket or a
Barcelona jersey at the game in Miami, where does that money
actually end up? That's the crux of the
extraction argument. Virtually every single dollar
(19:50):
generated by that European league game in the US, ticket
sales, local broadcast rights, merchandise sold at the venue
flows directly back overseas. It funds the operations of La
Liga or Syria. It pays for European player
salaries, European coaching development, European stadium
upgrades and. Crucially, what doesn't it fund?
Crucially, none of it gets reinvested into the American
(20:11):
soccer system. $0.00 go towards supporting US youth academies,
training US coaches, funding scholarships for young American
players, or building community pitches in American
neighborhoods. Meanwhile, as the advocates
point out, you have American leagues like MLS Next Pro, the
USL clubs, the NWSL trying to expand all of them quote
grinding, building real community football from the
(20:34):
ground up. The perception is that these
European leagues are just swooping in to skim the easy
profits off the top of a market that domestic leagues are
working incredibly hard to cultivate debate organically.
That paints a pretty stark picture, and it leads to
concerns about how this looks internationally, right about the
perception of American soccer itself.
It does. There's a real concern about the
message it sends to the rest of the footballing world. the
(20:55):
United States is hosting the next men's World Cup in 2026,
the biggest sporting event on the planet.
Yet this move seems to suggest that the US, even as the
upcoming host, can't even protect its own professional
game, as some have put it, that it prefers to import another
country's domestic league ratherthan fully backing its own.
(21:16):
IT projects a sense of weakness or maybe a lack of confidence in
the domestic product. Potentially, yes, a perception
of financial vulnerability or maybe even cultural dependency,
like the US market is just seen as territory to be exploited by
richer, more established foreignleagues.
Which ties back neatly to that argument about authenticity we
touched on earlier if American fans really want the European
(21:37):
football experience. Then the clear message from
domestic advocates is go get thereal thing.
Go to Europe, they say. Buy a ticket to the camp new in
Barcelona, Stand on the cop in Liverpool.
Experience the passion, the history, the culture in his
actual authentic home. Because moving the game
physically removes that context.Absolutely.
They argue that airlifting a league game to Miami, playing it
(22:00):
in a likely half full NFL stadium with neutral fans,
strips the event of its core meaning.
It substitutes a kind of shallow, convenient spectacle
for the deep, embedded authenticity of watching the
game where it belongs. Seeing Villarreal versus
Barcelona in Florida, they argue, isn't the same thing at
all. It fundamentally degrades the
integrity and the specialness ofthe league season itself.
(22:23):
Beyond the cultural arguments, though, there's also a question
about whether the strategy is even commercially sustainable
for La Liga or Syria in the longrun.
The US market is big, sure, but is its appetite for all European
soccer really that deep? That's a very important point
and potentially a major flaw in the strategy, especially for La
Liga. The critics highlight something
crucial. Historically, the US market has
(22:43):
only ever shown consistent largescale interest in a very small
number of European sewer clubs. Maybe 10 teams total if you're
generous. The household names Real Madrid,
Barcelona, Man United, Liverpool.
It's exactly the global mega brands.
While the novelty of seeing any official European league game
might draw initial interest, that novelty will likely wear
off. The market is actually quite
(23:04):
discerning. So yes, Real Madrid or Barcelona
playing anyone in the US will probably draw a big crowd.
But what happens when a Liga tries to stage, say, Gatafe
versus Sevilla in Miami, or Athletic Bilbao versus Real
Sociedad? The draw's much smaller.
Much smaller, those games would likely struggle to attract more
fans or generate more revenue than a standard MLS match.
(23:26):
The financial viability isn't league wide, it's concentrated
entirely around those one or twoclubs with genuine global appeal
in the US. That creates a whole different
set of problems internally for the league.
Hashtag tag 5 Internal risks andthe imbalance of power in the
Liga. Right.
And that takes us right back inside La Liga itself.
Because this whole push overseas, which seems designed
(23:46):
to help La Liga compete better globally, especially against the
Premier League, it seems like itcould actually make La Liga's
own internal problems much, muchworse.
This is possibly the most critical and perhaps ironic
aspect of the whole strategy. You have to connect it to the
underlying structure of Spanish football.
Liga suffers from a profound competitive imbalance, far more
(24:08):
severe that you see in England, Germany or even Italy.
Historically it's just utterly dominated by two clubs, Real
Madrid and Barcelona. Just look at the numbers right?
How many titles have they won between them?
It's staggering. Out of 94 Spanish league
championships decided up to thispoint, Real Madrid and Barcelona
combined have won 64 of them. That's over 2/3, nearly 70%.
(24:30):
That level of dominance by just two teams is almost unheard of
in a Major League. It's fundamentally anti
competitive in many ways. And we know historically a big
driver of that was money, especially back when clubs
negotiated their own TV deals, creating huge gaps.
Hasn't that changed with collective rights selling?
It has changed. Yes, they moved to a collective
model like the Premier League, but, and this is crucial, even
(24:53):
the collective agreement in Spain is structured in a way
that still funnels A disproportionately large share
of the TV revenue to Real Madridand Barcelona based on
historical performance and viewership.
So the rich basically stay rich,maybe get richer.
Pretty much. The gap remains enormous,
allowing those two clubs to maintain vastly higher wage
bills, attract better players and perpetuate their dominance.
(25:16):
That financial reality is the essential backdrop to this Miami
adventure. OK, so how does playing games in
the US potentially make that imbalance worse?
Because as we just discussed, the commercial viability of
these overseas games in the US market hinges almost entirely on
the participation of Real Madridor Barcelona.
American fans by and large are going to pay premium prices or
(25:38):
TuneIn in massive numbers to see2 mid table Spanish teams play.
They want the stars, the global brands.
The US market isn't a lifeline for the whole league.
Equally, it's a revenue stream that can basically only be
accessed via the two clubs that already dominate everything.
That's the devastating feedback loop.
This strategy, intended to boostthe league's overall global
(26:00):
standing, actually ends up dramatically increasing the
power and the financial leverageof Real Madrid, Barcelona over
La Liga itself. Because if future overseas games
depend on their willingness to play, they can demand a bigger
cut, more favorable scheduling, more concessions.
The league becomes even more beholden to them.
Look at the reported figures forthe Miami game.
(26:20):
Eston suggests Barcelona stands to earn the vast majority, maybe
5 to $7,000,000, from that single away match.
Even Villarreal, the club actually giving up its home
advantage, reportedly gets a much smaller slice.
Wow, so the club making the sacrifice doesn't even get the
main reward Barcelona does. Exactly.
So instead of lifting all boats,this strategy risks dramatically
(26:41):
widening the financial chasm between the top 2 and everyone
else in Spain. If playing abroad becomes a
regular thing, it's effectively a massive ongoing financial
bonus handed directly to the twodominant clubs, making the
league even less competitive internally.
Which is completely counterproductive if the goal is
to make La Liga more attractive globally, like the Premier
League with its broader title race potential.
(27:04):
Precisely. It's a self defeating strategy
in that sense. La Liga is trying desperately to
catch the Premier League globally, but if the Premier
League, with its six or seven clubs that have significant US
fan bases, decides to follow suit and play games abroad,
they'll likely have more successgenerating revenue across more
(27:24):
of their clubs. Because they have more teams
Americans actually want to see. Right, so the ironic outcome
could be that this strategy actually widens the gap between
the Premier League and La Liga, further hurting La Liga's global
competitiveness, because La Liga's approach inherently
concentrates the benefits on just two clubs.
And underpinning all this is theneed for these leagues to
(27:44):
recognize that American fans aren't naive anymore, are they?
They won't just turn up for any old European team out of
curiosity. Absolutely not.
That era, if it ever truly existed, is long gone.
American soccer fans are sophisticated.
They have access to more football from around the world
than ever before on TV, streaming everywhere.
Their choices about which games to attend in person, especially
(28:07):
at premium prices, will mirror their established viewing
habits. They'll pay for the global
elite, Barsa, Real, the Premier League's Big 6, maybe a couple
of others. That's largely it.
So the final verdict on this strategy for La Liga?
It looks incredibly risky tryingto solve an external problem.
How to compete financially with the Premier League by adopting a
(28:27):
strategy that seems guaranteed to worsen their biggest internal
problem. Crippling competitive imbalance
could backfire spectacularly. The land of opportunity in the
US might just become La Liga's land of disappointment once the
initial novelty fades #tag outro.
What a fascinating tangled web this is.
It really lays bare that core tension, doesn't it?
(28:47):
You have the undeniable financial pull, the need for
these European leagues to find new money, especially in that
wealthy U.S. market, butting right up against this fierce,
principled and sometimes self interested defense of sporting
integrity, territoriality and tradition from rivals and fans
alike. It feels like a really delicate,
maybe even impossible, balancingact.
(29:08):
It really does. And this decision, these
specific games being approved, it already feels like a genuine
turning point in the world of football governance, as some
have called it. It's not just hypothetical
anymore. We saw UEFA, a major
confederation, essentially forced to concede because of a
gap in FIFA's global rules, and that act has now forced FIFA's
hand. They had to rewrite the rulebook
(29:28):
to explicitly address territorial integrity for
domestic leagues. So this isn't just market
expansion talk, it's a real fundamental shift in how the
global game is regulated, prompted by commercial pressure
pushing up against sporting tradition.
And that commercial pressure, aswe saw, triggered such a strong
extraction argument from US soccer advocates, all based on
that principle of protecting domestic territory and
(29:50):
investment. Which leads to a really
provocative final thought for you, the listener, one that
circles right back to Real Madrid's initial argument about
reciprocity. Right.
If European leagues continue down this path, if they keep
extracting value from the US market, potentially hindering
local gross and ignoring competitive fairness, well, what
happens if the shoe ends up on the other foot?
(30:12):
What would the conversation in Europe sound like if a major MLS
rivalry game, something that really matters domestically in
the US, say LAFC versus Inter Miami with all its star power,
was suddenly scheduled to be played not in LA or Florida, but
in Madrid or London for MLS league points?
Can you imagine the reaction? Exactly that scenario, which
(30:33):
seems utterly unthinkable right now, highlights the kind of
reciprocal pressure that could emerge.
It wood forest European leagues and fans to confront the very
same arguments about competitiveintegrity, fan displacement and
economic extraction that they'recurrently imposing on others.
And perhaps that potential future, that potential flip, is
exactly what the new FIFA regulations currently being
(30:56):
drafted or designed to prevent, locking in the current advantage
while they can. These games might be remembered
as opening a door that FIFA and UEFA are now desperately trying
to slam shut again. A really intriguing high stakes
future for the global game. It's certainly something to keep
a close eye on. Thank you for joining us for
this deep dive.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!