Villarreal’s upcoming LaLiga match against Barcelona on December 20 in Miami, alongside AC Milan‘s Serie A matchup with Como in Perth, Australia, in February will make sports history by being the first regular-season matches played on foreign soil. This marks the end of a lengthy political and legal battle.
Major U.S. sports leagues have been playing regular-season games abroad for years—NFL, NBA, and MLB among them. Some believe this approach can accelerate globalizing their leagues and marketing their brands internationally. However, it remains a highly debated topic, facing opposition from governing bodies, national associations, and as high up as FIFA itself.
The landscape began to shift following the settlement of a prolonged antitrust lawsuit initiated by Relevent, a marketing company established by Miami Dolphins owner Stephen Ross. The settlement with FIFA, and later the U.S. Soccer Federation (USSF), has paved the way for sports leagues to host events internationally. One of the final obstacles was the European governing body, UEFA, which had been the most resistant.
What makes this situation noteworthy?
Unlike the NFL’s games in cities like São Paulo or London, which don’t feature established local competition comparable to the NFL, the matches planned here involve two robust professional leagues—LaLiga and Serie A—playing in countries where football is a primary sport. MLS and Australia’s A-League, while not on par with LaLiga or Serie A, are still well-organized competitions existing within a single, FIFA-governed structure, resulting in the need for multiple approvals for these matches.
Who needed to approve this?
This approval required consensus from various national associations, including Spain’s RFEF, the USSF, Football Australia, and Italy’s FIGC, as well as regional confederations like UEFA, Concacaf, and the Asian Football Confederation. Notably, UEFA posed significant challenges to this approval.
Why was UEFA’s approval complicated?
The football associations in Spain and Italy had little reason to oppose the decision, as their leagues would benefit from the exposure and revenue. FIFA and the USSF settled lawsuits that previously resisted regular matches being played in the U.S., making it difficult for them to object. Ultimately, this left UEFA as the primary opposing force.
Was UEFA truly reluctant?
UEFA’s communication was clear: they oppose domestic league matches played abroad. UEFA president Aleksander Čeferin emphasized that such matches should be held in their home leagues to avoid disenfranchisement of loyal fans.
Why were they finally nudged to approve this?
The lack of a clear regulatory framework from FIFA made it challenging for UEFA to refuse. There was potential for further legal repercussions should they hold out on approval, a situation they were not keen to face.
Was there underlying motivation?
With increased business partnerships at stake, particularly with Relevent managing Champions League marketing, there appears to be a strong financial incentive for UEFA, despite public opposition. Thus, with the potential for legal battles and partner interests aligning, UEFA seemed to choose practicality over principle.
Why was there opposition from clubs like Real Madrid?
Real Madrid expressed discontent because transferring Barcelona’s match to Miami effectively grants them a home advantage, undermining typical competitive balance, while Milan’s match against Como relocating to Australia is less contentious due to scheduling conflicts back home.
Milan typically attracts over 70,000 fans per match and boasts more than 40,000 season ticket holders. Most other venues in Italy cannot accommodate that crowd. So, moving the match abroad seems like the only feasible option. Why not Australia?
Nevertheless, many fans and players have voiced their frustrations. Barcelona’s Frenkie de Jong empathized with the discontent about the neutral-ground matches, while Milan’s Adrien Rabiot labeled the decision “absurd,” lamenting the lack of player consideration.
Political figures have chimed in too. Glenn Micallef, a European Commissioner responsible for sports and culture, decried this as a betrayal to local fans and communities, framing it as more than just a match.
Is that a fair assessment?
It’s complicated. Past initiatives, like the Premier League’s “39th game” concept, faced overwhelming backlash, leading to its eventual abandonment. The genuine concerns about competition distortion and player workload have reignited debates on whether traveling for these matches is beneficial.
What benefits do Barcelona and LaLiga anticipate?
The financial gain for both matches is estimated at around $12 million for Barcelona and Villarreal, and $10 million for AC Milan and Como. While this revenue seems small compared to Barcelona’s projected billion-dollar earnings, the focus may lean more toward enhancing brand visibility and fan engagement, albeit with dubious outcomes.
1:50
How will fans react to La Liga’s first fixture abroad?
Craig Burley and Shaka Hislop discuss the announcement of Villarreal vs. Barcelona in Miami.
Barcelona and Milan are recognized brands, yet it’s uncertain how many new fans they can attract. The NFL’s international success benefited from extensive promotional campaigns, which may not translate similarly for football. Current fans in the U.S. can easily access the games and may already plan to catch their favorites during the upcoming FIFA World Cup.
Ultimately, it’s unclear how substantial this shift will be for the sport or if it truly addresses any existing needs.