Has the globalization of big-time sports hit a roadblock? It appears that the English Premier League, one of the top soccer leagues in the world, has drawn the wrath of FIFA and regional soccer associations with its plan to start playing league matches outside of England.

The EPL is trying to expand its name recognition much like Major League Baseball, which plans to send the Los Angeles Dodgers and the San Diego Padres to play two exhibition games in Beijing, China, on March 15 and 16; and the National Football League, which will return to London with another regular-season contest next fall, with a meeting between the New Orleans Saints and the San Diego Chargers at Wembley Stadium. The NFL will also schedule a preseason and a regular-season game in Toronto featuring the Buffalo Bills. The National Hockey League plans to open the 2008–09 season with games in Stockholm, Sweden, and Prague, the Czech Republic. And, of course, the National Basketball Association will be setting up shop in Beijing during the 2008 Summer Olympics.

Globalization isn’t a new concept. Baseball has been sending barnstorming teams to Japan for decades, and Red Auerbach took an NBA All-Star team through Europe in 1964. Hockey has scheduled high-stakes international tournaments for 35 years, and soccer has been sending teams around the globe forever. But the sports world is changing.

Some American owners who have scheduled international games also own stakes in the EPL. If the NHL and NFL can hold regular-season games in London, what is there to stop the EPL from holding a game in Seoul, South Korea?

Nothing, so it seems.

The EPL is looking not only to expand its brand, but to exploit new revenue sources by invading other soccer territories. This is not making people such as Mohamed Bin Hammam happy. Bin Hammam is the president of the Asian Football Confederation, and he does not want the EPL invading his territory. But if the EPL does decide to schedule a game in Tokyo, then Asian Football will schedule games in Britain.

It sounds like the beginning of a turf war. The way the EPL owners see it, they are in a battle not only with other soccer entities for revenues, but with America’s sports leagues as well. The NHL played two games in London last fall; the NBA has opened a London headquarters, and the NFL is in love with London, so much so that there is a thought that the Super Bowl might be played outside America one day.

Because soccer is a global entity with well-organized leagues, it may be a bit more difficult for, say, Tom Hicks (the owner of the Texas Rangers, the Dallas Stars, and a 50% owner of Liverpool FC with Montreal Canadiens owner George Gillett) to stage a soccer game in South Africa, than to have his Texas Rangers play in Johannesburg, South Africa. Hicks and Gillett are far from popular owners in Liverpool, as Liverpudlians view them as Americans who have come into the Premiership just to make money and have no appreciation of soccer. The same holds true in Manchester, where backers of Manchester United do not like the Glazier family (the owners of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers). But the Brits are not going to quit supporting their teams just because of the Glaziers, Hicks, and Gillett.

The EPL’s plan is simple: Add a contest to the 38-game schedule in a place that is willing to pay a big fee to host a contest. Beginning in January 2011, 10 extra matches will be played at five different venues, with cities bidding for the right to stage them. Americans may not support the MLS because it is not a top-flight global league — but Americans have flocked to stadiums and have sat in front of their televisions for top-of-the-line matches, and there is no doubt that the EPL will have cities such as Los Angeles, Houston, and Miami on the list as candidates for games. Because of the time of year, it is doubtful that New York or any other northern non-domed stadium city would be considered.

Money, of course, is the driving force behind the globalization of the EPL. The soccer group has seen a huge bump in international TV rights fees for its contests going from about $350 million in 2001 to about $1.25 billion in the circuit’s current TV deal, which ends in 2010.

The Premiership claimed that more than a billion people watched Arsenal play Manchester on television worldwide in November. Even in America, soccer does reasonably well numbers-wise when Spanish TV is factored into the ratings.

Manchester United is the best known team in the world, and the Premiership wants to push ManU, Liverpool, Chelsea, and Ajax to maximize revenue streams. The Premiership has a $200 million TV deal just in Hong Kong, and the Premiership is making inroads in the American market. Chelsea and the football Giants have forged a minor marketing deal based on the Giants being in London last fall.

Now that the EPL is making its move globally, it will be interesting to see how other soccer federations react. What might be even more intriguing is how the movements impact the MLS’s expansion plans.

David Beckham was signed by Los Angeles Galaxy owner Phil Anschutz to push soccer into the American mainstream, which in turn was American soccer’s move to get onto the world stage. But if the EPL sets up shop annually in America, will that help or hinder the MLS? And, will the planned globalization of the EPL help or hinder the sport on a global basis? Other soccer associations want no part of the Premiership on their turf, because the Premiership may cut into their revenues — and that’s a major league problem.

evanjweiner@yahoo.com