'This is strategic for us' - Why America is the next frontier for a sport that can't control its own financial appetite, with Barcelona-Villarreal match in Miami just the beginning

The soccer world has been confronting this possibility for a while now. In 2008, the Premier League officially proposed playing a 39th fixture outside of England. The idea, then, was football as imperialism. Owners saw that there was a global appetite for the game, and suggested that 10 fixtures be played in a weekend in January, with staggered start times around the world. Proponents wanted individual cities to bid, and even earmarked the 2010-11 season as a potential start date. 

That notion was quickly dismissed at all levels. The managers of Liverpool and Manchester United showed a rare moment of solidarity - they joined in their opposition. Supporters' Groups were outraged, and fought back. Even Sepp Blatter, then FIFA president, looked like a good guy, earning favor with fans for suggesting that not only was the idea misguided, it could also be detrimental in England's hopes to host the 2018 World Cup (a bid they lost, anyway). 

Since then, it has simmered. The Premier League reportedly thought about it again in 2014, and chatter has remained constant about the possibility of a game being played in the U.S., especially given expanded American ownership in England's top flight.

The Premier League, then, cooled its interest. The reasons are myriad. Fan pushback was serious. Owner power took over. And certainly a bumper TV deal that brings billions of dollars - and millions of eyes - onto the league every week, made an "away" game less necessary for their wallets.

But La Liga got serious. And that makes sense. This is, in many ways, a financial decision. It's supply and demand. The league and its teams know that foreign fans will pay a premium for tickets. Sell out a game at hiked-up prices in Miami, and a handsome payday will, in theory, be the result. La Liga's TV deal is tidy - every game is now carried on ESPN+ in the U.S. - but they are steps behind financially relative to the Premier League. 

This has long been a gripe of league president Javier Tebas. He has railed again and again over the Premier League's apparently unchecked financial power. And he has a point. English football's revenues massively eclipse those of Spanish sides. Transfer fees in England are massive. Mid-table clubs outspend most of La Liga's elite. 

No single game in Miami will amend that. But for La Liga, it seems a decent start. They originally tried to have a Barcelona-Girona game in Miami in 2019. Last year, they tried to play Barca-Atletico Madrid in the same city. Both of those attempts were brushed off. But the sentiment stayed alive. Tebas spoke often about wanting a game on foreign soil.  

"This is strategic for us. It is very important for us to make sure that people understand that we as La Liga are willing to be bold, are willing to be innovative, are willing to try things in a different way, and we're gonna try," Nicolas Garcia Hemme, La Liga North America Managing Director, told GOAL this week.

But it all seemed a bit like flimsy attempts at manifestation. There were blockers. UEFA and FIFA's regulations around playing domestic competitions in foreign countries are pretty water-tight. And then there were the legal battles.

Relevent Sports, a match promoter that had helped organize preseason friendlies for La Liga teams, sued both FIFA and the United States Soccer Federation, claiming that the two bodies had violated antitrust laws by conspiring to bar domestic leagues from playing games abroad. What followed was a complicated legal case, with suits being dismissed and then appealed, back and forth.

But in April 2025, there was a significant breakthrough. Relevent Sports settled its antitrust lawsuit with the U.S. Soccer, a development that came a year after Relevent and FIFA reached their own settlement to drop FIFA as a co-defendant. The terms of that settlement were not disclosed, but FIFA said it would form a working group to analyze rules about how and where domestic fixtures could be played.

And you could have seen what was coming next. One-by-one, the appropriate governing bodies submitted. UEFA, FIFA, USSF, and CONCACAF all had to sign off on a U.S. match. With pressure mounting, they did so - despite some rather public reluctance. The door was open. 

Then, it was a simple question of logistics. Barca pulled out of the friendly in 2019, realizing where public sentiment was focused in the soccer hive mind. But with money on the table, and the Blaugrana still strapped for cash, they jumped in. Atletico and Real Madrid were both out. But Villarreal slotted in with glee.

And they're not alone in this effort. America isn't the only country eager to host competitive fixtures within its borders. Australia, admittedly, has been a less lucrative market for foreign clubs in preseason tours. East Asian tends to be targeted. But going down under isn't as common as it used to be. 

That hasn't stopped Serie A and Milan, though. They will face newly promoted Como in Perth in February, another fixture that UEFA admittedly reluctantly approved. Fans were admittedly furious, but Como outlined their reasoning: the league needs to do these things to stay alive: 

"Sometimes sacrifice is essential, not for individual benefit but for the greater good, for growth, and above all, for the survival of the league itself," they said in a statement. They went one further, insisting that they might lose some - if not all - of their best players if the league doesn't take advantage of their opportunities.

"We must ask ourselves honestly how we can retain our best players, build competitive teams, and attract the world's elite to Serie A if we do not adapt," the league said. 

And you could easily predict the two contrasting sides here. European fans hate it. This is an affront, they argue, to their territory, and their season-ticket holders. Football clubs in Europe have deep ties to their native lands, and even if they aren't owned by the locals, those who live nearby have the right of first refusal to attend. 

The players, too, have been skeptical. Frenkie de Jong, an oft-injured Barcelona midfielder, also expressed concerns about player welfare.

"I can understand the clubs financially, they will of course profit from it, and they can spread their brand further across the world. But I wouldn't do it," he said last week. "It's not good for the players. You have to travel a lot. It's also not fair in terms of competition. For us, it's now an away match on neutral ground."

USMNT star Christian Pulisic echoed his sentiment.

"Am I super thrilled that we have to go to Australia to play one game?" he asked. "It's a little bit harsh because I heard about that as well. But as far as for the fan experience to grow the game worldwide, I get it, I guess. But as far as tradition, I can also understand why there would be a little bit of pushback, I guess. But for me, it's a strange one."

Milan teammate Adrien Rabiot went as far as to call it "absurd."

Meanwhile, clubs have weighed in. Real Madrid, in typically self-interested fashion, speculated that the La Liga fixture in Miami will give Barcelona an unfair competitive advantage - such is the likely heavy Blaugrana crowd in the U.S. 

Tebas has insisted that this will remain mostly a closed shop. La Liga, he argues, will mimic the original NFL model, and play one game overseas per season. That fixture could be held anywhere in the world, he admitted. In that sense, America is not special. Of course, the NFL is playing seven games in countries outside of the U.S. this season - England, Ireland, Germany, Spain and Brazil.

Who will tend the handbrake?

Despite announcing their agreement to the matches, UEFA were quick to reveal their regret, saying, "Given that the relevant FIFA regulatory framework - currently under review - is not clear and detailed enough, the UEFA executive committee has reluctantly taken the decision to approve, on an exceptional basis, the two requests."

And UEFA president, Aleksander Ceferin suggested that the matches will not become the thin end of the wedge for more games abroad, saying, "While it is regrettable to have to let these two games go ahead, this decision is exceptional and shall not be seen as setting a precedent. Our commitment is clear: to protect the integrity of national leagues and ensure that football remains anchored in its home environment."

But there's always the financial factor. The prize pot for playing in the U.S. is reportedly around $12 million. But the impact - marketing, promotions, brand building - could be far more valuable down the road. And even if clubs insist that they would not abandon local fans, there is certainly a reason that Villarreal - a team very much outside of La Liga's big three - were eager to sign on. Others would surely do the same, especially since the door is open. 

More broadly, the question is: who might be next? The Premier League has fought this sentiment for some time, but as more American owners come into the league, U.S. groups may soon have a majority vote in all decisions. They might protect their own interests. And Ligue 1, which currently doesn't have a strong streaming rights deal in America, could be eager to export PSG, too. 

Surely, the local fans lose here. But a skeptic might argue that they have been steadily cut out for a while. Clubs are now set up domestically to cater to foreign fans, with expensive season tickets and gaudy prices slapped on jerseys. The matchday experience in European football is inreasingly celebrity-facing. You no longer spend $40 and buy a sausage roll at half time. Now, it's a multiple-hundred venture.

This may be the beginning, not the end. Perhaps America is just the next frontier of a sport that can't control its own growth.