The buck starts here

As the wags (not those ones!) put it yesterday, it was as if April Fool's Day had come early.

The English Premier League's announcement of its proposal to add a 39th round of games to its calendar starting in January 2011 - it is not entirely coincidental that the current TV rights will be up for renewal at about this time - wasn't really that much of a surprise, coming as it does on the back of successful forays into the UK by the NFL and NBA.

However, it was still shocking.

Premier League chief executive Richard Scudamore almost pulled off the impossible task of painting this proposal in a positive light, but his arguments aren't really watertight when submitted to any remotely serious scrutiny. It was, he said, a pro-active move to both promote and defend the Premier League's global brand awareness against the expansion of, for instance, the NFL (and not just about the money). It would be like having the oft-proposed winter break, only with a game in more favourable climates in the middle (plus several thousand air miles, plus a hectic PR schedule). It would be an opportunity for UK TV viewers to watch all 20 Premier League teams play live on the same weekend (assuming you actually want to watch the best part of 20 hours of football in two days, of course). And it would generate human interest stories about fans in other countries getting to see their favourite teams in the flesh (assuming they live in or near one of the host cities and actually support one of the four teams they will host) and following those loyal fans who have not missed any of their team's games home or away for 35 years (assuming they can afford the cost of travelling, of course).

You could also argue that the Premier League is simply following the NFL model which worked pretty well at Wembley last year. But the NFL only played one international game, not a whole round (although this will increase gradually over the coming years), money was not the prime motivation (increased TV rights revenue was minimal), the schedule was arranged so that both participants had their bye week (when they do not play) immediately after the trip to aid recovery, and long-haul flights are already part and parcel of the NFL anyway: for instance, for the Giants to travel to Wembley was no more draining than a road game in, say, San Francisco. Again, the argument doesn't really hold water.

Unsurprisingly, the reaction of fans in this country to this proposed change has been passionate, emotional and almost unanimously negative - as it was when Sky signed up to the first Premier League TV deal, as it was when the Taylor report called for all-seater stadia. It has been seen as further proof of the greed of the Premier League, a callous disregard of the fans who feel increasingly disenfranchised, a needless strain on already weary players, and a destruction of the symmetry of a league system where every club plays every other club home and away once per season.

Of course, as is generally the case when any change occurs, there will be winners and there will inevitably be losers. Putting emotion to one side, whether the Premier League's proposal is actually a good thing depends, on balance, on which way the scales tip.

Winners:

The Premier League, which will benefit from the global exposure of its brand, as well as defending the status of football as the global sport from the ongoing expansion of American sports.

The clubs & their owners - especially those who are already actively seeking to penetrate growth markets in Asia and the USA - who will benefit both from the global exposure and their share of an estimated £100m additional revenue from hosting fees, ticket sales, TV & sponsorship rights.

The five host cities, which will benefit in both commercial and prestige terms.

Losers:

The FA, which will see its power base eroded further by the growing prominence of the Premier League.

The FA Cup. If the international round of fixtures blocks out two weeks in January as proposed, what does this mean for the status of the world's oldest cup competition, which traditionally holds both 3rd and 4th round games in January? In particular, it would appear the writing is on the wall for 3rd round replays.

The players, who will have to fit in another game in an already busy schedule, plus the draining effect of several thousand air miles.

The Football League. More money and TV exposure for the Premier League teams will mean a widening of the gap between the Championship and the top division.

The England national team. The players will be more tired which may impact on our performance in the major summer tournaments (assuming we qualify, of course), and the status of England as a footballing brand will inevitably be eroded at the expense of the Premier League clubs. (As if Fabio Capello's job wasn't already hard enough!)

Other national and regional governing bodies. For instance, what impact will hosting teams like Arsenal, Man Utd and Liverpool on an annual basis have on the status of Australia's A-League?

Do the negatives outweigh the positives? It's not as clear-cut as either Scudamore or many fans would have you believe, and it depends to an extent on what you believe is most important for English football: a commercially successful Premier League, a healthy top-to-bottom league system (incidentally, yet another club, AFC Bournemouth, went into administration yesterday), or a successful England national team.

Personally, I think a balance of all three is essential for the long-term future of the game: I would advocate the proposed move if a meaningful proportion of the commercial gains trickle down the footballing pyramid, and if the league was reduced from 20 to 18 clubs to relieve the pressure on the fixture schedule - I'm confident neither of these will ever happen.

Of course, there is still some way to go before these proposals become reality; you can be sure FIFA will have some thoughts on the matter. But these days it is hard for any sport - let alone the cash cow that is football - to ignore the numbers. And when everything is totted up, the lure of the lucre will probably prove too much to resist.

There's certainly a significant weight of history which suggests that will be the case.

Should the Premier League's 'international round' become reality, it will not be the death of football's soul, as many have suggested over the past 24 hours.

Football's soul died a long time ago.