With the topic of competitive Premiership games in the States hitting the hot button, three American Soccer Daily staffers felt compelled to chip in with their two cents.

For the sake of balance, we will have one stateside American, one UK ex-pat and one native Englishman tell you why the FA moving league matches to the United States for profit is a terrible idea:

GULATI IS RIGHT, FOR NOW by Peter Kratzel - Glasgow

You may have heard this adage already, but the world is truly getting smaller. Just a little over 10 years ago, I was quite pleased to pick up a copy of the Sunday Washington Post and head to my local coffee shop in Charlottesville where I could review the results of most major European soccer results in the paper.

How impressed I was that the Post could bother to get this information so quickly from so far away and provide the scores. Sometimes, as a bonus, they even included the Scottish Premier League, and then I knew I was in heaven. It didn't even matter that the tables weren't included.

That was then, this is now. In this era, I can't even go 10 minutes without surfing the internet on my mobile phone to find out the latest score from the games I am interested in. My brain knows automatically when all the matches are near full time, and, if I am in the house or near a television, I can check out the full time results in all the British leagues.

In short, I have morphed into the child who needs instant soccer gratification, and the Barclay's English Premier League knows that I, plus millions of others, exist all over the world are in need of the same fix.

The EPL, in announcing a plan for playing regular season contests in cities all over the world, have seen that this is the logical next step in enlarging their brand identity - and with it the millions of pounds, euros and dollars associated with that.

Before the Premiership starts counting that dough, they owe a huge debt of gratitude to the National Football League, which opened the door to this idea when the soon-to-be Super Bowl champion New York Giants sloshed through Wembley mud with the Miami Dolphins this past October.

While the game itself was poor (and the field was still hampered when England lost to Croatia in the Euro 2008 qualifier two weeks later), the "event" was a rousing success. Forty thousand tickets sold out in a few hours, and it generated more free NFL publicity for the NFL in Britain than the Beckham to LA Galaxy saga.

So successful was it that the NFL has decided to hold another game abroad next season, when the New Orleans Saints will "host" the San Diego Chargers at Wembley (Edinburgh's Murrayfield Stadium narrowly lost out on hosting the game).

Being an American expatriate living in the United Kingdom, I was very excited about the idea of the NFL coming to London for a game "in anger." I was equally impressed when the English Premier League went down the same path, as it meant that millions of fans all over the world will get to see their heroes from what is right now the greatest soccer league on the planet (with, in my opinion, the Spanish La Liga a close second).

But then I came across Sunil Gulati's remarks to a BBC interviewer and two things struck me right away:

#1 - This may be the first time ever that the opinion of a senior executive of the US Soccer Federation was so forthright, even bold some would say. It was even more surprising when one considers that the British press has a very low opinion of the US Soccer leadership, considering them a puppet of CONCACAF President Jack Warner (who is also a FIFA vice president), who was implicated by the BBC in 2006 for taking advantage of his position for personal gain to the tune of $1 million.

#2 - More surprisingly, Gulati may have a point. After all, this isn't the NFL, where presence overseas is scarce or barely visible at all. This is soccer. Every major nation has a significant professional league to protect, and playing Premiership games during one of the domestic seasons would certainly have an effect on that league.

Major League Soccer is still trying to establish itself as one of the major sports in the United States, and while its one thing to have the top clubs in the world playing in front of 70,000 strong crowds in Seattle for an exhibition game in the middle of summer or an MLS/EPL doubleheader in New York, it is entirely another to have regular season games in North America during an MLS campaign. It will be a distraction that will draw attention away from MLS at a time when it can least afford to have heads turned.

Lets face it, only a few select teams stand to benefit from the EPL's proposed arrangement: the juggernauts of Manchester United, Liverpool, Arsenal and Chelsea will reap great financial rewards from their worldwide fan base, which will be deposited right into the pockets of its owners. While this has the side benefit of improving the American economy slightly (thanks to ownership already in place at United and Liverpool), that may more than offset the ownership of MLS clubs who will see their minimal incomes diminish that much more due to competition they definitely don't need.

As much as I hate to use the same jargon the NRA use with regards to gun control, there is definitely a slippery slope here. Think about it: once teams start playing their "home" games away from home because the payday is bigger, they will continue to go where the money is. And as teams continue to follow the money, what was considered sacrosanct yesterday becomes throwaway tomorrow.

Consider if you will, 10 years from now, after EPL games overseas are commonplace and they have milked all the money they can from that arrangement, what would stop a team as big as Manchester United playing a HOME game against Tottenham Hotspur in Arsenal's Emirates stadium in London because they were the highest bidder? Far-fetched? Of course, but the EPL's decision blurs the lines enough where these thoughts can occur, no matter how ridiculous.

Imagine in a large country like the US, and Major League Baseball's New York Yankees can draw 40,000 in any city they travel to while that city's team barely draws 10,000. What is to stop little Wichita, Kansas bidding up the price due to the economic impact on their citizens and businesses? Again, its a wild idea, but something that could be justified if the money is right.

This decision by the EPL will further a move to concentrate the riches of power in the few big clubs on the planet, at the end of the day, this hurts fledgling leagues like MLS, who - although they will most likely never reach the same heights of the Premiership, La Liga or Serie A - can still stake out a strong name for themselves in the next 20-50 years.

There will end up being the haves, have nots and never wills in the soccer world. An arrangement that may take eons to overcome.

BURNING DOWN THE HOUSE by Sean O'Conor - London

Watch out - the British are coming and they're not here to make friends. The last time we invaded your nation, in the War of 1812, we did what Al-Qaeda were unable to do and torched the White House, so why would you let us in now?

Please, my cousins across the pond, turn off your lights, lock your doors and don't let the Premier League over the threshold.

Their plan to play overseas is insane in competitive terms, financially ill-conceived, insulting to England's fans, traditions and national team, hurtful to the domestic leagues of the countries they intend to pitch camp in and a backward step for MLS (and by extension, US soccer in general).

Apart from that, it seems perfect.

For a start, it would be manifestly unfair. If the draw will be random, then how can Arsenal v Chelsea count as equally as Man United v Derby, especially if the title race goes down the wire. If it is seeded, then that is not fair on the teams in the lower half of the standings. Why not take a regular season game out of the fixture list instead, as the NFL did recently in London?

Incidentally, the fact the NBA, NHL and NFL all played here recently did not sway anyone's hand. Those sports are not in competition with any leagues here and distribute their revenue more equitably than English soccer does. Make no mistake, this is all about feathering the nests of the few big clubs already established at the top of the Premier League, and would bring little reward to 95% of England's professional teams.

These elite few consider themselves businesses before football clubs and see games overseas as a means to increase their global brand awareness and earn more money as a result. It's that simple, and Chel$ki FC chairman Peter Kenyon is a typical clarion for the new soccer order.

An opportunist if ever you saw one, Kenyon, having defected from Manchester United, persistently speaks of his team in commercial terms, repeating the need to 'take over' first Europe and then the world.

One game a season overseas may not sound too shocking, but the Premier League has its sights set on becoming a world league if it possibly can, traveling to cities around the globe every few weeks like Formula One motor racing. For Englishmen like me raised on the traditions of our national game, the years since the league was born have been depressing, as the sport sheds its values and greedily bites the hand that fed it.

Yes, the quality of football has improved. The likes of Eric Cantona, Dennis Bergkamp and Thierry Henry have graced us with sublime skill, but I would rather have a league which any number of teams could win, as well as a strong national team.

We used to wonder whether newly promoted clubs would challenge for the title, not how long it would take until they were relegated.

I certainly knew I was getting old when Reading's Dave Kitson admitted recently he could not care less about the FA Cup, the world's oldest soccer competition and one which used to challenge the league for prestige, until Rupert Murdoch showed up in 1993.

For Super Bowl Sunday in the States, read FA Cup Final Day in England - until "Year Zero", that is.

Excluded by outrageous rises in ticket prices, irritated by kickoff times designed for the Asian market and depressed by England's failure to qualify for Euro 2008 (a direct consequence of top clubs snapping up foreign talent instead of developing their own), English fans' loyalty has surely been abused enough.

But will this overseas adventure even make the sort of money the chairmen who signed it off dream about? At the moment, overseas TV rights for the Premier League run at about a third of the price for domestic ones – around $400 million per season as opposed to $1.1 billion, but both have been projected to sell for nearer $1.3 billion per season from 2010/11 to 2012/13.

Yet, at the same time, the proliferation of formats - free to air, pay TV, ITTV and free of charge streams - suggests split deals, without a single winner paying a fat fee to beat off the competition. And if the projections are true, why go to the trouble of playing abroad anyway?

This would be bad for America, too. I need not remind you that ignorance of US soccer remains rife on this side of the Atlantic and that the Premier League could not care less about you.

In fact, when I woke up listening to Sunil Gulati’s measured tones on my radio Monday, it was only the third time MLS has made headlines on the BBC: the first was when Gazza had a soccer trial/drinking session with DC United, the second when Becks swapped the Bernabéu for the Home Depot Center.

This would also cement the divide between those who see nothing unpatriotic about cheering for the US at the World Cup but rejecting MLS and all its works. To succeed long-term, soccer in the States has to get everyone on board it possibly can, and that includes Eurosnobs.

When I lived in Boston, I made the journey by train and taxi to what was then a sparsely filled Foxboro, in support of the nascent league, but was shocked to find Irish pubs back in the city packed for Man U and Liverpool games with Americans, who were keen on the Reds but showed no interest in the Revs.

Since its inception, MLS has had setbacks but has grown all the same, a gradual improvement, mirrored by that of the US National Team. Exhibition games are welcome but I do see competitive fixtures as a threat to US soccer, whether they overlap the MLS season or not.

If soccer is just another manifestation of cultural globalization, I don't accept this transition as a fait accompli. I agree with UEFA President Michel Platini that this sport's specificity is worth preserving beyond the scope of international laws.

As someone who lives in perhaps the planet's most globalized city, I want to see something different every time I fly overseas, not Blackburn v Villa again.

Like many Englishmen, I have felt like King Canute ordering the waves to turn back from the beach these past years, but maybe this time we can win. The words of FIFA President Sepp Blatter, Gulati, AFC President Mohamed bin Hammam and Platini have cheered me. So too have the lukewarm reaction from many Premier League coaches and above all the hostility from English fans, who had appeared neutered in recent years.

"Just Say No" and "NO TO GAM£ 39" are two campaigns already launched.

Please, do what you can, too. Support Sunil. And like you did in 1776, send the Brits back where they belong.

WHAT'S THE GAIN FOR MLS? by Jason Endres - New York

The overall effect on the growth of Major League Soccer from having English Premiership League games in the United States would be minimal at best.

There have been high profile international friendlies involving two European clubs and friendlies involving MLS clubs versus European clubs in the United States throughout the past 10 years. Some games have drawn 40,000+ crowds, others even crowds nearly double that size, as was the case in 2006 when the Red Bulls hosted European champions Barcelona at Giants Stadium.

However, these games aren't always a slam-dunk. A 2003 friendly between Argentina powerhouse Boca Juniors and legendary Scottish club Celtic managed to attract only 20,803 fans to Cleveland to watch the match.

Even in the instances where MLS cities have hosted successful international friendlies there has been little effect on MLS attendance. What we have seen is that a game involving the world's marquee players and clubs is more than a game, it's an event.

The US market has proven a smashing success for those who have a highly superior product. For the 10-12 clubs who are in the upper echelon of success and international appeal, the United States has given them an avenue to successfully market their product.

For English clubs such as Blackburn, Everton and Tottenham (who are a notch or two below the top clubs), playing a game on the other side of the Atlantic really wouldn't make good financial sense unless they played one of the "Big 4" - but it's the same story anywhere in the world.

The biggest and most storied clubs attract interest. The mid-to-lower level Premiership clubs have not proven they are able to attract large crowds outside of their own grounds.

As for MLS, EPL games would have little effect on attendance. One EPL game in a MLS team's market per year is not going to help or hinder any team.

Would it help increase knowledge about the MLS team? No.

Would league matches in the US create publicity for the sport of soccer on both sides of the pond? Yes.

Would it translate into increased business success for MLS? Perhaps in the short term.

Would this arrangement increase interest and knowledge overseas of the American soccer landscape? Yes, and that is perhaps the most MLS could benefit from the proposed arrangement.

(frontpage image by ImageChef)