Villarreal‘s LaLiga game against Barcelona on Dec. 20 in Miami, and AC Milan‘s Serie A clash with Como in Perth, Australia, in February will make history. For the first time, regular-season games will be played on foreign soil, and it marks the culmination of a long political and legal struggle.

It’s a path that major U.S. sports have trod in the opposite direction for years now — the NFL, NBA and MLB have all played regular-season games overseas — and some see it as a shortcut to globalizing their league and marketing their product around the world. It’s also a contentious issue, one that was vehemently opposed by governing bodies from national associations to confederations right up to FIFA.

That began to change a after a long-running antitrust lawsuit brought by Relevent, a marketing and event promotion company founded by Miami Dolphins owner Stephen Ross, was settled with FIFA and, later, the U.S. Soccer Federation (USSF). The settlement effectively opens the door to sports leagues wishing to play abroad. One of the last hurdles to fall was UEFA, the governing body of football in Europe, where opposition is most strident.

So what’s the big deal? Other sports, such as the NFL, play regular-season games abroad …

This is different. When the NFL goes to São Paulo or Dublin or London, it’s not pushing its product on somebody else’s turf, for starters. Whatever organized football exists in those territories is light years away from what the NFL offers.

That’s not the case here. MLS and Australia’s A-League might not be on par with LaLiga or Serie A, but they are fully fledged, professional competitions. And unlike the NFL, there’s a single, pyramid-based ecosystem, governed by FIFA at the top. That’s why there were so many entities that have to sign off on this.

Like who?

The national associations (Spain‘s RFEF and the USSF, in one case, Football Australia and Italy‘s FIGC in the other), the regional confederations (UEFA, Concacaf and the Asian Football Confederation) and, of course, FIFA. Though, really, it was UEFA who, potentially, posed the biggest hurdle.

Why is that?

Well, the FAs of Spain and Italy were unlikely to object given it was their own national leagues that were wanting to play abroad. FIFA and the USSF — both of whom had strongly opposed anything other than exhibition matches being played in the U.S. — settled long-running antitrust lawsuits in 2024 and 2025 brought by event promoter Relevent Sports, who had tried to stage regular-season matches in the U.S. for years. That settlement effectively made it very difficult for them to object.

That left UEFA, who “reluctantly” greenlit the games on Monday, specifying that it was on an “exceptional basis”: A one-off that, in no way, should be seen as a precedent.

‘Reluctantly’? ‘Exceptional basis’? The UEFA makes it sound as if its arm was being twisted …

I don’t think the UEFA could have been any clearer. Its news release was titled “UEFA confirms its opposition to domestic league matches played abroad.” UEFA president Aleksander Čeferin said that “league matches should be played on home soil; anything else would disenfranchise loyal match-going fans and potentially introduce distortive elements in competitions.”

So why did the UEFA approve it?

Because it said the current “regulatory framework” — which FIFA was supposed to put together — isn’t “clear and detailed enough,” and so the UEFA had no choice. Essentially, there was the risk of more legal action.

Some might say the UEFA is passing the buck. FIFA isn’t giving it clear rules, so it has to approve this, however reluctantly, and as Čeferin underscored, the UEFA approved it on a one-off basis, without it representing any kind of precedent. That said, some folks are cynical about this.

How so?

Well, LaLiga boss Javier Tebas and Barcelona were the ones driving the Miami game and both are influential, especially in the context of the European game. UEFA are a governing body, but it’s also business partners with the European Football Clubs (EFC, the body that represents more than 800 of the continent’s clubs) in marketing and selling their tournaments, including their crown jewel, the men’s Champions League. And it just so happened that on Wednesday they jointly announced a new tender for broadcasting rights to their club competitions, with the goal of raising nearly half a billion dollars more per season.

Guess who’s going to sell those rights. Relevent, the folks who brought the original lawsuit.

They became UEFA’s commercial and marketing partners last March. They are responsible for monetizing the Champions League on behalf of UEFA and the EFC form 2027. So if you’re really cynical, you might connect all those dots. UEFA know there’s a ton of opposition to this, but a number of their business partners are either in favor of it or don’t really care. Throw in the fact that they could face a legal challenge and, in any case, FIFA haven’t yet provided them with a set of rules to follow and I guess they figured it wasn’t a hill worth dying on.

Why was there so much opposition to this? Real Madrid were among the first to complain …

… and they have a legitimate case. They’re Barcelona’s direct competitor in LaLiga year after year, and moving the game to Miami means one of Barça’s toughest away trips — against Villarreal — will instead be played in Lionel Messi‘s backyard. I think it’s a safe bet that the crowd will be overwhelmingly pro-Barça, so you can see why Madrid aren’t thrilled: A tricky away game becomes a de facto home match.

Moving Milan vs. Como to Australia is less contentious from a competitive perspective. Milan can’t play at San Siro due to the opening ceremony of the 2026 Winter Olympics, and they can’t move the fixture either because they share the ground with Inter Milan, who have a packed schedule.

Milan draw more than 70,000 fans per game and have more than 40,000 season ticket holders. The only other stadium in Italy that could accommodate that would be the Olympic Stadium in Rome, but they can’t play there either because AS Roma and Lazio share it, and there are no free dates. So really, they would have to go abroad anyway. Why not Australia?

That said, many fans and players are unhappy. Barcelona’s Frenkie de Jong said he “totally” understood why other clubs are unhappy that their away game becomes a match played on neutral ground, and he said the travel was going to be tough on the players. Milan’s Adrien Rabiot was even more direct, calling it “absurd” and how the decision was made over the player’s heads.

Politicians got involved, too. Glenn Micallef, the European Commissioner whose portfolio includes sports and culture, called it a “betrayal” of “local communities and fans.” He said “to our citizens, it is more than just a competition, it’s about community, friendship, family.”

He’s laying it on a bit thick, isn’t he?

Yes and no. When the Premier League floated the idea of a “39th game” — with each club playing an extra match abroad — back in 2008, there was widespread opposition. So much so that in August, Premier League chief executive Richard Masters said there were no plans to even consider it and that, in any case, his league didn’t need more publicity.

Throw in the legitimate complaints about distortion of the competition and player workload — players’ union FIFAPro weighed in on this recently, too — and folks are wondering whether it’s worth it.

So what’s in it for Barcelona and LaLiga?

Barcelona and Villarreal are reportedly splitting around $12 million, with Milan and Como clocking in at around $10 million. When you consider Barça estimate their revenue will comfortably pass the billion-dollar mark this season, we’re talking, what, just over half a percent? It’s more about raising the profile, gaining fans and possibly sponsors, though even that feels a bit dubious.

play

How will fans react to LaLiga’s first ever fixture abroad?

Craig Burley and Shaka Hislop discuss the announcement of Villarreal vs. Barcelona being played in Miami.

I mean, Barcelona and Milan are two legitimate heavyweight brands with supporters all over the world; I’m skeptical about how many non-fans they’re actually going to convert. People with even just a passing interest in the sport know who they are. And are Villarreal going to suddenly gain fans in Miami (or Como in Perth)? Even if they do, how are they going to monetize them?

It feels as if they’re trying to ape what the NFL did, with some success, when they started taking regular-season games abroad two decades ago. But again, that was different.

When the NFL started taking games to Europe, there was a whole promotional apparatus, with clinics and events to promote the league. And crucially, NFL fans from all over the continent would show up at stadiums such as Wembley, often wearing their team’s jersey even if their favorite team wasn’t playing. I somehow don’t think we’ll see too many Miami-based Real Madrid fans showing up.

Times have changed. Barça fans in the U.S. can already watch every minute of every game, and they can usually catch them in person in preseason. Casual fans will get their fill of Lamine Yamal & Co. next summer at the FIFA World Cup.

I’m not sure how much this moves the needle, or how much the sport actually needs this.