Neville Dalton is a journalist with the BBC News website and a Portsmouth fan of 40 years. His expressed views are his and not necessarily those of the BBC.
Love it or loathe it, the Premier League has taken some big decisions in its still relatively short life - and the game in this country is the richer for it.
Well, at least bits of it are.
Turnover among Premier League clubs is at record levels; the biggest names in world football are attracted to it - and a fair few clubs can afford to buy them - and keep them here with wage packets beyond the imagination of most ordinary supporters.
Pompey reached the Promised Land just in time - the gap between the elite and the rest of the English game was beginning to widen; the price of falling from the top division escalating.
But we managed to grab that bottom rung just as the ladder was in danger of being reeled in beyond our grasp, and after establishing a shaky foothold on those lower echelons, we've now begun to climb until we're sitting comfortably nearer the top than bottom, watching a stream of names we once could only dream of seeing live - and they're wearing blue shirts!
For a great deal of this, we must thank the television companies, which have ploughed billions of pounds into Premier League coffers, thanks to some shrewd negotiating and marketing by those aforementioned league moguls.
But hang on.
If the gap between haves and have-nots is widening, is that good for the majority of professional league clubs in this country?
Are we not in danger of creating an elite 25 or so, most of which create their own mini-leagues within the Premiership; the rest bouncing between the Premier League and Championship thanks to the "parachute" payments that help them withstand the financial consequences of relegation?
Are we not in danger of having a big four - with the occasional potential interloper - who run away with virtually every piece of domestic silverware, qualify for the more lucrative of the European competitions, and in so doing perpetuate the financial gulf between them and the rest?
Are we not in danger of seeing clubs who can't quite hold on, or who gamble irresponsibly on getting to the promised land - and staying there - but fail, struggle to stay alive?
Goals
Never have the rewards in English football been so high. Never has the price of failure been so devastating.
Still, at least all that money has helped produce a successful England team.
Er, hasn't it?
After all, that's one of the Premier League's stated goals, isn't it?
"Use our resources to develop playing talent that will provide for international success with the England team at all levels - with the status of being world champions being a realistic goal."
It's there on the official website - just below the ones about being regarded as the world's best league football competition, on and off the field.
And increasing interest in our competitions, promoting accessibility to live games and ensuring media exposure is used to optimum effect.
And generating increased commercial value.
And using the cash to further enhance our competitions and strengthening the long-term future of the competition and its clubs.
And using its power and influence responsibly to improve the game in this country and abroad.
Oh, and creating a quality of competition that provides a platform from which our clubs can achieve unparalleled success in European or World competitions.
But it is there. Eventually. Something that will benefit all English football fans - not just those who follow the super six or so.
So, the Premier League - good and not so good.
Grassroots
A body that has proved so professional that it has produced a league and a quality of player that is respected and envied around the world.
But a body that every now and then seems so obsessed with its commercial and marketing objectives that it forgets those nasty little things on the bottom of its shoes - you know, the grassroots of the game.
There. I've written it. That nasty phrase - grassroots.
I know it's becoming increasingly uncool to mention it; still less trendy to consider it.
But the grassroots is the lifeblood of the game. It's the fans. It's the supposedly lesser clubs. It's the hardy souls who follow non-league clubs in amazing numbers from Havant to Harrogate; Bashley to Billericay.
It's the people and personnel who were there in the dark days when football was beset by hooliganism and mediocrity; by three-day weeks and floodlight bans.
The people who were there when their clubs were in danger of disappearing because of a shortage of cash; who passed round the buckets; who marched side-by-side with rival fans to demand planners permitted new stadiums that were the difference between living and dying for clubs.
The people who will still be there if and when the Premier League bubble bursts.
Most importantly, the grassroots represents the way football should be played - and moreover, the fairness of our competition formats.
Each team twice - home and away - over the course of a long season; a system that sorts the wheat from the chaff, that puts freak results in perspective, so that by May, all but the most blinkered of fans can say: "We may have been unlucky, but their lot won it fair and square over the whole season."
That is what I believe we face losing if that arch-marketing organisation (aka the Premier League) is allowed to go ahead with its indefensibly bad and ill-advised plan to extend the season to gimmick games abroad.
There are myriad reasons why it's not a good idea.
- There's the widely-acknowledged unfairness of rival teams being drawn against opponents of different quality, thereby risking deciding titles and relegations more by luck than fair competition. If that balance is tilted the wrong way, it ceases to be sport as we know it.
- There's the inconvenience and cost of travelling that would deny most supporters of the clubs involved the chance of attending (and possibly maintaining their proud 100% attendance records).
- There's the artificiality of playing a meaningful match in front of a non-partisan crowd (or at least, a crowd not familiar with the teams, and certainly without the "history" in our DNA that forces us to stick with our clubs through thick and thin).
- There's the ridiculous addition of another game to the fixture list when for years football people have been calling for a reduction to minimise the risk of injuries and ensure players are fit for crucial international tournaments, as well as their own domestic competitions. "… provide for international success with the England team at all levels…"
- There's the problems of jetlag in the middle of a long, hard season, when players are already tired, playing on heavier pitches and crying out for mid-season breaks. "…a platform from which our clubs can achieve unparalleled success in European or World competitions".
- There's even more potential for trouble, fitting in extra matches when postponements because of poor weather and cup replays will be biting into the fixture list, with the likely consequence of artificial results as players are asked to play two, three or even four games in a week to catch up.
- There's the obscenity of one of the world's richest leagues selling out on the people's game for even more money when it's hardly struggling. How much money is enough? If it has money-making ideas, maybe they should involve reducing the gap between the Premier League and the other divisions - for each needs the other, and we should not be biting the hands that already feed.
- And there's the environmental issue - while not many supporters are likely to travel, some will. Add those intercontinental journeys to those of players and officials, and you are hardly helping a world that is already supposed to be in serious danger from climate change.
But most importantly, the "39th game" plan (how long before it becomes 40th?) erodes the ethos of the sport.
And one day, if that ever-inflating bubble does burst, clubs might just find that the magic has gone; disillusionment sets in and fans drift away.
And when the international circus has deserted them, the people they really need - those grassroots players and supporters - might not be there to bail them out.
I have signed the petition opposing the plan, on the Football Supporters' Federation website. I hope others who feel the same way will, too.
But I believe supporters need to act quickly to halt the Premier League money men before the momentum becomes unstoppable. They need to know not only the impact of their proposals but the potential consequences I've outlined above.
I favour a one-match boycott across the country of all Premier League fixtures. It may not have much financial impact on clubs who already enjoy the up-front income from season tickets. But it will fire a warning shot across their bows.
If you agree, tell the FSF.