US owners find greed doesn't play well in European soccer(eu.usatoday.com)
eu.usatoday.com
US owners find greed doesn't play well in European soccer
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/sports/columnist/nancy-armour/2021/04/20/european-super-league-us-owners-find-greed-doesnt-work-europe/7310165002/
233 comments
> This makes the sport more interesting to watch as a fan - it's not the same few contenders year in year out.
I don't understand - isn't this backwards? It is the same few contenders in the NFL every year isn't it? But it isn't in the English football leagues where teams relegate and promote every year.
When did a team last join the NFL? 2002? And before then? 1996? I think beyond that you're possibly talking about the 70s?
I don't understand - isn't this backwards? It is the same few contenders in the NFL every year isn't it? But it isn't in the English football leagues where teams relegate and promote every year.
When did a team last join the NFL? 2002? And before then? 1996? I think beyond that you're possibly talking about the 70s?
Sounds like it depends on your viewpoint. Neither are fair and fully open.
Premier League and La Liga are dominated (to different extents) by the top teams, but are otherwise open for any team to reach and win.
NFL is closed to new entrants, but apparently more fair and competitive for all members for that closed group.
Premier League and La Liga are dominated (to different extents) by the top teams, but are otherwise open for any team to reach and win.
NFL is closed to new entrants, but apparently more fair and competitive for all members for that closed group.
I think you are using the generic definition of "contenders" and not the way it is traditionally used in a sports context (at least in the US). "Contending" doesn't mean merely participating in a league. It means having a realistic shot at winning the title. The specific teams that are in the league don't change much in the NFL anymore, but the teams that are near the top of the league are much more fluid in the NFL than in the EPL and other European leagues.
> It means having a realistic shot at winning the title
"If Leicester City win the premier league I'll do MOTD in my undies"
"If Leicester City win the premier league I'll do MOTD in my undies"
Leicester City is the exception that proves the rule. They were the first first time winner since the 70s. Besides that year, there are basically 4 teams (although I guess it is now 5 if Liverpool can actually win) that have just traded the title back and forth for the last 25 years. Meanwhile there has only been one repeat Super Bowl winner in the last decade with 8 teams winning over the last 10 year span.
As someone above pointed out a much better comparison to the superbowl would be the winner of the championsleague as the structure is more alike. There have been 11 teams winning in the last 25 years. Still less variation than NFL, but then in soccer there is much more drama throughout the season, while in NFL it's all about the playoffs.
Dunno about primier league but F1 not only put caps but also made some inverse feedback rules.
For example now the rules are that your usage of wind tunnels is bigger the closest you are to the last place, while the first place in the ranking doesn't matter how much money they are willing to spend with wind tunnels, they are heavily capped.
For example now the rules are that your usage of wind tunnels is bigger the closest you are to the last place, while the first place in the ranking doesn't matter how much money they are willing to spend with wind tunnels, they are heavily capped.
I think that's why the golden era of Man Utd (last 15ish years with Fergie at the helm) wasn't that good for American fans. Yea, it brought in some (me)... but after a while, I found myself not caring about seeing a game if it wasn't against Chelsea or Liverpool. Even then... After 2 years of that... whoopie... Man Utd got another win against, oh look an ant is struggling to carry a cookie crumb.
That and diving. Seriously, fuck FIFA and all the EU leagues. They cant figure out how to deal with diving and playing for time, I cant figure out why I should care. It's painful to watch any sport where grown men fake getting hurt. The cringe is far more damaging than the love taps they whine about. Rugby and hockey have that shit figured out, why cant they?
That and diving. Seriously, fuck FIFA and all the EU leagues. They cant figure out how to deal with diving and playing for time, I cant figure out why I should care. It's painful to watch any sport where grown men fake getting hurt. The cringe is far more damaging than the love taps they whine about. Rugby and hockey have that shit figured out, why cant they?
> Rugby and hockey have that shit figured out, why cant they?
Something else they could learn from rugby, respect for the officials. The number of times you see football players chasing after or arguing with the referee is just embarrassing. Rugby officials don't stand for it, neither should football officials.
Something else they could learn from rugby, respect for the officials. The number of times you see football players chasing after or arguing with the referee is just embarrassing. Rugby officials don't stand for it, neither should football officials.
As someone who grew up watching rugby and only got into football as an adult, I couldn't believe the amount of disrespect players show to officials. I think I spent the first two years constantly saying "in rugby this guy would have been sent off by now" on repeat...
Same, as an American sports fan. Touching an official or yelling at them in any sort of aggressive manner is almost always an automatic foul or penalty, and possibly grounds for ejection.
My only thought as somebody who never played soccer is that the decisions a soccer referee makes are much more consequential, and oftentimes very subjective. A single call in soccer can change a game in a way that doesn't happen in any other sport.
My only thought as somebody who never played soccer is that the decisions a soccer referee makes are much more consequential, and oftentimes very subjective. A single call in soccer can change a game in a way that doesn't happen in any other sport.
I don't think it is true that referee calls in soccer are more consequential than in e.g. rugby. In fact I would argue that in rugby a referee could make very subtle calls (that would likely not be picked up by many fans even) that can very substantially change a game, e.g. just how he referees the breakdown or scrums. Let's not even talk about giving or not giving a try etc..
I only discovered rugby a few years ago. I was completely floored. Players apologizing? Players being the first ones to admit making a mistake? Players making sure opposing hurt players are okay? What in the fuck am I watching? Who made it okay for mature, respectable adults to play a televised sport? Why haven't they been fired yet? Dont they know what planet this is?
When the players are respectful that's when you know it's a combat sport.
Rugby Union is a shining example of sport done right. Everyone other sport would do well to take a long hard look at their processes. I used to love ice hockey and then football (soccer) but now the only sport that I can watch without getting a bad taste in my mouth is Rugby. Six Nations is my favourite time of year.
[deleted]
Absolutely. What's the joke regarding the two sports? Football is a gentleman's game played by hooligans while rugby is a hooligan's sport played by gentlemen. Something like that. Either way, the level of respect players have for one another and refs is awesome since it really is a violent/dangerous game. There are a few exceptions, but it's fun when refs say, "This isnt soccer, you cant get away with that here." Football/soccer players are just rich brats. FIFA and the various leagues encourage it too.
Football is a sport played by Gentlemen watched by hooligans. Rugby is a sport played hooligans, watched by Gentlemen.
Although the rugby hooligans are very respectful to the referee. Mic-up the referee in football.
Although the rugby hooligans are very respectful to the referee. Mic-up the referee in football.
May be it is just me, but my memory of old football in the 90 /00s wasn't like that at all. No Match was too easy, No Team were unbeatable.
Despite the old Analog TV, No 4K, No HDR, No 60fps, No Super Complex Codec, but the intensity was there. Something was transmitted from the field to audience in front of the tele. You can feel Roy Keane is about to punch somebody in the face if they dont make one more step or dont chase after the ball. And that is how time and time again Man Utd make their comebacks.
If we ignore the big teams like Liverpool, Man U, Arsenal, I remember Leads had the Australian pair Mark Viduka and Harry Kwell, Alan Shearer in Newcastle, Paolo Di Canio in West Ham, even Bolton Wanderer has Jay-Jay Okocha. Every team has a fighting Chance. And football was so much more fun back then.
I think somewhere along the line Football becomes very commercially focused. And big money flowing in means there are far less Middle Class Team. ( Sounds like our society in general ). And with less competition, along with players just dont seems to give a fuck about anything other than their pay cheque. The game becomes less interesting.
Despite the old Analog TV, No 4K, No HDR, No 60fps, No Super Complex Codec, but the intensity was there. Something was transmitted from the field to audience in front of the tele. You can feel Roy Keane is about to punch somebody in the face if they dont make one more step or dont chase after the ball. And that is how time and time again Man Utd make their comebacks.
If we ignore the big teams like Liverpool, Man U, Arsenal, I remember Leads had the Australian pair Mark Viduka and Harry Kwell, Alan Shearer in Newcastle, Paolo Di Canio in West Ham, even Bolton Wanderer has Jay-Jay Okocha. Every team has a fighting Chance. And football was so much more fun back then.
I think somewhere along the line Football becomes very commercially focused. And big money flowing in means there are far less Middle Class Team. ( Sounds like our society in general ). And with less competition, along with players just dont seems to give a fuck about anything other than their pay cheque. The game becomes less interesting.
I miss the old days where everything was transmitted from 1 camera in the nosebleed section. Switching the camera all the time is fatiguing.
With how much increase in bandwidth we have now days, they should just broadcast all of their different camera views. Sports bars would be much more interesting if you could look at different screens for different views.
With how much increase in bandwidth we have now days, they should just broadcast all of their different camera views. Sports bars would be much more interesting if you could look at different screens for different views.
If you're relatively new to football, you may not remember what we used to call the "cloggers" in the UK, players who were specifically tasked with going around and injuring opposing team members with violent tackles. (Although if you're a Man U fan you may remember someone called Roy Keane...?) The pendulum has probably swung too far in the opposite direction but, for example, Maradona had his ankle broken in a famously bad tackle by Goikoetxea, a player notorious for doing this, and he wasn't banned for many matches: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Wqi3z-3VXo (warning - includes slow-motion footage of the ankle break near the beginning). Given a choice between these things, I'll take the diving, and hope for more retrospective punishments for diving in the future.
I started caring in 04 I think. There was a huge soccer/football push at the time in the states. A dedicated soccer channel even sprang up. I think I remember the whole excessive injury thing brought up a few times, but that's over 15 years ago. I think it was the season after the 06 cup, someone did a really blatant dive. I could swear Ronaldo, but he's dived a lot, so not sure. Anyways, it was during a huge string of dives in the league and I just thought to hell with the sport.
I get it, there's a want to avoid injuries. I respect that. Rewarding stupidity and blatant cheating was beyond a pendulum swing. Retro punishments isnt enough. It has to be consistent red card, ejected from the game, multi game ban if you're going to fix the image of the sport. Also, cant remember what it's called, but when they intentionally kick a ball into an opposing player so it bounces off them, then out of bounds so they can get a throw in. Yea, that I hate too. I watched a 70s MU vs Liverpool game, none of that shit was going on. Just a pure game. I think that was when I was becoming disillusioned with the sport, because I saw how it used to be played... like an actual fucking sport.
Maybe The Code from hockey needs to leak into soccer/football. That's a better way to fix diving and injuring strikers. Put the beat down on that player, continue the game. Itll sort itself out eventually. Until then, I'll choose a sport that has itself sorted out.
I get it, there's a want to avoid injuries. I respect that. Rewarding stupidity and blatant cheating was beyond a pendulum swing. Retro punishments isnt enough. It has to be consistent red card, ejected from the game, multi game ban if you're going to fix the image of the sport. Also, cant remember what it's called, but when they intentionally kick a ball into an opposing player so it bounces off them, then out of bounds so they can get a throw in. Yea, that I hate too. I watched a 70s MU vs Liverpool game, none of that shit was going on. Just a pure game. I think that was when I was becoming disillusioned with the sport, because I saw how it used to be played... like an actual fucking sport.
Maybe The Code from hockey needs to leak into soccer/football. That's a better way to fix diving and injuring strikers. Put the beat down on that player, continue the game. Itll sort itself out eventually. Until then, I'll choose a sport that has itself sorted out.
>They cant figure out how to deal with diving and playing for time
I always find these complaints strange coming from American fans. "Playing for time" is hugely important and mainstream strategy in the NFL. Coaches will be criticized if they don't run the ball enough when they have the lead in the 4th quarter. Meanwhile flopping is hugely common in the NBA. You can just search Youtube for "LeBron flops"[1] for plenty of evidence of the exact same behavior that is always condemned in soccer.
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=LeBron+flops
I always find these complaints strange coming from American fans. "Playing for time" is hugely important and mainstream strategy in the NFL. Coaches will be criticized if they don't run the ball enough when they have the lead in the 4th quarter. Meanwhile flopping is hugely common in the NBA. You can just search Youtube for "LeBron flops"[1] for plenty of evidence of the exact same behavior that is always condemned in soccer.
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=LeBron+flops
I think in the USA playing for time is considered acceptable and a good strategy so long as it isn't overdone. It's different in the NFL though, where there is an inbuilt limit to how much you can really delay. But anyway, you're right -- I don't think it's generally considered bad, at least not anytime I've ever watched sports with friends and colleagues.
Diving though; that's universally considered to be unquestionably lame. It's never cool.
Diving though; that's universally considered to be unquestionably lame. It's never cool.
Yes, there are built-in limits to playing for time in both American football (play clock) and basketball (shot clock). Anything within those limits is fair game.
To be fair, American Football is a game based around playing for time. What's interesting, college games are a bit more faster paced, mostly because those kids have something to prove so they can get into the NFL draft. Either way, I dont like American football without friends, snacks and booze. Baseball on TV, I feel the same, in it for the party. Theyre slow sports in reality. Though, in person, at the stadium, baseball is awesome.
I dont watch basketball at all.
I dont watch basketball at all.
>college games are a bit more faster paced, mostly because those kids have something to prove so they can get into the NFL draft.
That isn't the reasoning at all. The NFL doesn't have guaranteed contracts, so in a very real sense the players in the NFL are playing more to stay in the NFL than players in college are playing to get into the NFL. Also some of the highest paced teams in college are the teams full of players with no hope of playing in the NFL.
The reason some college teams play faster than the NFL (and it isn't all teams) is because there is a wider talent distribution in college. It is possible to win games there by being faster and playing faster than your opponent. Talent is more evenly distributed in the NFL. You can just out athleticism your opponent.
Another factor is that both players and coaches spend more time strategizing in the NFL. It is harder to just run the same scheme every game without it being eventually exposed.
That isn't the reasoning at all. The NFL doesn't have guaranteed contracts, so in a very real sense the players in the NFL are playing more to stay in the NFL than players in college are playing to get into the NFL. Also some of the highest paced teams in college are the teams full of players with no hope of playing in the NFL.
The reason some college teams play faster than the NFL (and it isn't all teams) is because there is a wider talent distribution in college. It is possible to win games there by being faster and playing faster than your opponent. Talent is more evenly distributed in the NFL. You can just out athleticism your opponent.
Another factor is that both players and coaches spend more time strategizing in the NFL. It is harder to just run the same scheme every game without it being eventually exposed.
> I dont watch basketball at all.
Strangely enough, this sport has had a similar problem with playing for time that afflicts football/soccer. It used to be a horrible problem that almost destroyed the sport until the invention of the shot clock. I think it may have gone a bit too far in the other direction, to the point where you can ignore everything but the last five minutes of most games, but football/soccer could really use something like a shot clock to force offensive action.
Strangely enough, this sport has had a similar problem with playing for time that afflicts football/soccer. It used to be a horrible problem that almost destroyed the sport until the invention of the shot clock. I think it may have gone a bit too far in the other direction, to the point where you can ignore everything but the last five minutes of most games, but football/soccer could really use something like a shot clock to force offensive action.
>To be fair, American Football is a game based around playing for time.
And time for advertisements.
And time for advertisements.
Let us be honest about this for once. There are no USA sports. Just ads that happen to have a sport segment.
The biggest sporting event in the US sport calendar year is known - not for the crunching tackles, not for the high flying antics, not for the pin in the needle plays...no sir - it is known for ads. Superbowl ads are bigger than the sport. When I was younger I though Superbowl meant ad marathons.
The biggest sporting event in the US sport calendar year is known - not for the crunching tackles, not for the high flying antics, not for the pin in the needle plays...no sir - it is known for ads. Superbowl ads are bigger than the sport. When I was younger I though Superbowl meant ad marathons.
> That and diving. Seriously, fuck FIFA and all the EU leagues. They cant figure out how to deal with diving and playing for time, I cant figure out why I should care. It's painful to watch any sport where grown men fake getting hurt.
This is the only football I know. That's why I was never interested in watching football as a kid and I'm still not today as an adult. I am an absolute sport enthusiast and play everything from football to basketball, skateboarding and what not but I can't watch a bunch of drama queens having a cry when the wind blew their hair the wrong direction or someone got slightly touched by another player. The sport seriously needs more Zidanes who know how to head butt if someone is making a scene.
This is the only football I know. That's why I was never interested in watching football as a kid and I'm still not today as an adult. I am an absolute sport enthusiast and play everything from football to basketball, skateboarding and what not but I can't watch a bunch of drama queens having a cry when the wind blew their hair the wrong direction or someone got slightly touched by another player. The sport seriously needs more Zidanes who know how to head butt if someone is making a scene.
In a way, the drama is a genuine part of the sport. Many matches became memorable just due to these theatrics.
Football (soccer) is by far the best game for just playing in my opinion. Two jumpers on the ground for goalposts and an open space is all you really need. It is easy to learn, fun to play, and very cheap.
It is just that the professional game is pathetic, and I don't watch it for that reason.
It is just that the professional game is pathetic, and I don't watch it for that reason.
I grew up watching soccer and then stopped cold turkey until last world cup. I just couldnt stand watching this crap anymore because of all the diving and time wasting etc.
I started watching NFL this past season and i found a lot more interesting than today’s soccer. Great display of athleticism, discipline to follow plays, and the dance moves!
I started watching NFL this past season and i found a lot more interesting than today’s soccer. Great display of athleticism, discipline to follow plays, and the dance moves!
> That and diving.
There is something even more painful to watch than soccer simulations: sports that encourage killing the watch like football, baseball and basketball.
At least in diving, a little bit of acting talent is involved.
There is something even more painful to watch than soccer simulations: sports that encourage killing the watch like football, baseball and basketball.
At least in diving, a little bit of acting talent is involved.
There's no watch to kill in baseball. You have to get the other team out a set number of times.
Correct, but the use of stoppage is a little bit similar to the use of timeouts in other sports, in my humble opinion.
Another dishonorable gameplay of baseball that makes me hate it (my apologies for not remembering how this is called): this move batters often do to just amortize the ball so the field players can snag an extra base!
Another dishonorable gameplay of baseball that makes me hate it (my apologies for not remembering how this is called): this move batters often do to just amortize the ball so the field players can snag an extra base!
What makes bunting dishonorable? If anything it's the opposite, the player sacrifices themselves to move a teammate.
> What makes bunting dishonorable?
Well, it is obviously subjective, but bunting can be used to prevent no-hitter which is why I personally see it as disgraceful.
Well, it is obviously subjective, but bunting can be used to prevent no-hitter which is why I personally see it as disgraceful.
Breaking up a no-hitter with a bunt requires bunting for a base hit, which is orders of magnitude more challenging than a sac bunt. It's not as rare as pitching a no-hitter, but it's rare enough to be notable when it happens. You have to place the bunt in one of only a handful of defensive dead zones and it requires elite base running speed.
Out of curiosity, what do you mean by "stoppage"? I think baseball does have a pacing problem, but it's really cultural more than anything else: games are about 1.5x as long today as they were 50 years ago, even though in terms of what happens (number of pitches, batters, etc.) they're basically the same. Unfortunately the main way to combat this, the "pitch clock" rule, is unenforced. I can't imagine why.
I don't understand what you mean by your "dishonorable gameplay" example. What does amortizing a ball mean to you?
I don't understand what you mean by your "dishonorable gameplay" example. What does amortizing a ball mean to you?
> Out of curiosity, what do you mean by "stoppage"?
When players or coaches call timeouts (I don't know if this is the official name), even tho there is no clock to interrupt, to interrupt the flow of the game at key moments.
> I don't understand what you mean by your "dishonorable gameplay" example. What does amortizing a ball mean to you?
It took me some time to find out, but this is what I was refering to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunt_(baseball).
Now truth be told, one thing that makes me love baseball is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Gaedel#At_the_plate.
> I don't understand what you mean by your "dishonorable gameplay" example. What does amortizing a ball mean to you?
It took me some time to find out, but this is what I was refering to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunt_(baseball).
Now truth be told, one thing that makes me love baseball is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Gaedel#At_the_plate.
The Eddie Gaedel stunt was perpetrated by Bill Veeck [1], who came up with so many baseball stunts throughout his life and had many rules changed in reaction to them. Apropos to this discussion is that he is also the last person to buy a major sports team in the US without being massively wealthy.
A few days after that Eddie Gaedel stunt, Veeck did another one where the fans got to decide everything that the team did during the game, by holding up cards to vote.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Veeck
A few days after that Eddie Gaedel stunt, Veeck did another one where the fans got to decide everything that the team did during the game, by holding up cards to vote.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Veeck
Basketball has the opposite problem: clock-stopping in close games through intentional fouls.
The shot-clock in basketball was introduced to prevent clock killing, and promote scoring.
Basketbal
The shot-clock in basketball was introduced to prevent clock killing, and promote scoring.
Basketbal
That’s an argument for financial regulation, which we have in part in the U.K., not ruining sport by turning it into a theme park.
Leicester.
Yes, a team bought by a foreign billionaire willing to spend money suddenly got good, so good they ended up winning it all. Great for fans of Leicester, but what about all the fans of, say, Bolton? That's a team where the ownership has fallen apart and the team is insolvent and is now down in the 4th tier. Sucks to be them.
What if I told you there was a magical way to make sure that all teams competing were on an equal financial footing?
What if I told you there was a magical way to make sure that all teams competing were on an equal financial footing?
You might even say Bolton has been wandering for a while
> Great for fans of Leicester, but what about all the fans of, say, Bolton?
I think everyone in the country rejoiced when Leicester won. Everyone loves an underdog story.
> and is now down in the 4th tier
Wolves were in the 4th tier, now they battle to get into europe. These things are cyclical over the generations. Sometimes you're up, sometimes you're down, but you're always there.
Out of interest, are you British or American?
I think everyone in the country rejoiced when Leicester won. Everyone loves an underdog story.
> and is now down in the 4th tier
Wolves were in the 4th tier, now they battle to get into europe. These things are cyclical over the generations. Sometimes you're up, sometimes you're down, but you're always there.
Out of interest, are you British or American?
And yet New England has been in half of the last 10 years superbowls. Is it really as effective as you say? Aren't there like a dozen teams that haven't won in 30 years? Does that feel different than a smaller market Premier League fan?
I don't think I disagree with your basic point that feedback is important, but I don't think the NFL has it well solved either.
I don't think I disagree with your basic point that feedback is important, but I don't think the NFL has it well solved either.
There are 16, so 50% have won in the last 30 years, which is actually a very good distribution. And that includes a lot of small market teams (11 by my non quantitative snap judgment)
The thing is there's excitement at both ends of the table in the PL and its continental counterparts. It's not just who wins the league, there's relegation as well, which is its own brutal drama.
Also I think people overestimate how much winning actually means. People support clubs whose heights were reached decades ago, not because they might miraculously win this year, but because the club is part of their life and the club's story is part of their story. It's like a soap opera, greatness comes and goes, but you keep watching. Club heroes are often not particularly good in a wider context, they're often of journeyman skill.
So in that sense there's something for everyone, even if the trophies are tied up in the top few clubs.
I do think some sort of more even distribution would make sense, though I think there are probably competition laws that would prevent a salary cap.
> If you are a Jaguars fan and your team is picking #1 in the draft next week after getting one win last season, you can realistically hope that you might be supporting a good team in a couple of years.
This creates really weird incentives. It was between them and the Jets, and people were saying the Jets were stupid for winning a game and losing Trevor Lawrence.
It's also its own can of worms, having unpaid athletes who are still essentially professionals rather than students, at universities who run a huge legally protected racket.
Why not do like in Europe and have clubs with teams that have age groups, genders, and second and third teams for all those categories? What's the idea in a bunch of professionals who come and go as dictated by money, but with the name of a specific place on their jerseys? In what sense are you truly representing a place if there's no community below the professionals?
Also I think people overestimate how much winning actually means. People support clubs whose heights were reached decades ago, not because they might miraculously win this year, but because the club is part of their life and the club's story is part of their story. It's like a soap opera, greatness comes and goes, but you keep watching. Club heroes are often not particularly good in a wider context, they're often of journeyman skill.
So in that sense there's something for everyone, even if the trophies are tied up in the top few clubs.
I do think some sort of more even distribution would make sense, though I think there are probably competition laws that would prevent a salary cap.
> If you are a Jaguars fan and your team is picking #1 in the draft next week after getting one win last season, you can realistically hope that you might be supporting a good team in a couple of years.
This creates really weird incentives. It was between them and the Jets, and people were saying the Jets were stupid for winning a game and losing Trevor Lawrence.
It's also its own can of worms, having unpaid athletes who are still essentially professionals rather than students, at universities who run a huge legally protected racket.
Why not do like in Europe and have clubs with teams that have age groups, genders, and second and third teams for all those categories? What's the idea in a bunch of professionals who come and go as dictated by money, but with the name of a specific place on their jerseys? In what sense are you truly representing a place if there's no community below the professionals?
I think most of that comes from the fact that American sports have playoff systems to determine eventual champions (and the uncertainty that entails) whereas leagues favor consistent performers (strongly correlated with the money a club can invest). If you see playoff-like national tournaments in European soccer (which happen in parallel with the leagues) those too tend to have a wider spread of winners.
At least in England, clubs are an integral part of local culture (see the emotions involved in a derby!), and the thought of “moving” a club to a different location would be heresy. I presume that it’s very similar in many other European countries too.
At least in England, clubs are an integral part of local culture (see the emotions involved in a derby!), and the thought of “moving” a club to a different location would be heresy. I presume that it’s very similar in many other European countries too.
> If you support one of those top five or six clubs - good for you. If you don't, then you don't have a realistic chance of seeing a league win in your lifetime.
And yet right now two of the top 6 teams are not the "6 big clubs" - Leicester and West Ham.
Liverpool, who walked the season last year, are doing about as well as Everton. Man City, who are currently top, lost just 2 weeks ago against Leeds - at home. I'm sure that Leeds fans were delighted by that performance, 10 years ago they were languishing in the 3rd tier. I know for a fact the football nerds in my family were delighted to see Wolves doing so well recently.
A football team is for life, not just for Christmas. You don't choose your team, it's something built in, whether you like football (or sport) or not.
My Dad, like his dad before him, and his dad before him, supported Wolves from a wee nipper in the 50s when they were winning the league (53-54 - snatching it from rival WBA, being claimed "Champions of the World" apparently for defeating Hungary, and being one of the first British teams in the champions league) through to his deathbed last month. Clearly in the 50s Wolves were one of the "big 6".
In the 60s they were doing great again, starting off with FA Cup wins and 2nd/3rd places in the league but by the mid 60s they were relegated. They bounced around in the 60s and 70s between first and second tiers, but by the mid 80s they were down in the 4th tier. Local boy Steve Bull came, and being far better than Andy Gray, catapulted Wolves back up the leagues. I remember them beating the undefeatable Man U about that time. With a "super league" that type of victory doesn't come.
In 2013 they were back in tier 3. The 2017/18 season they did outstandingly in Tier 2, greatest season for decades (or so I'm informed), and the following season in the top tier was blistering too - finishing 7th, getting into Europe, reaching the FA Cup Semi finals. What an exciting 5 years.
It's not just Wolves of course. Leicester were in the 3rd tier in 2008. By 2016 they'd won the Premier league. That type of rise, in 8 years, is the stuff dreams are made of.
Watford had a cracking Semi Final game against Wolves in 2019, coming from 2-0 down to win in extra time. Wolves had got rid of "big" teams like Man U on the way up, and the FA Cup is where anything can happen.
They lost 6-0. Man City were unstoppable. not bad for a team that were in the 3rd tier as recently as 1998
Crawley Town beat Leeds earlier this year in the FA Cup. In 2013 it was Wigan knocking out Man City. In 2015 3rd tier Bradford knocked out Chelsea. Third tier Oldham beat Liverpool in 2013, and of course non-league Lincoln beat Premier league Burnley in 2013, reaching the FA Cup quarter finals.
English Football has never been about a battle between a few big teams. When the century-old Wimbledon were Americaned, bought and moved 60 miles to Milton Keynes, the fans got behind the replacement. The replacements started off in the 9th tier, and are currently fighting the previous Wimbledon (now Milton Keynes) in the 3rd tier.
And yet right now two of the top 6 teams are not the "6 big clubs" - Leicester and West Ham.
Liverpool, who walked the season last year, are doing about as well as Everton. Man City, who are currently top, lost just 2 weeks ago against Leeds - at home. I'm sure that Leeds fans were delighted by that performance, 10 years ago they were languishing in the 3rd tier. I know for a fact the football nerds in my family were delighted to see Wolves doing so well recently.
A football team is for life, not just for Christmas. You don't choose your team, it's something built in, whether you like football (or sport) or not.
My Dad, like his dad before him, and his dad before him, supported Wolves from a wee nipper in the 50s when they were winning the league (53-54 - snatching it from rival WBA, being claimed "Champions of the World" apparently for defeating Hungary, and being one of the first British teams in the champions league) through to his deathbed last month. Clearly in the 50s Wolves were one of the "big 6".
In the 60s they were doing great again, starting off with FA Cup wins and 2nd/3rd places in the league but by the mid 60s they were relegated. They bounced around in the 60s and 70s between first and second tiers, but by the mid 80s they were down in the 4th tier. Local boy Steve Bull came, and being far better than Andy Gray, catapulted Wolves back up the leagues. I remember them beating the undefeatable Man U about that time. With a "super league" that type of victory doesn't come.
In 2013 they were back in tier 3. The 2017/18 season they did outstandingly in Tier 2, greatest season for decades (or so I'm informed), and the following season in the top tier was blistering too - finishing 7th, getting into Europe, reaching the FA Cup Semi finals. What an exciting 5 years.
It's not just Wolves of course. Leicester were in the 3rd tier in 2008. By 2016 they'd won the Premier league. That type of rise, in 8 years, is the stuff dreams are made of.
Watford had a cracking Semi Final game against Wolves in 2019, coming from 2-0 down to win in extra time. Wolves had got rid of "big" teams like Man U on the way up, and the FA Cup is where anything can happen.
They lost 6-0. Man City were unstoppable. not bad for a team that were in the 3rd tier as recently as 1998
Crawley Town beat Leeds earlier this year in the FA Cup. In 2013 it was Wigan knocking out Man City. In 2015 3rd tier Bradford knocked out Chelsea. Third tier Oldham beat Liverpool in 2013, and of course non-league Lincoln beat Premier league Burnley in 2013, reaching the FA Cup quarter finals.
English Football has never been about a battle between a few big teams. When the century-old Wimbledon were Americaned, bought and moved 60 miles to Milton Keynes, the fans got behind the replacement. The replacements started off in the 9th tier, and are currently fighting the previous Wimbledon (now Milton Keynes) in the 3rd tier.
>Wimbledon in the 3rd tier.
"Only took nine years" to get back in to the league. Getting promotion on ** merit. Not buying a place.
Then eventually beating the Franchise and watching them get relegated. Sweet sweet justice.
Now with a fans funded new stadium.
Football is beautiful. Even on a wet cold night in stoke.
Then eventually beating the Franchise and watching them get relegated. Sweet sweet justice.
Now with a fans funded new stadium.
Football is beautiful. Even on a wet cold night in stoke.
> Even on a wet cold night in stoke.
Are there any others?
Stoke and Port Vale are unlikely to be winning the premier any time soon, but that's not the point - Stoke thrashed Liverpool 6-1 in 2015, and that's Football. I'm no fan, and If I were I'd support wolves, but I can appreciate that win will have made Stoke fans delighted.
From reading this hn discussion (the only place I've seen ESL defended), it seems that fans of the American style system (which yougov put as less than 10%) think that winning at the end of the season is all that matters.
Are there any others?
Stoke and Port Vale are unlikely to be winning the premier any time soon, but that's not the point - Stoke thrashed Liverpool 6-1 in 2015, and that's Football. I'm no fan, and If I were I'd support wolves, but I can appreciate that win will have made Stoke fans delighted.
From reading this hn discussion (the only place I've seen ESL defended), it seems that fans of the American style system (which yougov put as less than 10%) think that winning at the end of the season is all that matters.
Your in depth knowledge of the stats for years gone by is truly impressive. These events, this is why we love the beautiful game
In fact I don't particularly like football - being brought up in a house with a wolves loving grandfather, father and brother sort of turned me against it. I watch an average of about 1 game on TV every 12-18 months.
But I appreciate for many people, football isn't a matter of life and death - it's far more important. For tens of millions in the UK, it's not about the winning, or the losing, it's about the battle.
But I appreciate for many people, football isn't a matter of life and death - it's far more important. For tens of millions in the UK, it's not about the winning, or the losing, it's about the battle.
Yeah, but that has nothing to do with the European Super League proposal which incorporated none of that.
And I doubt you'd get those kinds of rules and still have pro/rel. Ultimately investors don't want that fair of a playing field. And pro/rel in Europe is brilliant if you get past the very top of the table. If all you care about is "who wins the league/cup" every year it may become boring, but the best games in the UK can be the lower league playoffs to see who goes up. There's a constant refreshment of new teams getting promoted which changes the league every year.
And I doubt you'd get those kinds of rules and still have pro/rel. Ultimately investors don't want that fair of a playing field. And pro/rel in Europe is brilliant if you get past the very top of the table. If all you care about is "who wins the league/cup" every year it may become boring, but the best games in the UK can be the lower league playoffs to see who goes up. There's a constant refreshment of new teams getting promoted which changes the league every year.
Well, that's a knockout vs. league outcome, right? The FA Cup has 5 winners in the last 10 cups.
Lots of people have talked eloquantly about the monetary greed the Super League entailed, but I think it misses the wider point, Kronke (et al) have long been pushing for a _redistribution of power_ in football, away from the 'leagues' (e.g. the Premier League, La Liga, UEFA) to the clubs and owners themselves. Which is the now the canonical model for US sports, where they're most comfortable.
Another example of this is last year's "Project Big Picture"[0] in the Premier League, which was mostly led by the same owners with the same motivations.
As an illustrive example, take the NFL where Roger Goodell's purpose is to serve the leagues owners. He's an instrument of their will and so's steered the NFL in a direction that benefits them the most (e.g. Goodell will always pick the path that gets them the most money). The Premier League on the other hand takes decisions that are seen by big club owners as precisely _against_ their interests (e.g. distributing TV money from foreign TV deals equally to all clubs when they claim >80% of matches watched outside the UK are of the 5-6 big clubs, the classic but reductive 'No one in Malaysia wants to watch Bolton play')
[0]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/africa/54510898
Another example of this is last year's "Project Big Picture"[0] in the Premier League, which was mostly led by the same owners with the same motivations.
As an illustrive example, take the NFL where Roger Goodell's purpose is to serve the leagues owners. He's an instrument of their will and so's steered the NFL in a direction that benefits them the most (e.g. Goodell will always pick the path that gets them the most money). The Premier League on the other hand takes decisions that are seen by big club owners as precisely _against_ their interests (e.g. distributing TV money from foreign TV deals equally to all clubs when they claim >80% of matches watched outside the UK are of the 5-6 big clubs, the classic but reductive 'No one in Malaysia wants to watch Bolton play')
[0]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/africa/54510898
Club != Owners.
The club is the people, the owners own the shares of the company.
Your comment frames the situation as a "League Owner" vs "Club Owner" power struggle. That struggle is real, but it ignores the critical aspect that makes European football appealing: European football is about the clubs, the communities they represent, and cultural rivalry between communities.
In essence Man City is Man City because they are not Bolton, not because Malaysians want to watch them.
Reason European clubs are good is that they're intertwined with society. European football became big business, but that's not where it came from, nor what it is.
The club is the people, the owners own the shares of the company.
Your comment frames the situation as a "League Owner" vs "Club Owner" power struggle. That struggle is real, but it ignores the critical aspect that makes European football appealing: European football is about the clubs, the communities they represent, and cultural rivalry between communities.
In essence Man City is Man City because they are not Bolton, not because Malaysians want to watch them.
Reason European clubs are good is that they're intertwined with society. European football became big business, but that's not where it came from, nor what it is.
> the communities they represent, and cultural rivalry between communities.
This has always confused me: what's the connection between the community and the club? How does Man City 'represent' Manchester?
This has always confused me: what's the connection between the community and the club? How does Man City 'represent' Manchester?
Some clubs are majority owned by the fans.
I don't think that's it. For fans, whether you "belong" to a club has nothing to do with money. It more what city you were born in, what games did your parents take you to when you were young, what trading cards did you own when you were a child or who were your idols when you played football as a kid, things like that.
From my experience, clubs are much more connected with the community in Europe. Where I'm from, you'd have sports clubs that offer different sports at different levels. In Germany you'll find a "Sportverein (SV), Fussballclub (FC), Turn- und Sportgemeinschaft (TSG), etc" in almost every town. If it's a generic club, they'll have many sports. Eintracht Frankfurt for instance has a Bundesliga football team but they also have amateur football teams, handball teams, hockey, etc. Towns often have more than one sports club so there connection to "your" club as well.
So there is a direct connection between your town and the sports club. It's the place where you sign your kid up to participate in team sports. Independent clubs aren't really a thing in Europe, for instance Bayern Munich is the team from Munich. They'll probably never be based in Berlin just because they're making them a better offer. Local clubs often have a long history, too. It's not uncommon for a local sports club to be over a hundred years old as well (TSG 1899 Hoffenheim, founded in 1899).
So there is a direct connection between your town and the sports club. It's the place where you sign your kid up to participate in team sports. Independent clubs aren't really a thing in Europe, for instance Bayern Munich is the team from Munich. They'll probably never be based in Berlin just because they're making them a better offer. Local clubs often have a long history, too. It's not uncommon for a local sports club to be over a hundred years old as well (TSG 1899 Hoffenheim, founded in 1899).
Clubs are heavily involved in their communities. They do a lot of charity and community work. Lots of players come through the club’s youth system, which usually contains a disproportionate number of local kids.
The history of the clubs and cities are intertwined. It’s just a massive cultural deal. Can’t properly explain it but the clubs are part of it people’s identity, which often they inherit from their parents.
The history of the clubs and cities are intertwined. It’s just a massive cultural deal. Can’t properly explain it but the clubs are part of it people’s identity, which often they inherit from their parents.
In the UK most clubs are literally in the middle of a residential community. In many working-class towns they're the literal and emotional centre of the community - visible from all around and one of just a few unchanging social things shared across generations. People are very heavily invested into them.
I was shocked when I learned that American sports teams could be bought and moved to another city.
I've never care for soccer or followed any of it. But I know enough to know that if you tried to move a big British soccer team to another city it might just set of a minor civil war.
I've never care for soccer or followed any of it. But I know enough to know that if you tried to move a big British soccer team to another city it might just set of a minor civil war.
> In essence Man City is Man City because they are not Bolton
I fully agree with the spirit of your comment but, to be fair, Manchester United is in Trafford, which is as much "Manchester" as Bolton is...
I fully agree with the spirit of your comment but, to be fair, Manchester United is in Trafford, which is as much "Manchester" as Bolton is...
Trafford is 20 minutes walk from the centre of Manchester. Bolton (or Horwich as it now) will take you a couple of hours. Also Trafford has been Manchester for as long as the club has been there (and it was Manchester when it was Newton Heath).
Whether you support City or United has been a cultural thing going back 100 years. It kind of defines you and where you fit in. I know some people that have had season passes for City for 50+ years, passed down from father to son. It is totally part of their identity.
Geography only plays a small part of this.
Geography only plays a small part of this.
That’s not even remotely geographically correct.
And United’s first home wasn’t in Trafford.
And United’s first home wasn’t in Trafford.
> That’s not even remotely geographically correct.
Which bit is wrong? Old Trafford is in Trafford which is in Manchester. Bolton is in Greater Manchester which, ok, isn't what people would possibly understand by "Manchester" but it's still viable.
Which bit is wrong? Old Trafford is in Trafford which is in Manchester. Bolton is in Greater Manchester which, ok, isn't what people would possibly understand by "Manchester" but it's still viable.
How many Man City players are actually from Manchester? I fail to see the connection to the local community.
In a recent game half of the Manchester United onfield players were local or academy players. Mostly local.
I’m so confused by this question. Do clubs in other sports not play a massive part in the community?
Manchester United did so much to help people in the pandemic. They have strong links with local charities. The footballers do a lot for charity. Rashford is an obvious superstar in that regard but it’s across the board.
Do American sports clubs not play a massive part in their community? I don’t get why this question keeps coming up. Of course the clubs are central institutions in their community...
I’m so confused by this question. Do clubs in other sports not play a massive part in the community?
Manchester United did so much to help people in the pandemic. They have strong links with local charities. The footballers do a lot for charity. Rashford is an obvious superstar in that regard but it’s across the board.
Do American sports clubs not play a massive part in their community? I don’t get why this question keeps coming up. Of course the clubs are central institutions in their community...
>Do American sports clubs not play a massive part in their community? I don’t get why this question keeps coming up. Of course the clubs are central institutions in their community...
I grew up in the US, and I always viewed them as businesses. They sell entertainment, and are free to do what's needed to boost their bottom lines. The businesses can move (and have moved) to wherever they think they might earn more money.
I grew up in the US, and I always viewed them as businesses. They sell entertainment, and are free to do what's needed to boost their bottom lines. The businesses can move (and have moved) to wherever they think they might earn more money.
Yes, the owners want their status to mean they receive more guaranteed income.
But that’s not how football works. Status and brand shouldn’t matter, you get money based on your results.
Most of these clubs are pretty much assured of qualification for Europe anyway, but at least they earn it by finishing in the top few places in their national league.
They already have the most money, they want to get rid of the risk that they might not always do so.
But that’s not how football works. Status and brand shouldn’t matter, you get money based on your results.
Most of these clubs are pretty much assured of qualification for Europe anyway, but at least they earn it by finishing in the top few places in their national league.
They already have the most money, they want to get rid of the risk that they might not always do so.
But the NFL distributes all TV money equally to all teams as well even though no one in Malaysia wants to watch Tampa Bay. Further most of that money goes to the players not the club owners. How do you square that with your thesis?
There's only 32 NFL teams and even when the crappy ones play internationally, they draw huge crowds. And that's because it's a closed circuit so the level of play of the worst teams is much higher than the worst teams in European football. The NFL as a league is also designed to have a much higher degree of parity than European football. There are also fewer games, which increases the importance of each game. These rules are dictated by the NFL (more or less) because the goal of the league is to make the league successful by being fun to watch.
The NFL might distribute money evenly, but only among the select, limited number of teams that the NFL allows to be a part of the NFL brand.
The NFL might distribute money evenly, but only among the select, limited number of teams that the NFL allows to be a part of the NFL brand.
Of course 32 teams will be better than the literally 10 thousands of teams in European, which all have a chance of playing at the highest level, albeit not a huge chance for most of them. My local football team is part of same pyramid as CL, despite them only playing for fun. Small local teams have risen through the ranks to the best national leagues.
The "draft" plays a role in this too where the worst teams, in theory, get the best players further increasing the chance of parity. Unless those terrible teams are terrible because their management sucks and just repeatedly make terrible decisions over the years.
I think some of them would like to see Tom Brady play for Tampa Bay, especially after winning the Super Bowl. About five years ago his old team the patriots played in Mexico City’s arena to 75,000 people and it was a huge hit. This is in a country which has its own strong soccer culture.
Speaking as someone from Malaysia, I would love to there be an easy way to watch NFL games here.
Pirating them is quite easy, though that doesn't fix the timezone problem
The CBA gives owners 52% of football related money and players 48%. So, no, the majority of the money does not go to players.
And the way football related is defined is fairly narrow, so some obvious revenue sources (suite upgrades, parking, etc) do not fall under football related and therefore goes to the owners.
Further, the vast majority of wealth the owners make is through the rapidly increasing value of their teams.
At the end of the day the income is peanuts compared to the wealth and asset value appreciation that is generated by the teams.
And the way football related is defined is fairly narrow, so some obvious revenue sources (suite upgrades, parking, etc) do not fall under football related and therefore goes to the owners.
Further, the vast majority of wealth the owners make is through the rapidly increasing value of their teams.
At the end of the day the income is peanuts compared to the wealth and asset value appreciation that is generated by the teams.
> The CBA gives owners 52% of football related money and players 48%. So, no, the majority of the money does not go to players.
I think you're looking at this a bit too narrowly - every expense involved in running an NFL team comes out of that 52% that the owners "get", so none of the owners are actually seeing all 52% of that money.
Please note - I'm simply responding to the specifics here - I'm not saying that owners are hard done by, in fact I believe the split should be more weighted to the players (and include roster expansion and more pay/stability for practice squad players).
I think you're looking at this a bit too narrowly - every expense involved in running an NFL team comes out of that 52% that the owners "get", so none of the owners are actually seeing all 52% of that money.
Please note - I'm simply responding to the specifics here - I'm not saying that owners are hard done by, in fact I believe the split should be more weighted to the players (and include roster expansion and more pay/stability for practice squad players).
How much of that value appreciation is derived from income, vs the status symbol nature of owning a team?
Yeah, I think this is more about power. Sky News has put this on its front page. Wonder if that's because they've invested heavily in the existing setup?
I'm not sure a super league isn't a good idea. At the moment the top six or so teams in the Premiership are more or less unbeatable by those beneath them. I'd like to see more games where they play other great teams in Europe, and fewer of them beating Middlesbrough or whatever. (Or Norwich, my local team that just got promoted.)
I'm not sure a super league isn't a good idea. At the moment the top six or so teams in the Premiership are more or less unbeatable by those beneath them. I'd like to see more games where they play other great teams in Europe, and fewer of them beating Middlesbrough or whatever. (Or Norwich, my local team that just got promoted.)
you say that but a complete minnow (Leicester) won the league only five years ago putting all these 'big' clubs to shame. Yes the odds are stacked in their favour but the only thing that keeps it exciting is the (small) chance of a big upset.
Arsenal, Spurs, Liverpool are out of the Europe spots at the moment though. I want to see the best teams playing in the Champion's League, not the wealthiest.
If the US had relegation from baseball and football it would improve the sport.
At the moment there is no penalty for coming last in the AFL or NFL :-) oh and next year you have first pick of the best new players
At the moment there is no penalty for coming last in the AFL or NFL :-) oh and next year you have first pick of the best new players
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_professional_sports_le...
The NFL, MLB, and the NBA are all higher revenue sports than the EPL. Even the NHL brings in more revenue than every other sports league than the big 3 North American sports + EPL- 30% more than La Liga or Bundesliga. So if revenues for sports without relegation are so much greater than the revenues for sports with relegation, why would it improve the sport?
The NFL, MLB, and the NBA are all higher revenue sports than the EPL. Even the NHL brings in more revenue than every other sports league than the big 3 North American sports + EPL- 30% more than La Liga or Bundesliga. So if revenues for sports without relegation are so much greater than the revenues for sports with relegation, why would it improve the sport?
The best music is also not the one that draws the higher revenues.
Now add up all the major leagues in Europe and sum it up again.
Sure, but let's go by # of teams:
The top 58 teams in promotion-relegation system: (EPL+La Liga+Bundesliga- I'll even through in UCL since it's mostly the same core teams driving the attention) 15.5 billion euros
The top 62 teams in limited entry leagues: (NFL+NBA) 21.1 billion euros
(You can even add in Ligue 1 and Serie A and you STILL don't get to just what the NFL and NBA pull in, setting aside MLB and the NHL. MLS, which does not do promotion/relegation, and is clearly the fifth biggest sport in the US, pulls in ~as much as the EFL.)
In terms of money, which is a rough but reasonable proxy for fan interest, limited entry leagues seem to make more money.
In terms of money, which is a rough but reasonable proxy for fan interest, limited entry leagues seem to make more money.
EPL is higher if you normalise by population.
Whose population? The EPL makes so much money because it's a global sport, so why should I normalize by the population of the UK?
If you want the global sport then use global football revenue. If you want apples to apples for a regional league then compare US to Europe or normalise by population for a single country.
It's another example of Americans exporting their culture, and not even recognising how they are different. It's there in travel, it's there on the internet, it's there in sport.
It's not deliberate arrogance, it just comes from the same core belief that thinks the USA is the best in everything {insert newsroom speech}
It's not deliberate arrogance, it just comes from the same core belief that thinks the USA is the best in everything {insert newsroom speech}
As an American, not having 15 leagues with the worlds best players spread out seems like a great idea. I'd rather watch the worlds best players play each other every week than have to wait a full year for the Champions league
“They’re trying to commercialise the sacred game of football that I already pay £1200 a year to watch on television”
Said in a muppet voice.
Edit: I guess ultimately it’s the weakness of being a fanatic about anything that isn’t yourself or your loved ones. Some smart business people realised thirty years ago that there was a massive consumer surplus in football fandom and set about capturing it.
Judging by the way fans vote with their hard earned money I’d say there’s still more to be captured. But the idea that the current FIFA governed world of football is some sort of pristine old-growth forest threatened by commerce is just ludicrous.
Said in a muppet voice.
Edit: I guess ultimately it’s the weakness of being a fanatic about anything that isn’t yourself or your loved ones. Some smart business people realised thirty years ago that there was a massive consumer surplus in football fandom and set about capturing it.
Judging by the way fans vote with their hard earned money I’d say there’s still more to be captured. But the idea that the current FIFA governed world of football is some sort of pristine old-growth forest threatened by commerce is just ludicrous.
Many of the fans objecting to the ESL also object to extortionate TV fees. Many still object to the formation of the English Premier League and the associated 'capitalisation' of football. If you only watch football on TV then, sure, things like the ESL will have far less of a direct impact on you.
This seems to miss the point entirely. The furore wasn't from further commercialisation, it was because a cartel of greedy clubs tried going solo and breaking tradition with the ladder system, where Leicester can win the Premier League or Greece the Euros. Most footballers are born into humble backgrounds, meritocracy matters.
Except it's not a meritocracy. The same clubs tend to win year over year. Those clubs then get the most money which they then invest into players so they win again the next year. That something is possible doesn't make it a meritocracy if the the system stacks the odds against it by favoring incumbents.
Leicester, Wigan, Portsmouth?
It's not about the winning either. The romantacism of being able to win, when Bradford knocked out Chelsea in 2015, when Oldham beat Liverpool, fighting for 5th/6th place in the premier, or fighting to avoid relegation, this is the essence of football, where everyone, no matter what their team, can support their team and have those dreams.
It's not about the winning either. The romantacism of being able to win, when Bradford knocked out Chelsea in 2015, when Oldham beat Liverpool, fighting for 5th/6th place in the premier, or fighting to avoid relegation, this is the essence of football, where everyone, no matter what their team, can support their team and have those dreams.
iso1361 already made the point well.
There’s a non-zero percent chance for upsets in the current system. In ESL there’d be no chance. Zero. Zilch. That difference is fundamental and transcends the collective psyche of world football.
There’s a non-zero percent chance for upsets in the current system. In ESL there’d be no chance. Zero. Zilch. That difference is fundamental and transcends the collective psyche of world football.
Is it really £100/m to watch on tv? That sounds almost unbelievable.
It's funny how they jump to blaming the Americans. Last I checked the Spanish clubs in this scheme weren't run by Americans.
I think it's less about specific Americans (e.g. owners of several of the English teams involved) and more about the American style of running league competitions — e.g. without promotion/relegation.
In the "American system", in most major sports, individual players (and coaches, effectively) are relegated and promoted between the big league and smaller developmental leagues all the time. I don't love the American system but a failure to ensure that our top talent plays in the top leagues is not one of its deficiencies.
In terms of meritocracy, I'd say it works at least as well as the European system.
As an American I would admit a preference for the promotion/relegation model but when I look at how a league like the English Premier League functions I don't find much to be jealous of. It's basically just a contest to see who has the most money... the teams with huge amounts of cash win nearly every year. Greed wins. And the fat paychecks for Premier league teams assure that the rich stay rich. It's hilarious to think of Man U being relegated because it could happen but c'mon, it's not.
The main difference is that Euro football leagues give the illusion of adhering to the sport's amateur roots. Theoretically your local town's team could play its way up to the Bundesliga or the EPL and win it all. However... that is basically an illusion. Occasionally a team like Cardiff City fights its way up to the Premier League, takes a beating, and sinks back down to the Championship League. They never really have a chance. Once per century you get a Leicester-style miracle, which is extremely cool but it's the exception that proves the rule.
Basically both systems are nearly equally ugly but the American one is more honest in most regards.
However I will agree that the proposed Super League is a terrible idea. The Champions League is special because it pits the best against the best every single year. That will be much less true for the Super League.
In terms of meritocracy, I'd say it works at least as well as the European system.
As an American I would admit a preference for the promotion/relegation model but when I look at how a league like the English Premier League functions I don't find much to be jealous of. It's basically just a contest to see who has the most money... the teams with huge amounts of cash win nearly every year. Greed wins. And the fat paychecks for Premier league teams assure that the rich stay rich. It's hilarious to think of Man U being relegated because it could happen but c'mon, it's not.
The main difference is that Euro football leagues give the illusion of adhering to the sport's amateur roots. Theoretically your local town's team could play its way up to the Bundesliga or the EPL and win it all. However... that is basically an illusion. Occasionally a team like Cardiff City fights its way up to the Premier League, takes a beating, and sinks back down to the Championship League. They never really have a chance. Once per century you get a Leicester-style miracle, which is extremely cool but it's the exception that proves the rule.
Basically both systems are nearly equally ugly but the American one is more honest in most regards.
However I will agree that the proposed Super League is a terrible idea. The Champions League is special because it pits the best against the best every single year. That will be much less true for the Super League.
It's not an illusion. It has happened. Leicester played in the third division in 2008-2009 and won the Premier League 7 years later.
Leipzig used to only play in a regional division 10 years ago and are now in the top of the Bundes Liga and reached the semi-finals of the champions league.
Although rare and improbable it does keep a dream alive for many fans. And dreams are part of the entertainment.
It can also go the other way around. Schalke 04 used to be a top 5 Bundes Liga team and are now relegated. This drama is exactly what makes the football pyramid charming.
Leipzig used to only play in a regional division 10 years ago and are now in the top of the Bundes Liga and reached the semi-finals of the champions league.
Although rare and improbable it does keep a dream alive for many fans. And dreams are part of the entertainment.
It can also go the other way around. Schalke 04 used to be a top 5 Bundes Liga team and are now relegated. This drama is exactly what makes the football pyramid charming.
I love those stories and agree they are fun, but aren't they also very money-oriented most of the time?
I know for example Cardiff City's renaissance and brief promotion to the Premier League corresponded with an influx of foreign cash. That's undeniably massive fun for supporters of Cardiff, but decidedly un-fun for teams that did not receive such an infusion of money, and in the end it doesn't make me too jealous of the pyramid model.
I know for example Cardiff City's renaissance and brief promotion to the Premier League corresponded with an influx of foreign cash. That's undeniably massive fun for supporters of Cardiff, but decidedly un-fun for teams that did not receive such an infusion of money, and in the end it doesn't make me too jealous of the pyramid model.
There have been amateur teams rising through the ranks to best national leagues.. One example in Denmark was Hobro, and they didn't even have money for a decent stadion to play their games on.
well schalke got relegated because of missmanagement, so yeah it was money oriented.
and rb leipzig also got infused with money, but way way less than people think of and they kept their places without additional infusions, so... I guess they earned their placed, because rb leipzig actually put most of the money into infrastructure, which is probably what made the so successful.
Not Leicester, as far as I know.
After briefly being relegated to the third tier (for just a season, first time ever) for a season, they immediately bounced back up to the second tier in 2009-10 and then they were bought by Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha, a Thai travel and retail billionaire and started their rise to the top of the Premier League.
Yes. Leicester's rise through the system was a direct result of money being pumped in by their owner, a foreign billionaire.
They were purchased 5 years prior to winning the Premier League and immediately upgraded their sponsorships, facilities, staff, and players.
Did money make them win the premier league? No, but it couldn't have happened without it and it had nothing to do with meritocracy or the local community.
They were purchased 5 years prior to winning the Premier League and immediately upgraded their sponsorships, facilities, staff, and players.
Did money make them win the premier league? No, but it couldn't have happened without it and it had nothing to do with meritocracy or the local community.
Leicester barely survived relegation the year before winning the league. There wasn't an influx in cash between those two polar opposites.
It is absolutely not an illusion.. It happens quite often even.
>the teams with huge amounts of cash win nearly every year.
That's the thing I don't get about the opposition to this. Bayern has won the Bundesleague for a decade straight. Paris St Germaine is almost as dominant. Juventus the same in Serie A. La Liga flips between Real and Barca. Why not let these teams that have outclassed their competition go play in their own league? Let them chase the money and international market while the rest of the league can maintain their traditions.
That's the thing I don't get about the opposition to this. Bayern has won the Bundesleague for a decade straight. Paris St Germaine is almost as dominant. Juventus the same in Serie A. La Liga flips between Real and Barca. Why not let these teams that have outclassed their competition go play in their own league? Let them chase the money and international market while the rest of the league can maintain their traditions.
Are you saying Arsenal is one of the top 12 teams in Europe?
The Super League was not about merit but rather brands recognition.
The Super League was not about merit but rather brands recognition.
538 has them at 12th:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/global-club-soccer-rank...
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/global-club-soccer-rank...
It's not completely an illusion. You had for example Leicester winning the league only five years ago.
Above all else, we can definitely agree that Leicester's miracle was one of the best sports stories ever. That was simply amazing.
But, it was sort of "the exception that proves the rule" right?
But, it was sort of "the exception that proves the rule" right?
Not really. Leicester in particular winning was an extreme event, but any small club winning in any league, much less extreme. Remember Chapicoense?
It happens once every 30 years and it is one of those improbable events that somewhat, someway happen, and after the event we get back to normal real quick (top teams aka those with more money in the Premier League winning, Milan, Juve, Inter in Italy, and Real or Barca in Spain, and of course Bayern in Germany).
Then, there are some minor (in terms of fans, history) teams that get to the top echelon of their respective championships. But here is the catch: they go up there because they spend like crazy, like Parma, Roma, Lazio in Italy in the late 90s, early 2000s, Leipzig with the Red Bull money, and how can we forget the Real Betis and Deportivo La Coruña?
This fans reaction to the proposed ESL is ridiculous. Football is of and for the fans? How laughable. Players making millions and millions, oil money and money from suspicious financing changing teams from minor characters in the national stage to top teams (see Chelsea, ManCity, PSG). How can true fans support Chelsea when the money from Abramovich change the dimension, the spirit of the team? Or Manchester City, with working-class fans that are now supporting a team that in one week is spending more than an Onassis in a year?
My football, the "romantic" football, ended in the 80s. Certainly a time in which players were already paid handsomely, but also a time in which you could see players play for the "shirt", in which teams had an identifiable "culture" and "spirit" that was shared among players and fans. A sport, not just a pastime. I cannot stand watching a game now.
This fans reaction to the proposed ESL is ridiculous. Football is of and for the fans? How laughable. Players making millions and millions, oil money and money from suspicious financing changing teams from minor characters in the national stage to top teams (see Chelsea, ManCity, PSG). How can true fans support Chelsea when the money from Abramovich change the dimension, the spirit of the team? Or Manchester City, with working-class fans that are now supporting a team that in one week is spending more than an Onassis in a year?
My football, the "romantic" football, ended in the 80s. Certainly a time in which players were already paid handsomely, but also a time in which you could see players play for the "shirt", in which teams had an identifiable "culture" and "spirit" that was shared among players and fans. A sport, not just a pastime. I cannot stand watching a game now.
>How can true fans support Chelsea when the money from Abramovich change the dimension,
Man City were getting 30,000 fans attending in the third tier. Sunderland gets 30,000 fans attending in the third tier.
Man City were getting 30,000 fans attending in the third tier. Sunderland gets 30,000 fans attending in the third tier.
Minor characters on the European football stage with a good local following. Schalke04 in Germany, Roma, Lazio, Fiorentina (when in B, Lazio and Fiorentina were making 30k+ each Sunday) in Italy, ManCity in England. Before the oil money, at first approximation nobody outside of England knew about ManCity (or Sunderland...). My point is that teams with large local followings had a certain "spirit" (working-class City fans against the less working-class United fans, working-class Torino fans against more posh Juve fans) and tradition that has been razed to the ground by the arrival of owners who have yes a ton of money, but nothing in terms of the local culture. If I were an old-time City fan, I would not be able to support a team that has nothing to do with what the team historically represented, has nothing is terms of local property, and could play in Manchester or in London or in Newcastle and it would be exactly the same.
I understand your point better now - thanks.
Yes, the economics of the sport are prett distorted even under the current system. It is unlikely that a team can accomplish promotion to a higher league year after year. However, poorer teams can level the financial playing field somewhat if they are able to sell star players to teams in a higher division.
The club owners pushing for this are equally responsible and fans blame them as well (in fact, some of them have resigned already). I haven't heard anyone blaming exclusively Americans (except for the linked article), if that's what you mean by "they".
I think it’s because the tournament style was supposed to be similar to American sports.
The Spanish club Real Madrid is mentioned:
> But Kroenke, Henry and the Glazers, believed to be the ringleaders of the Super League fiasco along with Real Madrid’s Florentino Perez, badly miscalculated.
> But Kroenke, Henry and the Glazers, believed to be the ringleaders of the Super League fiasco along with Real Madrid’s Florentino Perez, badly miscalculated.
I think his point is that a lot of people are blaming the Americans for this when the 2 largest and greediest clubs in the world are "run" by fans. So it has nothing to do with the Americans, it's that European football has become so greedy at the top.
That's fair.
The American franchise model has a lot of advantages (or it would not be so popular) - steady income stream, revenue sharing, lower player acquisition costs.
But I also think the average European soccer fan thinks that the current status quo is bad, and introducing measures to increase the concentration of power and money is to be decried.
The American franchise model has a lot of advantages (or it would not be so popular) - steady income stream, revenue sharing, lower player acquisition costs.
But I also think the average European soccer fan thinks that the current status quo is bad, and introducing measures to increase the concentration of power and money is to be decried.
well one of the masterminds behind it is JPMorgan Chase, American.
It's being labelled as "American style" here because one of the goals of the now defacto-defunct Super League is that it would have very little actual sportsmanlike competition.
All of the founding members would be immune from ejection/relegation. 15/20 slots would be permanent.
There's no point to competition if winning and losing has no real consequences. Just like american sports, which are so freakishly boring because of that. Someone one a superbowl? Someone came in last out of 38 teams in baseball? What happens now? Nothing? Got it.
American-style sports is just playing exhibition matches over and over again, without end or consequence, year after year. There's no point to it.
Turns out, real sports fans don't like that.
All of the founding members would be immune from ejection/relegation. 15/20 slots would be permanent.
There's no point to competition if winning and losing has no real consequences. Just like american sports, which are so freakishly boring because of that. Someone one a superbowl? Someone came in last out of 38 teams in baseball? What happens now? Nothing? Got it.
American-style sports is just playing exhibition matches over and over again, without end or consequence, year after year. There's no point to it.
Turns out, real sports fans don't like that.
I mean definitely late season games between bad teams are exhibition matches, and sometimes even outright tank battles. But I'm not sure how you can claim that winning the whole league doesn't mean anything? The NFL is already pretty clearly the collection of the 32 best football teams in the world. Presumably there is also a top end to promotion in European leagues, does winning the best of the best league mean nothing because you can't get promoted anymore? That's a pretty weird way of looking at sports
I've noticed that more and more people watch solely because they have a player from that game in their fantasy lineup, no other reason. Others have bet on a particular outcome in that game.
Say what you will about American puritanism, but it's shocking how brazenly the English game promotes gambling.
Say what you will about American puritanism, but it's shocking how brazenly the English game promotes gambling.
“What happens now? Nothing?”
Not nothing. They then get first dibs at the best youth players next season
Not nothing. They then get first dibs at the best youth players next season
I found it interesting how everyone agreed that football should not be run solely for profit and fans need to have a say in how clubs are run.
It United both Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn.
But applying the same sentiment to corporations seems controversial.
Yes because the analogy doesn’t make sense. Can you explain how the two things are equivalent?
Football club - a collective enterprise rooted in a society run in the service of collective goals.
A large corporation - a collective enterprise rooted in a society run in the service of collective goals.
A large corporation - a collective enterprise rooted in a society run in the service of collective goals.
You are being deliberately imprecise to make them seem equivalent. While some clubs are indeed corporations (with shares) they are mostly treated as associations, whose goal it is to advance the sport competitively, win the various competitions and deliver good entertainment. The primary goal of corporations is realizing good returns for investors.
That goal is a social convention. The CEOs of the worlds largest corporations themselves recently discussed moving away from this as a goal to something they call “stakeholder capitalism”.
We see this in debates about moving supply chains back on shore and focusing on domestic job creation. Those are not legitimate complaints if corporations and their profit is an unquestionable moral principle.
We see this in debates about moving supply chains back on shore and focusing on domestic job creation. Those are not legitimate complaints if corporations and their profit is an unquestionable moral principle.
yes they are legitimate goal even for pursuing only profit. supply chain on shore is maybe in some way more reslilent, with especialy in geopolitics. job creating is leading to more prosperousing in society and more customer. also maybe these things are reduce likelihood of being smacked with unfortunate regulating.
Playing the devil's advocate:
Football has its roots in amateur and local associations with little or nothing to do with profit.
In fact, only in the 1990s (with the explosion of cable TV and sports channels) did it started becoming a huge industry.
Corporations do not share the same pedigree, so they aren't "betraying" their roots.
Football has its roots in amateur and local associations with little or nothing to do with profit.
In fact, only in the 1990s (with the explosion of cable TV and sports channels) did it started becoming a huge industry.
Corporations do not share the same pedigree, so they aren't "betraying" their roots.
That is just a matter of social convention.
We could all agree that corporations should be socially run and football clubs should be private corporations.
People are saying that football clubs are rooted in society in the very same country whose leader once said “There is no such thing as a society”.
The world is what we make of it.
We could all agree that corporations should be socially run and football clubs should be private corporations.
People are saying that football clubs are rooted in society in the very same country whose leader once said “There is no such thing as a society”.
The world is what we make of it.
> Playing the devil's advocate
I think my employer will only pay for one more comment :)
I agree, but most things in life are social conventions. The problem is not identifying them, but changing them.
I think my employer will only pay for one more comment :)
I agree, but most things in life are social conventions. The problem is not identifying them, but changing them.
Equally I could say that football is, and should remain, a private activity, which governments should leave well alone.
If fans want to buy or create and run football clubs they are free to do so. If private investors want to invest in football and buy or create and run football clubs they are free to do so.
I don't think there should a way football 'should' be run, again I think this is a private activity that may be organised and run however people like within the law.
The same goes for corporations in general.
If fans want to buy or create and run football clubs they are free to do so. If private investors want to invest in football and buy or create and run football clubs they are free to do so.
I don't think there should a way football 'should' be run, again I think this is a private activity that may be organised and run however people like within the law.
The same goes for corporations in general.
The sport in general and football in particular were historically subsised by goverments. Quite a lot in some places.
Well there is always the is-ought problem. And we get around that via social consensus. There was nothing really wrong with the super league idea from a pure capitalist perspective.
In fact according to neo liberal capitalist logic this is the best way to run anything including football.
In fact according to neo liberal capitalist logic this is the best way to run anything including football.
And belief neoliberalism is starting to crack, which is why there was such widespread negativity to this announcement. People have realized that neoliberalism is just a way to funnel wealth and power into the hands of the few, and surprise they don’t like that.
Many major clubs have had issues with the way the Champions League works for years and it is a well-known problem. The ESL is just the latest symptom.
It's not ideological or "neo liberal capitalist logic", though I agree this is mostly a business problem.
But even at a more basic level this is about liberty. I don't see a fundamental difference between clubs wanting to set up the ESL and people in a town wanting to set up a tournament among them of whatever sport or legal activity they please. The State has no business interfering.
Now of course the fans (as fans and customers) can equally make their voice heard and vote with their feet if they are not interested.
My only concern here is this attempt by the government to dictate how football should be run.
It's not ideological or "neo liberal capitalist logic", though I agree this is mostly a business problem.
But even at a more basic level this is about liberty. I don't see a fundamental difference between clubs wanting to set up the ESL and people in a town wanting to set up a tournament among them of whatever sport or legal activity they please. The State has no business interfering.
Now of course the fans (as fans and customers) can equally make their voice heard and vote with their feet if they are not interested.
My only concern here is this attempt by the government to dictate how football should be run.
yes, and also no persons is dying for decisions making on his soccer team favorite. here is not healthcare or automobiles, where bad decision are costing lives. it is game and there is no justifying aj interfere by governments.
Private run corporations tend to add a lot of value to society. Private run football clubs not so much, people prefer their amateur run clubs. You could say the first sentence isn't true, but that is what people think and why they voted like this.
Value is a highly subjective term. Some claim that social media companies don’t add value. But they continue to thrive. Even tobacco companies are only dying because of extensive regulation.
They add short term value maybe. But in the long term many dont. And by the time they die the damage is done.
There are also counter factuals. The value a corporation prevents from being created due to monopolies or lobbying. That cannot be measured and maybe greater than the value added.
There are also counter factuals. The value a corporation prevents from being created due to monopolies or lobbying. That cannot be measured and maybe greater than the value added.
People vote to regulate companies they feel detract value, like Tobacco or in this case Football. Your point doesn't contradict mine.
Private run corporations that don’t add value tend to have a hard time, even if it takes a few years.
Recall Microsoft’s much-hated dominance 20-30 years ago and how they’ve had to change.
Think of your own behaviour as a consumer, always trying to buy the best and the most for the least. You’re training the cybernetic organisms known as corporations to add value conspicuously and voluminously... or die.
Recall Microsoft’s much-hated dominance 20-30 years ago and how they’ve had to change.
Think of your own behaviour as a consumer, always trying to buy the best and the most for the least. You’re training the cybernetic organisms known as corporations to add value conspicuously and voluminously... or die.
Many private corporations creates a bottleneck and then squeeze it of value and gets money that way. They don't go under, they thrive since people have no options but go through that bottleneck. Using democratic votes to decide when to stop companies from doing that makes perfect sense.
Agreed, especially if legal machinations are used to create the bottleneck. True competition is the key here.
In my day job as a consultant, I see many small and medium corporations, and I can tell you that the successful ones are the lean & mean value creators
In my day job as a consultant, I see many small and medium corporations, and I can tell you that the successful ones are the lean & mean value creators
Having UEFA people talk about how unethical, greedy and acting against football fans the new league is was almost as cringy as the YouTube CEO awarding herself a free speech price.
God, this comment has given me relief after 3 days of waiting someone to say this. HN delivers.
I can't believe the hypocrisy of FIFA and UEFA and how everyone is making some moral case for being against the super league, when we know how insanely corrupt fifa and uefa are. It's an absolute joke how everyone is taking the moral high ground here.
I can't believe the hypocrisy of FIFA and UEFA and how everyone is making some moral case for being against the super league, when we know how insanely corrupt fifa and uefa are. It's an absolute joke how everyone is taking the moral high ground here.
I'd like to adjust that a bit:
The super league idea was so far out that for a wee while FIFA and UEFA actually had a moral high ground to someone at least.
The super league idea was so far out that for a wee while FIFA and UEFA actually had a moral high ground to someone at least.
Agreed
If you're making UEFA bosses feel altruistic you should realize that you're in deep shit.
Lots of people have been saying this on reddit throughout the whole affair
100% this. As a supporter of Manchester United 35 years, I get the upset toward this Super League plan. But I, on the other hand, couldn't look away at the fact that UEFA is trying to expand Champions League participant list in 2023-2024 in ways that are questionable. This is not to mention that football (soccer) has become very mercenary in the three decades that I've been supporting.
Just look at the players' transfer fees, agent fees and weekly salaries. Where are all these money coming from to pay for such inflated expenses? In the end, it is us, the average football fans, who end up paying for all this greed (I pay $40/month in cable to get NBC sports to watch SOME of Manchester United's English Premier League games; $5/month to watch Peacock, which is owned by NBC, to watch SOME of Manchester United games in Premier League; $6 to ESPN Plus for FA cup; and finally $6/month for CBS Sports, which has now become Paramount+, to watch Manchester United in Champions League, which is what the super league is trying to supplant). These fees will only keep increasing every two years or so. Of course, I do not live in England and if I do, I might end up buying match day tickets, which could easily cost me ~$100 a game. If I buy a Manchester United jersey (not including the shorts), it costs ~$120 (it used to cost $90 ~4 years ago when I last bought one).
So yeah, it's greed all around (after all, we live in a capitalistic society) and UEFA doesn't have much to hold itself over the super league group to taut its virtues in my opinion.
Just look at the players' transfer fees, agent fees and weekly salaries. Where are all these money coming from to pay for such inflated expenses? In the end, it is us, the average football fans, who end up paying for all this greed (I pay $40/month in cable to get NBC sports to watch SOME of Manchester United's English Premier League games; $5/month to watch Peacock, which is owned by NBC, to watch SOME of Manchester United games in Premier League; $6 to ESPN Plus for FA cup; and finally $6/month for CBS Sports, which has now become Paramount+, to watch Manchester United in Champions League, which is what the super league is trying to supplant). These fees will only keep increasing every two years or so. Of course, I do not live in England and if I do, I might end up buying match day tickets, which could easily cost me ~$100 a game. If I buy a Manchester United jersey (not including the shorts), it costs ~$120 (it used to cost $90 ~4 years ago when I last bought one).
So yeah, it's greed all around (after all, we live in a capitalistic society) and UEFA doesn't have much to hold itself over the super league group to taut its virtues in my opinion.
I find the player wages issue hard to complain about.
The sport is incredibly popular, so the TV companies hand over billions to buy the rights, that money is given to the clubs who then use that to build a squad. Which when divided up means the best players earn insane amounts.
The top players are just very lucky to be in an industry where their skills are so rare and highly valued and employers are so rich.
The sport is incredibly popular, so the TV companies hand over billions to buy the rights, that money is given to the clubs who then use that to build a squad. Which when divided up means the best players earn insane amounts.
The top players are just very lucky to be in an industry where their skills are so rare and highly valued and employers are so rich.
> Where are all these money coming from to pay for such inflated expenses?
It's money laundering. Only a few talk about that. It's from the regional league local construction tycoon football club president laundering his money from black construction work all the way up to the top.
It's money laundering. Only a few talk about that. It's from the regional league local construction tycoon football club president laundering his money from black construction work all the way up to the top.
They have the moral high ground here, so why not?
Under the system of UEFA competitions and coefficient rankings, teams from outside the strongest divisions have a chance to participate in big money tournaments and attract viewers. They also make the tournament more interesting and unpredictable. Last year Atalanta (Italy) made the semifinals of UCL. This year Slavia Prague and Dinamo Zagreb knocked out Leicester City and Tottenham Hotspur in UEL.
This cannot happen in a system where the 12 biggest teams in Europe form a cartel and sign TV deals that leave nothing for the development of the sport at grassroots levels.
Under the system of UEFA competitions and coefficient rankings, teams from outside the strongest divisions have a chance to participate in big money tournaments and attract viewers. They also make the tournament more interesting and unpredictable. Last year Atalanta (Italy) made the semifinals of UCL. This year Slavia Prague and Dinamo Zagreb knocked out Leicester City and Tottenham Hotspur in UEL.
This cannot happen in a system where the 12 biggest teams in Europe form a cartel and sign TV deals that leave nothing for the development of the sport at grassroots levels.
IDK about the rest of Europe but in Spain soccer is highly tied to local cities/towns and lesser cathegory leagues, as if the big soccer teams were built up from the smallest grounds.
Trying to convert that into a "Hollywood" soccer kind with "fireworks", elitism and expensive/luxury consumerdom/PPV like is the recipe for a disaster and to dis-joint the huge regional fandom of each team.
On major events such as finals, my province's capital city's population rises from ~200k people to nearly 500k-1 million in the streets, it's crazy.
Trying to convert that into a "Hollywood" soccer kind with "fireworks", elitism and expensive/luxury consumerdom/PPV like is the recipe for a disaster and to dis-joint the huge regional fandom of each team.
On major events such as finals, my province's capital city's population rises from ~200k people to nearly 500k-1 million in the streets, it's crazy.
I think it's pretty much the same throughout Europe.
A massive component of football's success is the illusion that "anyone can make it" and win everything, being just 11 vs. 11.
I say illusion, because it's true in theory, but in reality small budget teams can't really hold on to great players.
A massive component of football's success is the illusion that "anyone can make it" and win everything, being just 11 vs. 11.
I say illusion, because it's true in theory, but in reality small budget teams can't really hold on to great players.
>> is the illusion that "anyone can make it"
This has some other implication. Ease of access is a good argument of the coming big decline of football and most active sports in favor of e-sports.
That said, Amazon buying Twitch for <1bn IMO is even a bigger steal than FB buying IG for 1bn
This has some other implication. Ease of access is a good argument of the coming big decline of football and most active sports in favor of e-sports.
That said, Amazon buying Twitch for <1bn IMO is even a bigger steal than FB buying IG for 1bn
I hate the influence of money on sports (EPL in particular), but I mean, relative minnows Leicester City did win the League a few years back. It's not impossible.
Barca and real Madrid are two of the richest sports franchises in the world. Look at all uefa champions. They are all the big spenders. It's already a system of the haves and have nots.
> Barca and real Madrid are two of the richest sports franchises in the world
In addition, it's also worth pointing out that those two clubs are also massively in debt:
https://www.football-espana.net/2021/01/27/real-madrid-accou...
https://www.football-espana.net/2021/01/25/barcelona-on-the-...
If (when?) this new league falls through it'll be interesting to see what happens to big clubs like these that, despite all their success and big brand, might have been relying on this extra money to see them through.
In addition, it's also worth pointing out that those two clubs are also massively in debt:
https://www.football-espana.net/2021/01/27/real-madrid-accou...
https://www.football-espana.net/2021/01/25/barcelona-on-the-...
If (when?) this new league falls through it'll be interesting to see what happens to big clubs like these that, despite all their success and big brand, might have been relying on this extra money to see them through.
This is a point not talked about enough. These huge clubs possibly rushed into the forming of a super league because the pandemic has made the pain of their debt even more acute. Most of their money comes from TV but no fans paying for tickets does reduce their income significantly.
There is difference between:
* system of "haves and have nots" where haves have advantage,
* two tiered system of "haves and have nots" where haves have build in advantage in the rules and have nots have additional disadvantages on top of lack of money.
Also, making everything into dichotomy where something not being perfect is a reason to make it even worst is also a very American cultural tendency. No, just because it is not perfectly fair now does not mean it is ok to make it even less fair. And just because solution of problem is not perfect does not mean it is pointless.
* system of "haves and have nots" where haves have advantage,
* two tiered system of "haves and have nots" where haves have build in advantage in the rules and have nots have additional disadvantages on top of lack of money.
Also, making everything into dichotomy where something not being perfect is a reason to make it even worst is also a very American cultural tendency. No, just because it is not perfectly fair now does not mean it is ok to make it even less fair. And just because solution of problem is not perfect does not mean it is pointless.
also, regional fandom is usually tied with local feuds.
European football is community for many people, especially on the local level. The amount of dedication for a club and the community around it is enourmous.
For instance, ultra's defending their stadium and city/town against looters during recent riots in the netherlands[0][1], with members the club willing to "take the hit" in terms of getting fined/arrested.
[0]:https://www.ad.nl/binnenland/voetbalsupporters-als-buurtwach...
[1] https://www.rtlnieuws.nl/nieuws/nederland/artikel/5211010/vo...
For instance, ultra's defending their stadium and city/town against looters during recent riots in the netherlands[0][1], with members the club willing to "take the hit" in terms of getting fined/arrested.
[0]:https://www.ad.nl/binnenland/voetbalsupporters-als-buurtwach...
[1] https://www.rtlnieuws.nl/nieuws/nederland/artikel/5211010/vo...
Professional mercenary sports played by international athletes is a poor substitute for regional identity. Man U has as much to do with Manchester as CocaCola does and this new league just makes that undeniable.
have you ever lived in manchester?
The owners are greedy excuses for human beings.
But let's also not forget UEFA or FIFA who are acting like they are the good guys. They are garbage as well.
The whole system needs reform. Can't stop with just the cancelation of the Super League.
I think nationalism played a factor, this plan would split a country's fan base between their current national league and the ESL. The fans of the big clubs invited to the ESL get to enjoy the top league and everyone else in the country gets relegated.
They should have allowed for a results-based promotion system to the ESL if you top your national league.
They should have allowed for a results-based promotion system to the ESL if you top your national league.
I think an interesting way to frame this argument would be to frame it in the view of eminent domain debate.
In short, although owners own the assets of the club, they don't really own the fanbase / legacy of the club.
We have a property (call it "fan equity" or "club legacy") that someone (fans) has invested time and effort in improving. That property has now acquired commercial value so now the govt (club owners) want to use the eminent domain argument to take that and use it as they wish.
The eminent domain plays as follows: SL12 owners are looking to de-risk their business, ie avoid financial volatility. In effect, SL12 is for the "greater good" of the top clubs. (investors would lose far less money, which means top clubs would have guaranteed financial futures, and thus, never disappear)
This does not appeal to the fans because they are invested in the ups and downs of their clubs. They are OK with downside because they also have the upside. This is similar to a property holdout. They dealt with the bad times in the neighborhood...so its natural they say now when the going gets good.
In short, although owners own the assets of the club, they don't really own the fanbase / legacy of the club.
We have a property (call it "fan equity" or "club legacy") that someone (fans) has invested time and effort in improving. That property has now acquired commercial value so now the govt (club owners) want to use the eminent domain argument to take that and use it as they wish.
The eminent domain plays as follows: SL12 owners are looking to de-risk their business, ie avoid financial volatility. In effect, SL12 is for the "greater good" of the top clubs. (investors would lose far less money, which means top clubs would have guaranteed financial futures, and thus, never disappear)
This does not appeal to the fans because they are invested in the ups and downs of their clubs. They are OK with downside because they also have the upside. This is similar to a property holdout. They dealt with the bad times in the neighborhood...so its natural they say now when the going gets good.
Am I the only one who thought the name "The Super League", was very American and non-European. At least that was my first reaction.
What I didn't know was the owner of these club were Americans.
What I didn't know was the owner of these club were Americans.
football without promotion and relegation is not football, i never understood the American style of "closed leagues". If you can't deal with relegation, don't play a game.
It’s the difference between a sport and something designed to look like a sport but in reality is just entertainment
Super Bowl being closer to WWF than a competition explains so much, thanks!
beautifully put
Not that I'm a defender of either system but US teams don't promote or relegate as a whole. Rather, the players move up or down between minor and major league teams.
> Rather, the players move up or down between minor and major league teams.
Uhm, so what? Players move between clubs all the time in football.
That doesn't make any sense whatsoever to an avid, European, football fan like me at least
Uhm, so what? Players move between clubs all the time in football.
That doesn't make any sense whatsoever to an avid, European, football fan like me at least
> .. Players move between clubs all the time in football.
> That doesn't make any sense whatsoever to an avid, European, football fan like me at least
Can you explain how ownership of a player's rights works in European football? As a non-football fan from North America, I have always found it confusing when I hear about the huge fees it costs move a player, before his salary is even discussed, as I'm more familiar with the simpler trade/free-agency model used by American sports leagues.
What about player loans, how are those even a thing?
I've tried googling/wikipedia-ing it more than once, but these concepts are often not dumbed down enough for me.
> That doesn't make any sense whatsoever to an avid, European, football fan like me at least
Can you explain how ownership of a player's rights works in European football? As a non-football fan from North America, I have always found it confusing when I hear about the huge fees it costs move a player, before his salary is even discussed, as I'm more familiar with the simpler trade/free-agency model used by American sports leagues.
What about player loans, how are those even a thing?
I've tried googling/wikipedia-ing it more than once, but these concepts are often not dumbed down enough for me.
The normal scenario is that a club signs a player up for X years. If another club fancy that player during the length of the contract period they negotiate with both the club and player to break that contract for a fee. If the contract expires, the player is free to sign for any club.
Clubs usually make sure to not have important players on a soon-to-expire-contract, and if they do, they rather sell that player than let the contract expire.
There are more complex cases where some players have multiple owners to their rights etc. Another more common case is that previous clubs usually have some sort of cut of future transfer fees as compensation for their "development" of the player.
Loans are basically "We got this young player John Talent contracted, but we can't give him enough first team experience atm due to competition in the team, so we'll loan him out to a club in a less competitive league where he'll gain it". So that club will pay some amount for that loan during a year.
Clubs usually make sure to not have important players on a soon-to-expire-contract, and if they do, they rather sell that player than let the contract expire.
There are more complex cases where some players have multiple owners to their rights etc. Another more common case is that previous clubs usually have some sort of cut of future transfer fees as compensation for their "development" of the player.
Loans are basically "We got this young player John Talent contracted, but we can't give him enough first team experience atm due to competition in the team, so we'll loan him out to a club in a less competitive league where he'll gain it". So that club will pay some amount for that loan during a year.
What happens when the club wants to sell the player and the player does not agree to sign the contract with the new club, and vice-versa?
Thanks, that's much clearer than the explanations I've seen before.
So it's basically the price to void the existing contract instead of moving the player with his contract.
So it's basically the price to void the existing contract instead of moving the player with his contract.
You aren’t only voiding the existing contract, you also have to pay the market rate for the player.
The contract is between the club and the player, nothing to do with the league.
A club “owns” a player under contract, so if someone wants to buy the player, they can ask for whatever price they want and turn down any offer if they choose.
Often the costs have a lot of conditions included to protect the buyer and incentivise the player. Such as more money after a number of games played and more money if they win a trophy etc.
The contract is between the club and the player, nothing to do with the league.
A club “owns” a player under contract, so if someone wants to buy the player, they can ask for whatever price they want and turn down any offer if they choose.
Often the costs have a lot of conditions included to protect the buyer and incentivise the player. Such as more money after a number of games played and more money if they win a trophy etc.
Exactly.
Yes loans exist. Teams generally loan players who they have on contract but don't see them making the first team to other teams to either foster their development or save money on their wages.
The team getting the player on loan generally takes on the player's wages and in some cases also pays a small loan fee to the loaner club.
The team getting the player on loan generally takes on the player's wages and in some cases also pays a small loan fee to the loaner club.
Basically you are buying a player registration with Fifa, so if a team wants a player they have to purchase the registration with the relevant authorities. Loaning players is just an agreement between the clubs and the central authorities that the registration will be loaned for an agreed amount of time. This can come with clauses that a player must play a certain amount of games, can't play against a parent club etc and the loaner must pay a fee or contribution to wages.
Ok this FIFA part makes sense, because I always wondered why there were fees that had to be paid for foreign players.
IIRC, when an NHL player under contract decides to play in Russia for a season, I don't think I ever hear of compensation being paid to the NHL team in return.
IIRC, when an NHL player under contract decides to play in Russia for a season, I don't think I ever hear of compensation being paid to the NHL team in return.
>Uhm, so what? Players move between clubs all the time in football.
I'm sure they do, but do players often move between teams in different tiers as well? That's the key difference here: it is not a lateral move.
I'm sure they do, but do players often move between teams in different tiers as well? That's the key difference here: it is not a lateral move.
Not saying that I want it, but I do think it would be interesting to see what would play out if the American sports leagues adopted relegation and removed salary caps/luxury taxes at the same time.
It would get worse.
There would be a set of 10 or so teams that would churn through promotion/relegation, a set of 5 or 6 teams that would win every year, then 16-ish teams that would basically serve as farm teams for the 5 or 6 big teams.
The money available overall to each team is vastly different.
There would be a set of 10 or so teams that would churn through promotion/relegation, a set of 5 or 6 teams that would win every year, then 16-ish teams that would basically serve as farm teams for the 5 or 6 big teams.
The money available overall to each team is vastly different.
What if you want to see the best players play against each other rather than be spread out among all the weak teams in order to optimally farm their budgets? The American style ensures that there will never ever be strong teams.
Due to contracts and the draft, you'll never have that regardless.
And then there are the areas where clubs are allowed to spend with abandon: the front office. Coaching staff, player personnel, analytics, etc.
The "American" system does allow for strong teams, but it tries to make sure that there's more volatility from season to season.
The "American" system does allow for strong teams, but it tries to make sure that there's more volatility from season to season.
With relegation and promotion is there no tournament between the promoted and relegated teams? Without this, it seems that the same teams could seesaw back and forth year to year.
In Germany the last two Teams are automatically relegated to the lower league while the third to last team of the higher and the third to the top team of the lower league fight it out in a two match decision.
The relegated Teams usually are in big trouble financially as they have to balance their budgets while loosing a lot of income. If they renegotiate salaries with their players successfully and can increase contributions from their supporters to make up for the loss of TV Money they are in a good position to fight for promotion in the coming year. There are ample examples of Teams getting handed down from league to lower league down to the amateur leagues and never making it back to professional sports. Thats part of the excitement that keeps fans glued to their screens.
This is indeed somewhat the case.
Looking at Cardiff City's long-term fortunes....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardiff_City_F.C.#/media/File:...
There are clear long term trends over the decades, with the team slowing sinking down to the 4th tier in the late 90s and working its way back up.
In the 2010's we can see see-sawing you mention: back and forth between the Championship and Premier leagues. They fight like hell to be promoted, quickly find themselves overmatched in the Premier League, and are then relegated.
It's worth noting that the team's post-2000 rebirth corresponds with an influx of juicy cash via foreign investment:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardiff_City_F.C.#Foreign_inve...
So, I mean, it's a "meritocracy" but it's still largely dependent on who's got the money because they can afford the best players and player development.
Looking at Cardiff City's long-term fortunes....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardiff_City_F.C.#/media/File:...
There are clear long term trends over the decades, with the team slowing sinking down to the 4th tier in the late 90s and working its way back up.
In the 2010's we can see see-sawing you mention: back and forth between the Championship and Premier leagues. They fight like hell to be promoted, quickly find themselves overmatched in the Premier League, and are then relegated.
It's worth noting that the team's post-2000 rebirth corresponds with an influx of juicy cash via foreign investment:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardiff_City_F.C.#Foreign_inve...
So, I mean, it's a "meritocracy" but it's still largely dependent on who's got the money because they can afford the best players and player development.
The league below the Premier League is even more competitive, there are 24 closely matched sides trying to gain promotion.
The promotion and relegation system goes all the way down to amateur level. This chart is outdated but captures the complexity:
http://thepyramid.info/asp/pyramid3.asp
A big part of the appeal of local football is the knowledge that your team could theoretically get promoted all the way to the top. A closed league goes against this sense of fairness.
http://thepyramid.info/asp/pyramid3.asp
A big part of the appeal of local football is the knowledge that your team could theoretically get promoted all the way to the top. A closed league goes against this sense of fairness.
But the only way that could realistically happen is if a large corporation or a wealthy individual bought the local club and replaced all of it’s players with significantly more expensive ones and I don’t see what’s particularly appealing about that.
The closed American leagues are actually much fairer at least to the teams that are in them, TV money is split more evenly, there are caps on how much money can be spent on players and the teams at the bottom of the league table get more chances to acquire the more talented players due to the draft systems. Whereas in European football the pretty much the only thing that matters is how much money a club has to spend.
The closed American leagues are actually much fairer at least to the teams that are in them, TV money is split more evenly, there are caps on how much money can be spent on players and the teams at the bottom of the league table get more chances to acquire the more talented players due to the draft systems. Whereas in European football the pretty much the only thing that matters is how much money a club has to spend.
AFC Wimbledon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFC_Wimbledon
Combined Counties League divison 2 -> Two below premiership. Who beat a the team now 4th in premiership (West Ham) two season ago.
No wealthy individual replacing all the players, just fans.
Combined Counties League divison 2 -> Two below premiership. Who beat a the team now 4th in premiership (West Ham) two season ago.
No wealthy individual replacing all the players, just fans.
I kind of agree, but as all clubs have some sort of wealthy owner it becomes more about how well you use your money rather than how much you have.
There are plenty of examples of rich clubs performing badly and less rich clubs punching above their weight.
There are plenty of examples of rich clubs performing badly and less rich clubs punching above their weight.
This so such a reductive analysis, no there is not an illusion but an acutla fact that good well run clubs can not only win titles ( I.e. Leicester City 2015) but they can also join and stay in the league and slowly come quite close to being a strong club ( check BVB in Bundesliga).
American sports system on the other hand doesn't work on fairness at all and just the illusion of competition hence has so little penetration in SE Asia ( check how many people watch American sports and football in India, Korea or Japan).
Americans have a hard time admitting they are not the best at everything just because their currency runs Supreme.
American sports system on the other hand doesn't work on fairness at all and just the illusion of competition hence has so little penetration in SE Asia ( check how many people watch American sports and football in India, Korea or Japan).
Americans have a hard time admitting they are not the best at everything just because their currency runs Supreme.
This whole thing was a fiasco.
ESL would be participant would have been better off by fighting for the right to negotiate their TV rights individually
ESL would be participant would have been better off by fighting for the right to negotiate their TV rights individually
I think it's more cultural differences. The same happens with formula 1. Haas still at bottom.
So given that the Super League won't work, what then _will_ work?
It seems to me that innovations can come from two forces:
1) Fairness: Make teams operate fairly. Audit thoroughly, no slap on the wrist for violating Financial Fair Play, salary cap (I can dream can't I?), etc. Given how our society favors the capitalist over the regulator, all efforts on this front have amounted to mere asymptotic jokes.
2) Eliteness: Make the league the creamiest of the cream. Increase the magnitude of what happens when athletes with incredible talent are wedded with facilities that enhance and curate that talent. This was in fact the point of the premier league, but the Super league took it a step too far. The perception is that the "magic" in a game between Real Madrid and Manchester United (Goliath and Goliath) is more watchable than a game between Derby County and Manchester United (David and Goliath). Except that Derby County can win that game, have won that game, and the resulting dreams instilled in people (not just fans of Derby County, but fans of United) comprise the very source code that makes sports worth watching: a tale of the impossible that parallels and informs everyday life. Some men with $$$ in their eyes just don't seem to grasp that, for all their "finger on the pulse" bragging. Or they did, but felt that the source code could be rewritten and that's all that matters.
The "Eliteness" front tries to maximize the quality of a sport just short of steroid use: story of the goose that laid the golden eggs. But what about fairness? How can we set up incentives for that?
It seems to me that innovations can come from two forces:
1) Fairness: Make teams operate fairly. Audit thoroughly, no slap on the wrist for violating Financial Fair Play, salary cap (I can dream can't I?), etc. Given how our society favors the capitalist over the regulator, all efforts on this front have amounted to mere asymptotic jokes.
2) Eliteness: Make the league the creamiest of the cream. Increase the magnitude of what happens when athletes with incredible talent are wedded with facilities that enhance and curate that talent. This was in fact the point of the premier league, but the Super league took it a step too far. The perception is that the "magic" in a game between Real Madrid and Manchester United (Goliath and Goliath) is more watchable than a game between Derby County and Manchester United (David and Goliath). Except that Derby County can win that game, have won that game, and the resulting dreams instilled in people (not just fans of Derby County, but fans of United) comprise the very source code that makes sports worth watching: a tale of the impossible that parallels and informs everyday life. Some men with $$$ in their eyes just don't seem to grasp that, for all their "finger on the pulse" bragging. Or they did, but felt that the source code could be rewritten and that's all that matters.
The "Eliteness" front tries to maximize the quality of a sport just short of steroid use: story of the goose that laid the golden eggs. But what about fairness? How can we set up incentives for that?
In the Premier League (as well as Formula 1, for example) there is positive feedback that keeps the top teams at the top. Being successful means that you make more money (whether directly through prize money, or indirectly through sponsors), and you can use that money to keep yourself on the top. Seven clubs have won the Premier League in the last 30 years (of which two have only won it once). If you support one of those top five or six clubs - good for you. If you don't, then you don't have a realistic chance of seeing a league win in your lifetime.
Whereas in the NFL the playing field is much more even. The player salary cap means that teams are limited in the ways that they can outspend each other, and there are various mechanisms that advantage the worst performing teams compared to the best (draft position and schedule). This means that with the right moves (usually the result of new leadership) your team can go from bottom of the pile to Superbowl contender in a short span of years. If you are a Jaguars fan and your team is picking #1 in the draft next week after getting one win last season, you can realistically hope that you might be supporting a good team in a couple of years. In the last TEN years, there have been EIGHT Superbowl winners despite what is considered to be an unprecedented period of dominance by the Patriots.
This makes the sport more interesting to watch as a fan - it's not the same few contenders year in year out. Even Formula 1 is moving in that direction for the good of the sport - bringing in spending limits and evening up some of the prize money distribution.