Soccer is more American than Baseball...

[Karim]

http://slate.msn.com/id/2103170/

I guess socialism among billionaires is still socialism.

[KeyserSoze]

As european these is something I always wonder why.

The american pro sports are very communist. A fixed number of teams plays always the same leagues, without the chance of be promoted or relegated. Also there are always agreements between owners and players regarding the salaries, and there are always salary caps or something like.

These thing help to make all the teams more competitive, but it´s very communist :D :D .

But the university sports is more communist. Pro managers (it´s not the name but I hope you understand) in the universities pays big bucks to pro advisors and coaches to manage players that can´t be payed (moreless they have a fixed pay regardless their talent). Obviously they conduct to corruption in the recruitment, but, hell it´s so funny

:D

[Dutch]

Agreed 100%. We play a very communistic version of sports. You would think that it would be the American way to let the strong win and the weak be crushed, but it's not so.

What you get instead of dynasties is every team in a league having an equal shot at a championship.

In the NFL for instance, in order to allow fans in Seattle and Tampa Bay to have a shot at a title, they have made it the luck of the draw each year.

The trade off of course is that nobody remembers or cares who won the last Super Bowl because we know they won't win it next year except by blind luck.

[Mac Howard]

It's not so much soccer and baseball - the comparison between MLS soccer and soccer in the rest of the world is the same. I think the real difference comes because of the franchise system of US sports where franchise owners tie things up to protect their investment.

Surely the truth is that businessmen are always in favour of deregulation for others but always have reasons why their own operations should be regulated :rolleyes: Soccer structures in the rest of the world were set before businessmen had control (there's no shortage of club boards outside the US who would gladly ban promotion/relegation and introduce salary caps if they could).
.

[WussGawd]

Interesting article.

As a fan, however, I have a dissenting view. While as a football-loving Yank, I like the relegation/promotion system, the one thing that most American professional leagues have going for them (and baseball doesn't fit in this category due to financial disparity (see the NY Yankees)) is that, unlike the EPL next year, there's a very good chance that any of about 8-12 teams, with a little luck, and some off-season moves could win the NBA, NFL, and NHL (assuming there's a season) titles next season.

Hope springs eternal prior to the season for about a dozen and a half teams in these leagues. How much chance, by contrast, does Aston Villa really have to win the Premiership next year, when up against the likes of ManU, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, and a boatload of other teams? The answer is none. What the Premiership has is an unbalanced structure like baseball. There are roughly 8-10 teams that will fight for UEFA/Champions League slots. Out of those 8-10 teams, maybe 4 have legitimate shots to win the Premiership. The rest of the league? Their supporters enter the season with the absolute certainty that all they are going to do is try to avoid relegation. And the Aston Villas of the world, too good for relegation, too bad to seriously challenge for the top, can basically mail in the second half of the season, because they are going nowhere.

As for which system is better? I suspect that's a matter of opinion.

Mac raises a semi-valid point re. the MLS, but it's important to understand that there are less than a half-dozen owners in the whole league. Frankly, if it wasn't for the deep pockets of Lamar Hunt and Philip Anschutz (who each operate 2-3 teams in the MLS), the MLS would have died a quick, painful death several years ago. So the MLS doesn't even really fit the mold of the rest of American professional sports leagues. While it is on solid financial footing now relative to a few years ago, there aren't exactly a hundred investor groups lining up to launch new MLS franchises, as there are (or could be, if the leagues expanded) for MLB, NBA, NFL, and to a lesser extent NHL (though I expect a protracted strike could lead to contraction in the NHL's case).

Great article, btw. Very thought provoking.

[Mac Howard]

>is that, unlike the EPL next year, there's a very good chance that any of about 8-12 teams, with a little luck, and some off-season moves could win the NBA, NFL, and NHL (assuming there's a season) titles next season.

But is this randomisation of squads a good thing? Doesn't it come at the expense of continuity and destroy dynasties?

>does Aston Villa really have to win the Premiership next year, when up against the likes of ManU, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, and a boatload of other teams? The answer is none.

But only because Villa is badly managed. There's no reason at all why they should be inferior to those clubs. They have similar ground capacities to three of them. They have access to the second largest conglomeration of population in England. Well managed they should be capable of matching anyone in Europe in, say 3 years.

>What the Premiership has is an unbalanced structure like baseball.

Any unbalance comes from management failure not the structure of the game. It's a myth that doesn't stand up to analysis that three or four clubs need necessarily dominate European leagues.

>So the MLS doesn't even really fit the mold of the rest of American professional sports leagues.

But were soccer to have the support to allow more than one league I doubt it would make any difference. The franchise system wouldn't allow promotion/relegation because of the financial risk it brings. No one will put money into an operation whose financial situation could collapse in 6 months time.

The difference I think is because the structure of soccer outside of the US was defined before finance was important. Soccer clubs were mainly amateur operations and the competitive structures set up for maximum competition free from financial constraints. Where these set up today, I'm sure they too would disallow promotion/relegation (Premiership clubs have recently tried to reduce it to one team a year). I'm not an expert in US games but I think this has not been the case there. Surely the organisors of the sports set them up precisely to appeal as franchises? Relegation would not appeal to potential owners.

[WussGawd]

>>is that, unlike the EPL next year, there's a very good chance that any of about 8-12 teams, with a little luck, and some off-season moves could win the NBA, NFL, and NHL (assuming there's a season) titles next season.

>But is this randomisation of squads a good thing? Doesn't it come at the expense of continuity and destroy dynasties?

Not sure it's randomization on the scale that you think. The NBA and NHL generally see only limited player movement from year to year (maybe 20% roster turnover. I'm not sure this is much different than the average team in a topflight European league (at least from what I see following the transfer markets).

The NFL sees a bit more player movement because it has a hard salary cap (though the NHL and NBA are headed in that direction, I suspect). Still, even there, teams tend to retain the same core of skill players from year to year (DE, QB, WR, RB, etc). Even here, it isn't randomization, it's management skill. Some teams have figured out how to work the salary system, and be creative when it comes to signing and retaining talent (Lakers in the NBA, Colorado, Detroit, Philadelphia, New Jersey (among others) in the NHL, teams like Tampa Bay, Green Bay, and Philadelphia in the NFL (and a few others)

>>does Aston Villa really have to win the Premiership next year, when up against the likes of ManU, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, and a boatload of other teams? The answer is none.

>But only because Villa is badly managed. There's no reason at all why they should be inferior to those clubs. They have similar ground capacities to three of them. They have access to the second largest conglomeration of population in England. Well managed they should be capable of matching anyone in Europe in, say 3 years.

The same (bad management) could be said of a number of teams in American sports leagues, as I'm well aware living in a city with teams like the Suns (30+ years, and we've still never had a true center), Cardinals (the Bidwills, the worst owners in pro sports), and Coyotes (seem to be trying, but I probably have more money in my wallet than they do to sign free agents).

>>What the Premiership has is an unbalanced structure like baseball.

Any unbalance comes from management failure not the structure of the game. It's a myth that doesn't stand up to analysis that three or four clubs need necessarily dominate European leagues.

I'm not sure I agree, in light of the fact that, almost without exception, you can assume that Arsenal and ManU will be there year after year. This pretty much assures them the kind of revenues that most other teams in the EPL can't hope to match. Perhaps Aston Villa's not the best example in the EPL.

I'll use baseball as an example, because I think the financial structure there is probably as close as it gets to European leagues. It becomes a death spiral for some clubs. They have no money because the team is awful and isn't drawing fans, and if they try to draw fans it gets no better. Perhaps a relegation/promotion system would reward/punish management results, but it's hard to imagine a team from say, AAA (the top classification of baseball minor leagues) baseball's International League team from Des Moines being a capable replacement for a fumbling New York Mets club). This of course, raises another point. Baseball and hockey's minor league teams are financially dependent on the big league clubs, which subsidize salaries of minor league players, and own the rights to them.

>>So the MLS doesn't even really fit the mold of the rest of American professional sports leagues.

>But were soccer to have the support to allow more than one league I doubt it would make any difference. The franchise system wouldn't allow promotion/relegation because of the financial risk it brings. No one will put money into an operation whose financial situation could collapse in 6 months time.

In light of the well documented struggles of MLS (and the A-League, on a lower level) to establish themselves financially, I'm not sure they'd have the option to find out at this point.

>The difference I think is because the structure of soccer outside of the US was defined before finance was important. Soccer clubs were mainly amateur operations and the competitive structures set up for maximum competition free from financial constraints. Where these set up today, I'm sure they too would disallow promotion/relegation (Premiership clubs have recently tried to reduce it to one team a year). I'm not an expert in US games but I think this has not been the case there. Surely the organisors of the sports set them up precisely to appeal as franchises? Relegation would not appeal to potential owners.

I agree with you for the most part, but I think I'd add one modifier to your argument. If I'm up on the history of football, it spread globally on a scale much larger, earlier, than baseball (which was only exported to Japan in the early 20th Century), and even more so than basketball or hockey (American Football is still only a niche sport outside of North America).

So much of the difference relates to the transfer system, and the fact that player movement is only loosely regulated (despite the transfer window system) by soccer/football's ruling bodies relative to US leagues (at least historically).

On a purely national level, I think it is much easier to restrict player movement, and therefore, it's harder to spend money judiciously to improve one's team. This may make the financial inequities within US major leagues a bit wider than a typical top-flight European football league.

Using baseball as an example, a few years ago, the Texas Rangers stupidly signed Alex Rodriguez to a multiyear deal that exceeded the entire team payroll of the Kansas City Royals for that season (though Rodriguez's contract extended multiyears).

As another example, the Oakland A's squared off against the Yankees in last year's AL Playoffs (third year in a row). The A's payroll is roughly a third that of the Yankees, and revene streams are even more disparate for the two teams. This is despite the fact that the A's, at least in recent years, are probably better managed than the Yankees, in terms of front office.

By contrast, with a game that spread across the globe much more quickly, such as football, it becomes virtually impossible to suggest to David Beckham that he can't leave Manchester United for Real Madrid (or vice versa, as the case may be). It was even easier for this to happen in decades past (since FIFA rules on transfers have become tighter over the years, from what I understand).

To sum up, there's no doubt in my mind that the article's main assertion is true. Trouble is, a promotion/relegation system will never happen here.

[Mac Howard]

> you can assume that Arsenal and ManU will be there year after year.

Utd are certainly a case where their financial situation comes close to guaranteeing them success. It would need extremely bad management for them to face relegation. There are perhaps a couple more European clubs in the same position - Real Madrid being an obvious case.

But Arsenal are no different to perhaps a dozen or more other English clubs. They are in this group because of excellent management from Arsene Wenger. For the moment they're guaranteed income from the CL but an early exit could limit that and failure to qualify next year - maybe because of an injury crisis or loss of crucial players - could see them fall back into the crowd.

By contrast, a team like Villa could make it into next season's CL through 3rd or 4th spot in the league this season and a good run there could bring their financial situation up to that of Arsenal. Within say 3 years the position of the two clubs could be reversed. It's down to the playing and financial managements of the two clubs.

>By contrast, with a game that spread across the globe much more quickly

Yes I agree. The global nature of soccer would make it very difficult for a national association to regulate things - operating a salary cap would be disaster as they would quickly lose their best players to other associations (assuming the cap is relatively low). It is much easier to regulate things if there is little or no outside competition.

All the more reason why the MLS (and the NSL here in Australia) should look carefully at the effects of a salary cap on their ability to hold their best players. I realise that the financial situation of both is flaky but losing their best players isn't going to help (it's said that the best 200 Aussie players are playing in Europe/Asia which leaves a very poor local game with limited appeal, particularly to the media :rolleyes: )

[WussGawd]

>>By contrast, with a game that spread across the globe much more quickly

>Yes I agree. The global nature of soccer would make it very difficult for a national association to regulate things - operating a salary cap would be disaster as they would quickly lose their best players to other associations (assuming the cap is relatively low). It is much easier to regulate things if there is little or no outside competition.

All the more reason why the MLS (and the NSL here in Australia) should look carefully at the effects of a salary cap on their ability to hold their best players. I realise that the financial situation of both is flaky but losing their best players isn't going to help (it's said that the best 200 Aussie players are playing in Europe/Asia which leaves a very poor local game with limited appeal, particularly to the media :rolleyes: )

I agree on this. Having watched MLS hemorrhage most of its young stars in the past 6-12 months to Germany, England, and a few other European leagues, its painful to watch. Makes me proud to see a lot of these guys going on to shine on a bigger stage, but it's left rosters of Whodats in MLS this year, to an extent. Not sure what MLS can do though. Whether there's a cap or not, there just isn't enough cash to retain the Tim Howards and Landon Donovans of the league. Way of the world, I suppose.