Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US owners find greed doesn't play well in European soccer

eu.usatoday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 234 posts

Re: US owners find greed doesn't play well in European soccer

#21

Post by thewarrior »

rvieira wrote: post #16
thewarrior wrote: post #11

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.

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.

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.

Re: US owners find greed doesn't play well in European soccer

#22

Post by sportsball »

Tradition is typically pretty bad at keeping up with innovations.

It's very European to cling to what was done by their ancestors rather than adapt to change. European exceptionalism has been dead since WW2/end of the cold war, and with technology we get to witness how the citizens are handling the transition.

You can find parallels with European Food and Products. It's 2nd place stuff.

Re: US owners find greed doesn't play well in European soccer

#23

Post by thewarrior »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #20
thewarrior wrote: post #11

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.

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 b…

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.

Re: US owners find greed doesn't play well in European soccer

#24

Post by oneeyedpigeon »

hyko wrote: post #19

“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 f…

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.

Re: US owners find greed doesn't play well in European soccer

#25

Post by rvieira »

thewarrior wrote: post #21
rvieira wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

> 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.

Re: US owners find greed doesn't play well in European soccer

#27

Post by jonwinstanley »

Joe8Bit wrote: post #17

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…

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.

Re: US owners find greed doesn't play well in European soccer

#28

Post by kasey_junk »

Joe8Bit wrote: post #17

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…

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?

Re: US owners find greed doesn't play well in European soccer

#29

Post by jonwinstanley »

twobitshifter wrote: post #26

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.

The league below the Premier League is even more competitive, there are 24 closely matched sides trying to gain promotion.
Post reply on HN