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

31–40 of 234 posts

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

#31

Post by username90 »

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.

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.

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

#32

Post by dash2 »

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…

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.)

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

#33

Post by jcfrei »

thewarrior wrote: post #15
rrrazdan wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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

#34

Post by jonwinstanley »

kome wrote: post #7

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

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

#35

Post by kome »

jonwinstanley wrote: post #34
kome wrote: post #7

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

beautifully put

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

#36

Post by bijant »

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.

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.

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

#37

Post by rizz0 »

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…

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.

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

#38

Post by mrob »

jonwinstanley wrote: post #29
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.

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.

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

#39

Post by thewarrior »

jcfrei wrote: post #33
thewarrior wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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

#40

Post by FredPret »

username90 wrote: post #31
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.

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.

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.

Post reply on HN