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

61–70 of 234 posts

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

#61

Post by IG_Semmelweiss »

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.

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

#62

Post by da_big_ghey »

thewarrior wrote: post #39
jcfrei wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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

#63

Post by slantyyz »

technofiend wrote: post #45
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.

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.

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.

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

#65

Post by gmtx725 »

dash2 wrote: post #32
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…

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.

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

#66

Post by treis »

JohnBooty wrote: post #43
oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Ameri…

>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.

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

#67

Post by da_big_ghey »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #44
thewarrior wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 t…

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.

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

#68

Post by harryputtar »

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.

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

#69

Post by arbitrage »

lmz wrote: post #5

It's funny how they jump to blaming the Americans. Last I checked the Spanish clubs in this scheme weren't run by Americans.

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.

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

#70

Post by gmtx725 »

JohnBooty wrote: post #43
oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Ameri…

It's not completely an illusion. You had for example Leicester winning the league only five years ago.
Post reply on HN