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

81–90 of 234 posts

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

#81

Post by zelos »

rizz0 wrote: post #37
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 th…

> 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?

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

#82

Post by fedreserved »

jhoechtl wrote: post #77
programmertote wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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' trans…

> 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.

Any links to help me go down that rabbit hole would be greatly appreciated

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

#83

Post by jonwinstanley »

programmertote wrote: post #52
formerly_proven wrote: post #30

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.

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' trans…

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.

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

#84

Post by caddemon »

arbitrage wrote: post #69
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 be…

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

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

#85

Post by rchaud »

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…

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.

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

#86

Post by djrogers »

addicted wrote: post #57
kasey_junk wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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 te…

> 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).

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

#87

Post by cloudfifty »

slantyyz wrote: post #76
cloudfifty wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

> .. 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 w…

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.

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

#88

Post by rchaud »

arbitrage wrote: post #69
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 be…

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.

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

#89

Post by enaaem »

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 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.

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

#90

Post by JohnBooty »

gmtx725 wrote: post #70
JohnBooty wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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?

Post reply on HN