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

101–110 of 234 posts

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

#101

Post by jonwinstanley »

kingosticks wrote: post #49
samfisher83 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Barca and real Madrid are two of the richest sports franchises in the world. Look at all uefa champions. They are all the big spenders. It's already a system of the haves and have nots.

> Barca and real Madrid are two of the richest sports franchises in the world In addition, it's also worth pointing out that those two clubs are also massively in debt: https://www.football-espana.net/2021/01/27/real-madrid-accou... https://www.football-espana.net/2021/01/25/barcelona-on-the-... If (when?) this new league falls through it'll be interesting to see what happens to big clubs like these that, despite all…

This is a point not talked about enough. These huge clubs possibly rushed into the forming of a super league because the pandemic has made the pain of their debt even more acute. Most of their money comes from TV but no fans paying for tickets does reduce their income significantly.

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

#102

Post by solidasparagus »

kasey_junk wrote: post #28
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?

There's only 32 NFL teams and even when the crappy ones play internationally, they draw huge crowds. And that's because it's a closed circuit so the level of play of the worst teams is much higher than the worst teams in European football. The NFL as a league is also designed to have a much higher degree of parity than European football. There are also fewer games, which increases the importance of each game. These rules are dictated by the NFL (more or less) because the goal of the league is to make the league successful by being fun to watch.

The NFL might distribute money evenly, but only among the select, limited number of teams that the NFL allows to be a part of the NFL brand.

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

#103

Post by jonwinstanley »

slantyyz wrote: post #91
cloudfifty wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Thanks, that's much clearer than the explanations I've seen before. So it's basically the price to void the existing contract instead of moving the player with his contract.

You aren’t only voiding the existing contract, you also have to pay the market rate for the player.

The contract is between the club and the player, nothing to do with the league.

A club “owns” a player under contract, so if someone wants to buy the player, they can ask for whatever price they want and turn down any offer if they choose.

Often the costs have a lot of conditions included to protect the buyer and incentivise the player. Such as more money after a number of games played and more money if they win a trophy etc.

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

#104

Post by fumblebee »

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…

This seems to miss the point entirely. The furore wasn't from further commercialisation, it was because a cartel of greedy clubs tried going solo and breaking tradition with the ladder system, where Leicester can win the Premier League or Greece the Euros. Most footballers are born into humble backgrounds, meritocracy matters.

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

#106

Post by rkangel »

This article presents a simplistic "UK football good, American football bad" viewpoint, but there some aspects to how the NFL is run that are desirable. Primarily here I'm talking about negative feedback.

In the Premier League (as well as Formula 1, for example) there is positive feedback that keeps the top teams at the top. Being successful means that you make more money (whether directly through prize money, or indirectly through sponsors), and you can use that money to keep yourself on the top. Seven clubs have won the Premier League in the last 30 years (of which two have only won it once). If you support one of those top five or six clubs - good for you. If you don't, then you don't have a realistic chance of seeing a league win in your lifetime.

Whereas in the NFL the playing field is much more even. The player salary cap means that teams are limited in the ways that they can outspend each other, and there are various mechanisms that advantage the worst performing teams compared to the best (draft position and schedule). This means that with the right moves (usually the result of new leadership) your team can go from bottom of the pile to Superbowl contender in a short span of years. If you are a Jaguars fan and your team is picking #1 in the draft next week after getting one win last season, you can realistically hope that you might be supporting a good team in a couple of years. In the last TEN years, there have been EIGHT Superbowl winners despite what is considered to be an unprecedented period of dominance by the Patriots.

This makes the sport more interesting to watch as a fan - it's not the same few contenders year in year out. Even Formula 1 is moving in that direction for the good of the sport - bringing in spending limits and evening up some of the prize money distribution.

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

#107

Post by watwut »

samfisher83 wrote: post #4
anthk wrote: post #2

IDK about the rest of Europe but in Spain soccer is highly tied to local cities/towns and lesser cathegory leagues, as if the big soccer teams were built up from the smallest grounds. Trying to convert that into a "Hollywood" soccer kind with "fireworks", elitism and expensive/luxury consumerdom/PPV like is the recipe for a disaster and to dis-joint the huge regional fandom of each team. On major events such as final…

Barca and real Madrid are two of the richest sports franchises in the world. Look at all uefa champions. They are all the big spenders. It's already a system of the haves and have nots.

There is difference between:

* system of "haves and have nots" where haves have advantage,

* two tiered system of "haves and have nots" where haves have build in advantage in the rules and have nots have additional disadvantages on top of lack of money.

Also, making everything into dichotomy where something not being perfect is a reason to make it even worst is also a very American cultural tendency. No, just because it is not perfectly fair now does not mean it is ok to make it even less fair. And just because solution of problem is not perfect does not mean it is pointless.

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

#108

Post by nradov »

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…

How many Man City players are actually from Manchester? I fail to see the connection to the local community.

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

#109

Post by hambast »

Mordisquitos wrote: post #98
rizz0 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> In essence Man City is Man City because they are not Bolton I fully agree with the spirit of your comment but, to be fair, Manchester United is in Trafford, which is as much "Manchester" as Bolton is...

Trafford is 20 minutes walk from the centre of Manchester. Bolton (or Horwich as it now) will take you a couple of hours. Also Trafford has been Manchester for as long as the club has been there (and it was Manchester when it was Newton Heath).

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

#110

Post by OldHand2018 »

hambast wrote: post #109
Mordisquitos wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In essence Man City is Man City because they are not Bolton I fully agree with the spirit of your comment but, to be fair, Manchester United is in Trafford, which is as much "Manchester" as Bolton is...

Trafford is 20 minutes walk from the centre of Manchester. Bolton (or Horwich as it now) will take you a couple of hours. Also Trafford has been Manchester for as long as the club has been there (and it was Manchester when it was Newton Heath).

Whether you support City or United has been a cultural thing going back 100 years. It kind of defines you and where you fit in. I know some people that have had season passes for City for 50+ years, passed down from father to son. It is totally part of their identity.

Geography only plays a small part of this.

Post reply on HN