Live data from Hacker News

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

eu.usatoday.com

111–120 of 234 posts

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

#111
post #81
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…

> 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?

Some clubs are majority owned by the fans.

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

#112
post #32
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…

Arsenal, Spurs, Liverpool are out of the Europe spots at the moment though. I want to see the best teams playing in the Champion's League, not the wealthiest.

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

#113
post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

I love those stories and agree they are fun, but aren't they also very money-oriented most of the time? I know for example Cardiff City's renaissance and brief promotion to the Premier League corresponded with an influx of foreign cash. That's undeniably massive fun for supporters of Cardiff, but decidedly un-fun for teams that did not receive such an infusion of money, and in the end it doesn't make me too jealous o…

Not Leicester, as far as I know.

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

#114
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…

If the US had relegation from baseball and football it would improve the sport.

At the moment there is no penalty for coming last in the AFL or NFL :-) oh and next year you have first pick of the best new players

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

#115
post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Not really. Leicester in particular winning was an extreme event, but any small club winning in any league, much less extreme. Remember Chapicoense?

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

#116
post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love those stories and agree they are fun, but aren't they also very money-oriented most of the time? I know for example Cardiff City's renaissance and brief promotion to the Premier League corresponded with an influx of foreign cash. That's undeniably massive fun for supporters of Cardiff, but decidedly un-fun for teams that did not receive such an infusion of money, and in the end it doesn't make me too jealous o…

Not Leicester, as far as I know.

Leicester was bought by Thai billionaires a few years before winning the league.

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

#117
post #70

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.

It happens once every 30 years and it is one of those improbable events that somewhat, someway happen, and after the event we get back to normal real quick (top teams aka those with more money in the Premier League winning, Milan, Juve, Inter in Italy, and Real or Barca in Spain, and of course Bayern in Germany). Then, there are some minor (in terms of fans, history) teams that get to the top echelon of their respective championships. But here is the catch: they go up there because they spend like crazy, like Parma, Roma, Lazio in Italy in the late 90s, early 2000s, Leipzig with the Red Bull money, and how can we forget the Real Betis and Deportivo La Coruña?

This fans reaction to the proposed ESL is ridiculous. Football is of and for the fans? How laughable. Players making millions and millions, oil money and money from suspicious financing changing teams from minor characters in the national stage to top teams (see Chelsea, ManCity, PSG). How can true fans support Chelsea when the money from Abramovich change the dimension, the spirit of the team? Or Manchester City, with working-class fans that are now supporting a team that in one week is spending more than an Onassis in a year?

My football, the "romantic" football, ended in the 80s. Certainly a time in which players were already paid handsomely, but also a time in which you could see players play for the "shirt", in which teams had an identifiable "culture" and "spirit" that was shared among players and fans. A sport, not just a pastime. I cannot stand watching a game now.

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

#118
I think nationalism played a factor, this plan would split a country's fan base between their current national league and the ESL. The fans of the big clubs invited to the ESL get to enjoy the top league and everyone else in the country gets relegated.

They should have allowed for a results-based promotion system to the ESL if you top your national league.

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

#119

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 ind…

> This makes the sport more interesting to watch as a fan - it's not the same few contenders year in year out.

I don't understand - isn't this backwards? It is the same few contenders in the NFL every year isn't it? But it isn't in the English football leagues where teams relegate and promote every year.

When did a team last join the NFL? 2002? And before then? 1996? I think beyond that you're possibly talking about the 70s?

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

#120
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.

Except it's not a meritocracy. The same clubs tend to win year over year. Those clubs then get the most money which they then invest into players so they win again the next year. That something is possible doesn't make it a meritocracy if the the system stacks the odds against it by favoring incumbents.
Post reply on HN