US owners find greed doesn't play well in European soccer • Hacker News Board

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

#191

Post by vagrantJin » Wed, Apr 21, 2021, 5:56 PM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #176

NoOneNew wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, American Football is a game based around playing for time. What's interesting, college games are a bit more faster paced, mostly because those kids have something to prove so they can get into the NFL draft. Either way, I dont like American football without friends, snacks and booze. Baseball on TV, I feel the same, in it for the party. Theyre slow sports in reality. Though, in person, at the stadium, bas…

>To be fair, American Football is a game based around playing for time. And time for advertisements.

Let us be honest about this for once. There are no USA sports. Just ads that happen to have a sport segment.

The biggest sporting event in the US sport calendar year is known - not for the crunching tackles, not for the high flying antics, not for the pin in the needle plays...no sir - it is known for ads. Superbowl ads are bigger than the sport. When I was younger I though Superbowl meant ad marathons.

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

#192

Post by bena » Wed, Apr 21, 2021, 6:00 PM UTC

username90 wrote: post #185

bena wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would get worse. There would be a set of 10 or so teams that would churn through promotion/relegation, a set of 5 or 6 teams that would win every year, then 16-ish teams that would basically serve as farm teams for the 5 or 6 big teams. The money available overall to each team is vastly different.

What if you want to see the best players play against each other rather than be spread out among all the weak teams in order to optimally farm their budgets? The American style ensures that there will never ever be strong teams.

Due to contracts and the draft, you'll never have that regardless. And then there are the areas where clubs are allowed to spend with abandon: the front office. Coaching staff, player personnel, analytics, etc.

The "American" system does allow for strong teams, but it tries to make sure that there's more volatility from season to season.

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

#193

Post by cableclasper » Wed, Apr 21, 2021, 6:06 PM UTC

So given that the Super League won't work, what then _will_ work?

It seems to me that innovations can come from two forces:

1) Fairness: Make teams operate fairly. Audit thoroughly, no slap on the wrist for violating Financial Fair Play, salary cap (I can dream can't I?), etc. Given how our society favors the capitalist over the regulator, all efforts on this front have amounted to mere asymptotic jokes.

2) Eliteness: Make the league the creamiest of the cream. Increase the magnitude of what happens when athletes with incredible talent are wedded with facilities that enhance and curate that talent. This was in fact the point of the premier league, but the Super league took it a step too far. The perception is that the "magic" in a game between Real Madrid and Manchester United (Goliath and Goliath) is more watchable than a game between Derby County and Manchester United (David and Goliath). Except that Derby County can win that game, have won that game, and the resulting dreams instilled in people (not just fans of Derby County, but fans of United) comprise the very source code that makes sports worth watching: a tale of the impossible that parallels and informs everyday life. Some men with $$$ in their eyes just don't seem to grasp that, for all their "finger on the pulse" bragging. Or they did, but felt that the source code could be rewritten and that's all that matters.

The "Eliteness" front tries to maximize the quality of a sport just short of steroid use: story of the goose that laid the golden eggs. But what about fairness? How can we set up incentives for that?

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

#194

Post by OldHand2018 » Wed, Apr 21, 2021, 6:11 PM UTC

vidoc wrote: post #180

rossitter wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of curiosity, what do you mean by "stoppage"? I think baseball does have a pacing problem, but it's really cultural more than anything else: games are about 1.5x as long today as they were 50 years ago, even though in terms of what happens (number of pitches, batters, etc.) they're basically the same. Unfortunately the main way to combat this, the "pitch clock" rule, is unenforced. I can't imagine why. I don't un…

> Out of curiosity, what do you mean by "stoppage"? When players or coaches call timeouts (I don't know if this is the official name), even tho there is no clock to interrupt, to interrupt the flow of the game at key moments. > I don't understand what you mean by your "dishonorable gameplay" example. What does amortizing a ball mean to you? It took me some time to find out, but this is what I was refering to https://…

The Eddie Gaedel stunt was perpetrated by Bill Veeck [1], who came up with so many baseball stunts throughout his life and had many rules changed in reaction to them. Apropos to this discussion is that he is also the last person to buy a major sports team in the US without being massively wealthy.

A few days after that Eddie Gaedel stunt, Veeck did another one where the fans got to decide everything that the team did during the game, by holding up cards to vote.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Veeck

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

#195

Post by Sleepytime » Wed, Apr 21, 2021, 6:15 PM UTC

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…

Is it really £100/m to watch on tv? That sounds almost unbelievable.

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

#196

Post by ksec » Wed, Apr 21, 2021, 6:19 PM UTC

NoOneNew wrote: post #126

rkangel wrote: post #106

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…

I think that's why the golden era of Man Utd (last 15ish years with Fergie at the helm) wasn't that good for American fans. Yea, it brought in some (me)... but after a while, I found myself not caring about seeing a game if it wasn't against Chelsea or Liverpool. Even then... After 2 years of that... whoopie... Man Utd got another win against, oh look an ant is struggling to carry a cookie crumb. That and diving. Ser…

May be it is just me, but my memory of old football in the 90 /00s wasn't like that at all. No Match was too easy, No Team were unbeatable.

Despite the old Analog TV, No 4K, No HDR, No 60fps, No Super Complex Codec, but the intensity was there. Something was transmitted from the field to audience in front of the tele. You can feel Roy Keane is about to punch somebody in the face if they dont make one more step or dont chase after the ball. And that is how time and time again Man Utd make their comebacks.

If we ignore the big teams like Liverpool, Man U, Arsenal, I remember Leads had the Australian pair Mark Viduka and Harry Kwell, Alan Shearer in Newcastle, Paolo Di Canio in West Ham, even Bolton Wanderer has Jay-Jay Okocha. Every team has a fighting Chance. And football was so much more fun back then.

I think somewhere along the line Football becomes very commercially focused. And big money flowing in means there are far less Middle Class Team. ( Sounds like our society in general ). And with less competition, along with players just dont seems to give a fuck about anything other than their pay cheque. The game becomes less interesting.

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

#197

Post by fumblebee » Wed, Apr 21, 2021, 6:21 PM UTC

marcinzm wrote: post #120

fumblebee wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

iso1361 already made the point well.

There’s a non-zero percent chance for upsets in the current system. In ESL there’d be no chance. Zero. Zilch. That difference is fundamental and transcends the collective psyche of world football.

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

#198

Post by slg » Wed, Apr 21, 2021, 6:22 PM UTC

iso1631 wrote: post #179

slg wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are using the generic definition of "contenders" and not the way it is traditionally used in a sports context (at least in the US). "Contending" doesn't mean merely participating in a league. It means having a realistic shot at winning the title. The specific teams that are in the league don't change much in the NFL anymore, but the teams that are near the top of the league are much more fluid in the NFL…

> It means having a realistic shot at winning the title "If Leicester City win the premier league I'll do MOTD in my undies"

Leicester City is the exception that proves the rule. They were the first first time winner since the 70s. Besides that year, there are basically 4 teams (although I guess it is now 5 if Liverpool can actually win) that have just traded the title back and forth for the last 25 years. Meanwhile there has only been one repeat Super Bowl winner in the last decade with 8 teams winning over the last 10 year span.

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

#199

Post by xapata » Wed, Apr 21, 2021, 6:22 PM UTC

solean wrote: post #116

xapata wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not Leicester, as far as I know.

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

That explains the arrival in the Premier League, but not winning it.

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

#200

Post by treis » Wed, Apr 21, 2021, 6:46 PM UTC

kingofpandora wrote: post #150

treis wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 ma…

Are you saying Arsenal is one of the top 12 teams in Europe? The Super League was not about merit but rather brands recognition.

538 has them at 12th:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/global-club-soccer-rank...