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

#221

Post by cycomanic » Wed, Apr 21, 2021, 9:45 PM UTC

LargeWu wrote: post #216

ldrndll wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who grew up watching rugby and only got into football as an adult, I couldn't believe the amount of disrespect players show to officials. I think I spent the first two years constantly saying "in rugby this guy would have been sent off by now" on repeat...

Same, as an American sports fan. Touching an official or yelling at them in any sort of aggressive manner is almost always an automatic foul or penalty, and possibly grounds for ejection. My only thought as somebody who never played soccer is that the decisions a soccer referee makes are much more consequential, and oftentimes very subjective. A single call in soccer can change a game in a way that doesn't happen in…

I don't think it is true that referee calls in soccer are more consequential than in e.g. rugby. In fact I would argue that in rugby a referee could make very subtle calls (that would likely not be picked up by many fans even) that can very substantially change a game, e.g. just how he referees the breakdown or scrums. Let's not even talk about giving or not giving a try etc..

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

#222

Post by borroka » Wed, Apr 21, 2021, 9:56 PM UTC

bmsleight_ wrote: post #206

borroka wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 respect…

>How can true fans support Chelsea when the money from Abramovich change the dimension, Man City were getting 30,000 fans attending in the third tier. Sunderland gets 30,000 fans attending in the third tier.

Minor characters on the European football stage with a good local following. Schalke04 in Germany, Roma, Lazio, Fiorentina (when in B, Lazio and Fiorentina were making 30k+ each Sunday) in Italy, ManCity in England. Before the oil money, at first approximation nobody outside of England knew about ManCity (or Sunderland...). My point is that teams with large local followings had a certain "spirit" (working-class City fans against the less working-class United fans, working-class Torino fans against more posh Juve fans) and tradition that has been razed to the ground by the arrival of owners who have yes a ton of money, but nothing in terms of the local culture. If I were an old-time City fan, I would not be able to support a team that has nothing to do with what the team historically represented, has nothing is terms of local property, and could play in Manchester or in London or in Newcastle and it would be exactly the same.

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

#223

Post by cycomanic » Wed, Apr 21, 2021, 10:06 PM UTC

slg wrote: post #198

iso1631 wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

As someone above pointed out a much better comparison to the superbowl would be the winner of the championsleague as the structure is more alike. There have been 11 teams winning in the last 25 years. Still less variation than NFL, but then in soccer there is much more drama throughout the season, while in NFL it's all about the playoffs.

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

#224

Post by jopsen » Wed, Apr 21, 2021, 10:22 PM UTC

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…

I was shocked when I learned that American sports teams could be bought and moved to another city.

I've never care for soccer or followed any of it. But I know enough to know that if you tried to move a big British soccer team to another city it might just set of a minor civil war.

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

#225

Post by vidoc » Wed, Apr 21, 2021, 10:42 PM UTC

Larrikin wrote: post #204

vidoc wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct, but the use of stoppage is a little bit similar to the use of timeouts in other sports, in my humble opinion. Another dishonorable gameplay of baseball that makes me hate it (my apologies for not remembering how this is called): this move batters often do to just amortize the ball so the field players can snag an extra base!

What makes bunting dishonorable? If anything it's the opposite, the player sacrifices themselves to move a teammate.

> What makes bunting dishonorable?

Well, it is obviously subjective, but bunting can be used to prevent no-hitter which is why I personally see it as disgraceful.

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

#226

Post by theluketaylor » Wed, Apr 21, 2021, 11:46 PM UTC

vidoc wrote: post #225

Larrikin wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes bunting dishonorable? If anything it's the opposite, the player sacrifices themselves to move a teammate.

> What makes bunting dishonorable? Well, it is obviously subjective, but bunting can be used to prevent no-hitter which is why I personally see it as disgraceful.

Breaking up a no-hitter with a bunt requires bunting for a base hit, which is orders of magnitude more challenging than a sac bunt. It's not as rare as pitching a no-hitter, but it's rare enough to be notable when it happens. You have to place the bunt in one of only a handful of defensive dead zones and it requires elite base running speed.

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

#227

Post by renewiltord » Thu, Apr 22, 2021, 1:33 AM UTC

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…

Well, that's a knockout vs. league outcome, right? The FA Cup has 5 winners in the last 10 cups.

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

#228

Post by Ntrails » Thu, Apr 22, 2021, 6:39 AM UTC

dustinmoris wrote: post #161

NoOneNew wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> That and diving. Seriously, fuck FIFA and all the EU leagues. They cant figure out how to deal with diving and playing for time, I cant figure out why I should care. It's painful to watch any sport where grown men fake getting hurt. This is the only football I know. That's why I was never interested in watching football as a kid and I'm still not today as an adult. I am an absolute sport enthusiast and play everyth…

Football (soccer) is by far the best game for just playing in my opinion. Two jumpers on the ground for goalposts and an open space is all you really need. It is easy to learn, fun to play, and very cheap.

It is just that the professional game is pathetic, and I don't watch it for that reason.

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

#229

Post by bmsleight_ » Thu, Apr 22, 2021, 7:42 AM UTC

borroka wrote: post #222

bmsleight_ wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>How can true fans support Chelsea when the money from Abramovich change the dimension, Man City were getting 30,000 fans attending in the third tier. Sunderland gets 30,000 fans attending in the third tier.

Minor characters on the European football stage with a good local following. Schalke04 in Germany, Roma, Lazio, Fiorentina (when in B, Lazio and Fiorentina were making 30k+ each Sunday) in Italy, ManCity in England. Before the oil money, at first approximation nobody outside of England knew about ManCity (or Sunderland...). My point is that teams with large local followings had a certain "spirit" (working-class City…

I understand your point better now - thanks.

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

#230

Post by permo-w » Thu, Apr 22, 2021, 10:40 AM UTC

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…

“What happens now? Nothing?”

Not nothing. They then get first dibs at the best youth players next season