The Premier League Problem

There's a difference. The Sacramento Kings won't win. Fulham can't win.

EDIT: I completely agree with your post above where you say American college sports are more like European club soccer than American pro sports.

 

In 2013 eventual champion Florida State was 11th and 12th in two preseason polls and eventual second place team Auburn didn't get votes in either preseason poll, so I disagree with your 6-7 number.

 

Current title front runners in the Premier League were 7th last year. 7th out of 20 versus 12th out of 120+?

Let me explain it this way. At the start of the season 5 teams were realistically talked about as maybe getting the title (not including Liverpool in this). That's 25% of the league. According to wiki there are 125 full FBS schools. 25% of that would be 31 schools.

So you are right I was to small in listing 6-7 teams I was over exaggerating. But even if there are 31 teams at the start of the season with realistic shots at the title (which I would argue there aren't), you are looking at the same level of competitiveness in college football as the premier league. But the fans turn up, and nobody is calling college football games glorified preseason games.

 

I couldn't care at all who wins La Liga, but I tuned in to watch El Clásico both times this year.

It's almost as though people chose to watch soccer for complex reasons.

 

OK, but I think there's a small amount of "having it both ways" here. It's 25% of the league if the relegation fight is meaningless. Otherwise, it's not 5 out of 20, it's 5 out of all fully professional teams in England, which is the top 92 plus many teams in the Conference and even below. Are you willing to concede that? Because if you are, a huuuuuuge percentage of Premier league matches are meaningless, much higher than we're used to in the US.

For the record, I think that arguments about which model is better is akin to arguments about whether ice cream is better than pizza. Some people like one, some the other, and lots of people (like me!) are sometimes in the mood for pizza, and sometimes in the mood for ice cream.

People that strenuously argue that the European model is better, I think, are kind of daft. It's one thing to prefer it; some people don't like pizza. But "better?"

Also, the typical pro-MLS parity argument isn't so much about "better" it's about "economically viable." And I agree. I don't think the American sporting culture will support an MLS where there are 24 teams, and half of them are no hopers (barring a miracles playoff run.) MLS in those 12 cities will wither down to nothing.

 

I think this "games in England are meaningless" thing is an issue of culture. If Everton makes the Europa League, it's a successful season. DC made the Champions League last year, and their season was a train wreck.

The reasons for this are complex, about money and sponsorships and attracting players, but it's ultimately cultural. In baseball, making the postseason is a successful year for most of the teams. In basketball, getting knocked out in the 1st Round of the playoffs is, arguably, the worst thing that can happen to a club.

 

I remember when Friedel was at Villa, they tanked the EL every year. It was freaking weird; the reason they tanked it was because they didn't want the distraction of the EL to interfere with their league campaign. The goal of which was to qualify for the EL. Literally an insane, incoherent approach to things.

Spurs does kind of the same thing. They don't take the EL very seriously because they want to make the CL, and they don't want EL matches distracting them.

So you've got a situation where clubs like Fulham will take the EL seriously because that is the limit of their ambition. But typically, it's what I call the 2nd tier clubs (Everton, Villa, Spurs, Newcastle when they're competently run) who take the league-allocated EL spots, and they almost always tank the competition because their ambition is to make the CL.

IOW, theoretically, you're right. But in my observation, as a practical matter, no.

 

Everton's goal isn't to win the Europa League. No one's goal is. But getting there, (especially in a pre-14 world where 1/4 of the CL spots went automatically to United) is a feat.

 

???

Then isn't the success in coming in 5th or 6th, and NOT in qualifying for the EL? I mean, how is it successful to get access to a competition you don't take seriously?

TBH, I think what's happening is that you're embracing English rhetoric about these things, and not skeptically wondering if the rhetoric is BS or accurate. I know what clubs like Everton SAY about qualifying for the EL. But what they DO, I think, supports the argument that qualifying for the EL is "meaningless" (meaningless in the context of this discussion, which is whether or not an Everton match in April that has a large bearing on whether they make the EL or not is worth watching as anything more than a glorified friendly. In my opinion, it's not worth watching as anything more than a glorified friendly. YMMV.)

 

But doesn't 6th feel more like 5th when Arsenal wins the FA Cup and 6th gets you into the EL, too?

 

Well, yes. Making Europe shows domestic status. I imagine if the Europa League didn't exist, they would set their goals differently, like "we want to maintain last season's position."

It doesn't make these April EPL games similar to friendlies, though. League position is a big deal. Just like an Olympic runner sees a difference between no.6 and no.8, so do Everton fans. No.6 is fine, no.8 would be a pretty bad season. It's not like American pro sports, where you are either a playoff team or a lottery team, and if you are a lottery team then you might as well finish dead last.

 

I've been slow to get into the Rapids this season in part because this season's English Premier League is so gripping, though I'm one of those that doesn't have a team so I watch the best game each week- unlike in MLS where I mostly just watch the Rapids.

One thing I like about the EPL and college football is that games have multi-year consequences. How long will it take ManU to get back into the top places without Champions League money and prestige? I don't know, but I'll be interested to find out. However, MLS has some of that because of the designated player rule (if Seattle and Portland ever have success on the field, will they attract all the best future players? I don't know, but I'll be interested to find out!).

Posters here are not the first ones to point out the "problem" of Europa League qualification. Is the EL more trouble than its worth? Liverpool's success may have been aided by the fact that they were not in Europe this year, and they did not have long runs in either domestic cup. On the other hand, Atletico Madrid credit their Champions League success to their Europa League experience. And perhaps Chelsea should too, both teams won the EL in recent years.

 

It's not the teams that get relegated on the regular that I feel the most pity for, its the teams that always exist in a constant state of purgatory in the middle of the table.

Your Newcastles and Aston Villas. They don't seem to really do anything besides exist for decades...

Its not entirely comparable to college sports because first of all, college sports has different leagues within the top flight. There's a reason schools in the MAC are in the MAC and not the Big10 or ACC. European soccer is like having the MAC in with the Big10 or ACC and pretending like its actually one league.

Secondly, colleges are multi-sport institutions. Usually if you're a good basketball school, you tend to suck at football and vice versa.

 

After 2008-2009 Newcastle United got relegated. They returned by easily winning 2009-2010 League Championship. The nine clubs with the longest current continuous streak of being in the Premier League are Manchester United, Manchester City, Liverpool, Tottenham, Fulham, Aston Villa, Chelsea, Everton, and Arsenal.

 

I knew someone would be so pedantic to point this out.

Congrats for one season they were bad enough to get sent down. Washes away the decades of inaction before and after...

 

That's true, but I think before passing judgment on the two models, it's worth remembering why this is so.

How many big clubs can even England and Wales, with their 56M people combined, support?

A few years ago Garry Cook, during his stint at Man City, caused a stir by suggesting in an interview that the number was only ten. Strip away the sentiment, and Cook said a streamlined ten club Premier league with NFL Properties type collective marketing and revenue sharing would be the most competitive, lucrative league in the world. (I've put the text and the link below).

Cook was shown the door long before his ideas ever got any traction, but I suspect he's right that a ten team league would be highly competitive, and if clubs were well run each might have had the same expectation that NFL teams have of having a turn in the sun and winning the league.

And all the EPL needs to do in order to achieve that kind of parity is to ruthlessly cut the cord and shed a lot of smaller clubs.

You see Cook knows his history because that's exactly what the NFL did.

Along the way to becoming the quintessential parity league, the NFL got rid of every small market team it had, save Green Bay. (And even the Packers spent 50 years dividing their time between Green Bay and Milwaukee, which was the 12th largest city in the country when the Packers started playing there in the 1930s). Why didn't more small market and smaller big market teams survive? The NFL didn't want them too, that's why, and it adopted policies and enforced rules in such a way as to drive them out. Between 1920 and 1932 no fewer than 40 separate teams were part of the NFL at some point, some for only a season or two. When NFL commissioner Joe Carr finished his makeover of the league before his death in 1939, he had reduced it to -- yes -- ten big stable teams. Once paired down, the NFL found it much easier for like minded teams to work towards parity. It's not a coincidence that some of the first parity policies -- the NFL player draft -- didn't start until most of the weak teams were eliminated.

But for reasons of history, tradition and practicality, the English structure (on which most of Europe is based) has elected to have a league with big and not so big clubs alike. The little guy gets a seat at the table, but admittedly it isn't an even game. Still, although few give them credit, the EPL sharing of TV revenue is very generous. Indeed, for smaller clubs a huge percentage of their budgets are funded by revenue they get from the league's TV deals. But even here, there just isn't enough money out there to make Stoke City or Swansea or Reading or West Brom or half the clubs in the Premiership big clubs with the resources the others enjoy. They don't have the necessary supporters, nor are they in markets where they are likely to.

You can let a bunch of the little guys in, but you can elevate them just so far. Eventually, the only way to get real parity would be to bring the big clubs down.

Bluntly, that's been the MLS model.

Robert Wagman wrote this in Soccer Times in 2008:

"MLS has always used the salary cap as a bludgeon to promote parity in the league. From its earliest days, MLS seemed to have an annual choice -- whether to bring the bottom of the league up to the same quality as the best in the league, or to bring the best back to the middle of the pack. To do the former would obviously cost money. So, inevitably, the latter course was chosen and the weapon of choice was the salary cap."

http://www.soccertimes.com/wagman/2008/jan14

Wagman's piece, entitled, "Unable to afford excellence, MLS instead seeks parity", is a reminder that MLS teams have given up something to produce the parity it now has -- the league doesn't have the same quality it would have otherwise had.

So three different leagues confronted with three different options came up with three very different choices. The NFL adopted parity rules on which MLS is based, but only after it cut loose the small teams and re-set. The EPL let the little clubs in and gave them money -- money the big clubs could now very much use with FFP restrictions -- but not so much that the could really compete with the big clubs and win the league. MLS let the little teams in and, rather than give them a lot of money, just hobbled the big ones in terms of what they could spend.

To me, the lesson is that both the EPL and MLS have probably not been ruthless enough. The strong subsidize the weak in both systems, but in different ways.



________________________________

"To maximise wealth, Cook craves a slimmed-down elite division. “If you could central-entity the top 10 teams to create a global empire called the Premier League, I would sacrifice my own club [Birmingham City] into another division for that. Do Saudi Arabians want to buy Stoke City? Or do they want to buy Newcastle, Villa, United, City? There are 10 clubs. I’d like not to have promotion and relegation. There’s an emotion around those battles but the dynamics by which fans can get their kicks can change.”

If Cook had his way, a lot will change."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...to-return-Man-City-to-top-table-Football.html

 

Promotion and relegation is a cute idea but its a total lie at the top division. There's just too much money at the very top...

The dream of starting a club and watching it climb the ranks and win it all is long gone.

Promotion and relegation might still be viable up to the second tier, but definitely not any higher than that.

 

Looking at the all time premier league table, 10 teams sounds about right. Seven teams have been in the PL all 21 years Newcastle 19, Blackburn 18, Man City 16 and West Ham 17. I figure Blackburn is out so add United, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Spurs, Villa, and Everton and you have a pretty strong league.

 

Not sure what is "pedantic" about stating that fact. And it was not a given that they would come straight back up; so I think the congratulations should be directed at that exciting season. Some clubs stay down for years. Also, Newcastle made the Champions League a few times in the 90's, so they have had a lot less "inaction" than, for example, the Cleveland Browns or the Chicago Cubs.

Perhaps you prefer a league where, when Newcastle lack success, they, after extracting public funds for a lavish stadium, move to Leeds; but I wouldn't.

 

Ok.. You try and come of as insightful, but are clearly not.

When Aston Villa "tanked" the Europa League, it was because their ambition (after they got an american owner that didn`t know what he was ding) to reach the Champions League.
They didn`t succeed.
They didn`t tank the very cup they played in to qualify for the very same cup. Absurd!

And albeit I`ll grant you that Appy Arry didn`t bother with the Europa League (though still progressing surprisingsly far), you can not have been paying attention. Before and after..

Spurs have had played with strong teams doing deep runs in the Europa League
Before and after Redknapp was in charge..
The exits to Basel last year, and Benfica this year was not because we did not want to win, or try.
It was because of bad days, especially on Adebayor`s part.

Infact, a side you would claim wanted more to win the Europa League than my mighty spurs, Swansea, did not
try very hard to win the Europa League.

The thing is, for a mediocre EPL side, trying to win the Europa League might lead to relegation as the
thrusday -sunday fixtures are grueling

The results Tottenham have achieved in the Premier League the last decade, while at the same time doing deep runs in Europa League is quite impressive IMO, considering the lack of resources compared to the big guns.

Your points had been interesting, had they not been fictional.

 

I'm pretty sure that if you looked into it, a huge, huge driver of disparity in the EPL is Champions League revenue. If UEFA decided to just pay all the clubs that get a certain achievement the same thing, much of the disparity from the CL would go away. Instead, English clubs get LOTS of money from making the group stage, making the quarters, etc., much more than a Dutch club that does the same.

It's really weird*, it's as if the NCAA gave (for example) each ACC or Big Ten team more money for making the NCAAs than they gave each team from the Big South or the SWAC.

*OK, it's really weird to the American sensibility. Maybe it isn't weird in Europe. Different places are different.

 

It`s a little bit more complicated than that. There is a standard (equal) amount to be won to qualify, win, draw, qualify further for every participant in the UCL.

The rest is determined by how much yur country has paid for the TV-rights and how far the teams from your country go in the cometition.
Hence, the team earning most last year was Juventus i think. Even though i.e England and Germany paid more for their rights, because the other italian sides were shite last year.

 

It`s not really been decades after.. more like 3 years.. And they didn`t win promotion to the EPL before season 2 of it`s existence. In fact Newcastle is probably one of the clubs that`s been relegated from the English top flight the most. Except from that your point is valid. My Spurs would have been a better example though..

 

I don't think that's ever been the appeal of the system. It why you just don't typically see businessmen anywhere setting up clubs. You have to probably go back 100 years+ to see that kind of thinking.

You get odd exceptions, such as Hoffenheim going from being an 8th tier village team to being a Bundesliga team pulling 30,000 a week, but typically every town/city capable of supporting a top tier (or even higher tier) club already has one.


What you do have, on the other hand, is the belief among clubs established in one tier, that with a bit of good management they could move up to the next and have a fair crack at establishing themselves there too.


If the premier league went for that 10 club idea it would be a big boost for clubs like Newcastle, Everton, Aston Villa, or whoever the non-Big 5 clubs would be.

For the actual current Big 5 it would be worse, as they'd win less frequently.

For the multitude of clubs permanently excluded from the 10 club league, it'd be much worse, with their status hugely diminished.

The "all markets already have a team" factor is also a big reason why the early NFL comparisons fall short. The problem isn't that too many member of the premier league are in small markets. It's that unlike the NFL of decades ago, there aren't loads of club-free markets ripe for an expansion club.


It wouldn't surprise me to eventually see a Europe-wide closed league though.