The Premier League Problem

Just to give a little perspective to all the Donnabees in this forum who are frustrated that MLS doesn't let their club achieve its SuperClub potential. Here is why, despite the high level of play, the Premier League leaves me cold.

As of this writing, the Premier League is just over halfway through its season, with all teams having played 18 - 20 games out of 38.

At this point, if you look at the bookmakers' odds, two teams have a good chance of winning the league. (Odds are given for William Hill and Ladbrokes):

Man City: 8/13 ; 1.61/1
Man Utd: 7/4 ; 2.62/1

There are two or three long-shots:

Spurs: 10/1 ; 11/1
Chelsea: 50/1 ; 51/1
Arsenal: 66/1 ; 81/1
Liverpool: 100/1 ; 151/1

William Hill doesn't even have odds posted on the other fourteen teams in the league; Ladbrokes odds for the rest start at 750:1 (Newcastle) and go up to 7500:1 (Blackburn, Bolton, and Wigan).

In other words: the smart money right now has the Premier League, just over halfway finished, as a two-team race.

The relegation battle is a little more open by the nature of the bet (three spots to fill instead of one); there are seven teams with better than a 10/1 chance of relegation, according to both bookies -- although Bolton, Wigan, and Blackburn are all pretty close to even odds with half the season to play (all around 1.5/1).

In other words: there are eleven teams--more than half of the league--that know that they have less than a 1 in 10 shot of either winning the league or being relegated. And England isn't the worst-case scenario. The #3 team in La Liga right now has an 80/1 shot at the title.

Again: this is not a few weeks from the end of the season; it's the halfway mark. There are still four or five months worth of games to play. By way of comparison: right now, 25 of the 30 NHL teams have better than 100/1 odds to win the Stanley Cup (compared to 5 of the 20 Premier League teams).

That's what I see when I hear people talking about "unleashing" Seattle and New York and L.A. from the salary cap and letting them spend unrestricted amounts of money. And I don't like it.

I'm sure the first response is going to be that there are still European places to play for. Did they have odds on those?

Well there is this thing called the Champions league, teams want to win that, that mean being free to spend money like crazy.

Our CCL is not as popular, so there is no pressure to get better to win that for MLS, maybe if we go say 10 more years with out winning it, we may see that pressure go up.

If the EPL had a salary cap then they would have to say good bye to winning the CL.

Imagine if in the NFL, the AFC had a salary CAP of 50 million, and the NFC had no salary CAP.

What we would get is a very “competitive AFC tournament” with equal teams.

The best players would go to the NFC and concentrate on a few top teams (say cowboys, Giants)

Then the NFC will win almost every super bowl (playoffs give smaller teams a chance over long seasons).



I guess it is a good thing the USA teams can not play in the Champions League, otherwise the calls to get rid of the CAP would be much lauder.

No; the closest was the "Top 4" odds. There are six teams seriously contending for the top four spaces at midseason. I don't know what the odds look like on fifth place and the Europa League spot.

Which is nice for the teams at the top. In the Champions League era, England has had nine teams in the group stage; five teams who've been in the group stage more than once; and two teams who've won the Champions League.

If you were a Blackburn fan, which would you rather have? Memories of playing in the Champions League in 1995? Or a realistic shot at having your team finish better than sixth in the league (Their best ever post-Bosman finish)?

Or take a league like Scotland as an example. Since the SPL was formed, only two teams have ever won the league (and only three teams have come in second). And only two teams have ever qualified for the Champions League. And as a result, you have two teams drawing 50,000 fans a game, and nine teams drawing between 3,000 and 10,000 fans a game. The bookies only even take odds on two teams to win.

If MLS gets unbalanced, without the massive Premier League television revenue sharing to prop up the perennial losers, it's going to look a lot more like Scotland than England.

I don't disagree with the point about the UCL. However, the UCL/Europa League set up isn't without its detractors.

I know several Tottenham squads that were "miffed" at missing out on the UCL and didn't give a damn about the Europa League and kind of silently rooted for an early exit in order to concentrate on the League and thus, the UCL.

Relevance ? You've got to win/finish high enough in the League. Take a look at those odds again.

Now, take a look at the teams that are in contention for a UCL/Europa slot .... and check their odds of winning the league at the halfway mark. It's a joke.

^ the last two years have drastically changed that thought process. Our CCL is gaining popularity at a very steep rate (and more so with our players/coaches).

Not necessarily.

I mean, our league here could stay capped but still grow large enough to compete with any league in the world.

The cap itself isn't a limiting factor of anything in terms of what a team can achieve. There are many other factors involved.

If? Check over there <------

But I agree, the EPL sucks as a fan of anyone but the top 4-5 teams. Probably why I tend to follow lower-league teams outside of England.

Solid post. The predictability of those leagues far outweighs any excitement derived from the much-hyped quality of play.

Germany will be Interesting, they are the closest thing to a CAP with their new rules, and lets see how they do against the other big 3 in the CL.

With things being equal (say 2 similar markets) what would win out, a few top teams (Spain) or a more balanced set of teams (Germany). Not they are equal in terms of population and economy.

You are right, if MLS were as popular as the NFL in the USA, then a CAP would not be a limiting factor regarding production of teams.

We may see this play out between us and say Brazil and China, two different systems with 2 countries with economies that will some day be close to ours (relative speaking).

In Europe the EPL is by far the biggest revenue getter

http://www.arabianbusiness.com/epl-tops-global-league-for-revenues-deloitte-281664.html

If EPL teams were to share revenue evenly they would receive

115 million each.

Compared to:

87.5 for each German team.

75.05 for each Spanish team.

74.7 for Italy.

So the question will be all things being equal, would it be better for one of the top leagues to share their revenue (or equalize cost) while the others do not?

Spain has arguably the best two teams in Europe right now, but the most unbalanced league of the top 5. is that better than Germany with a very good balanced league, but teams that are not as good as the top 2-4 EPL, Liga, Serie A?

It would make a very interesting case study if one of the top 5 were to implement a MLS (or NFL) type salary CAP and Revenue sharing (TV money at least).

I do wonder if some type of hard CAP would be Illegal under the EU competition rules.

A duopoly is a problem in any system, but much of MLS' competitiveness steams from a playoff system, not the restrictions of the cap IMO. You don't have to look any further than Mexico to see that a very competitive league is possible without a salary cap.

Besides, the EPL has a half dozen great clubs right now and three or four others that can give them a run on any given day. It's highly competitive. That's simply not comparable to what we are seeing in Spain or Scotland IMO.

I guess the question is, those Champions league teams that were neither winners nor runners up in their home competitions, what do their odds in the champions league look like?

For most teams, the Champions league is mostly about big payday games against the powerhouses. That's why Europa league is such an afterthought, it's basically the minor leagues of Europe.

That's why I like having playoffs. Even without having financial parity, if the EPL had playoffs there would be a lot more teams with a shot at winning the league and a lot fewer teams with nothing left to play for.

They can always win the FA cup, or any of the other cups competition.

$115 million would see the top clubs at around Aston Villa level in terms of what they could afford. It probably would see a very welcome depression of wages, particularly for domestic players.

In theory the leagues could grow, but there's only so much domestic tv revenue to be had, and it would take a mammoth growth in overseas revenues to get back to levels the top clubs currently enjoy.

At a time when the top two in Spain are reaping the riches of tv deals weighed entirely in their favour, the odds of the premier league quadrupling its income by bring a cap in would look a "brave" decision, even to the most optimistic.


I don't think there'd be a legal issue to bringing in a cap if all parties agree. I just don't see much agreement from the top sides, who'd have everything to lose. You might see a few restraint of trade cases coming forward from players wanting to sign for the club of their choice, but being prevented due to cap rules.


I think it's also be hugely risky from an overseas audience perspective too. Those fans in China who support Man Utd/Chelsea etc want to see Man Utd doing well. If Man Utd are mid-table they are liable to switch to watching Barcelona instead.

It's hard to prove, but I've often thought the cap is one reason why US sports are one of the less successful cultural exports. Overseas fans, who'll invariably start "supporting" a club when it wins a championship, will lose interest the following year when the team breaks up to stay under the cap.

It's more about tv revenue and international exposure, although a few 70,000 crowds certainly do help.

Makes overseas fans looks like bandwagon fans. Look at the NY Yankees. You can find their hats anywhere in the world like Barca or Man U. Probably the only American team you can say that about.

Couldn't disagree more. There are maybe two great clubs. Then about four challengers bunched together. Then the filler clubs and relegation gang. The talent gap is huge between the top clubs, middle, and bottom. It is not highly competitive. Yes on a given day Fulham can beat Man U, but over the course of a season, it is the same big clubs always winning.

No, it is not Scotland or Spain, but it is not a competitive league.

noone cares about Yankees. outside of Japan and States, you'll have better luck with Bulls, Lakers and Red Wings jerseys.

Yes, playoffs can give an illusion of parity, but MLS has real parity, not just playoff parity. Since 1996, eight different teams have won the Supporters' Shield. In the same time period, three teams have won the Premier League. And for much of that time, MLS was a ten-team or twelve-team league.

It goes beyond the numbers, too. Look at Los Angeles' history for the past eleven years. Two straight first-place finishes. A bad year, then a good year, then a bad year with a good cup run. Three terrible years, followed by three first-place finishes.

That's a record you just don't see in the English leagues. Sometimes a Man City will go from average to good with an influx of money; sometimes a team will go bankrupt and slide down the table. But barring some financial calamity or windfall, teams are pretty predictable from year to year.

As for England...

No, they can't.

In the post-Bosman era, the FA cup has been won by:

Chelsea (5)
Manchester United (4)
Arsenal (4)
Liverpool (2)
Portsmouth(1)

Yes, sometimes smaller clubs win the League Cup...because the big teams play their academy team instead of their first team.

It depends on the country, Venezuela, Panama, North Mexico (pacific coast), Puerto Rico, Dominican Republic, those are Baseball countries, I would Imagine NYY hats are popular there (maybe Korea).

it has more to do with overseas already having strong good leagues/sports.
it's like - ummmm --- promoting soccer in the States?
Even harder. Take away Latino fans.
Also, exporting live sports products is difficult in itself. It's not like exporting a Hollywood movie. It's more expensive, harder, it takes longer. You aren't trying to make a "hit", you are trying to attract repeat eyeballs with good live production values. And you can't just translate Stan van Gundy & crew. You have to rebuild significant part of the product locally and live.
It's more expensive, harder, and there's competition in place. Americans more or less invented movie industry. They didn't invent sports. Therefore the difference.

also, overseas fans "invariably start supporting a club when it wins a championship"? that's a weird statement.
for one, you start with a sport, not a team. If overseas fans don't give a shit about the NFL, why would they start supporting Packers?
And secondly, you are picturing overseas fans as bandwagon fans as opposed to American fans. Which sounds like complete BS.

yes, i didn't mean to exclude anyone. Japan, US, locations around the States border. And some small countries that combine for 1/3 of Japan's population and don't really care about it all that much.

I couldn't say for other countries, but in the UK it's just an iconic "New York" logo. Baseball has nothing to do with it, and such a hat will be worn by people without the slightest interest in baseball.

Plenty of countries in Asia, for example, had no history of strong sports leagues.

None of that happened before European soccer took off over there.

Look at supporters of overseas clubs and the clubs they support. Unless there's some specific connection, they don't support the average teams.

Probably because the championship winning game was the one that got them into the sport. Or when they started watching, they found the winning sides the most interesting and most exciting, and that little bit glamorous too.

Go round the world and try to find Aston Villa and Everton fans, or fans of Valencia or Udinese. Try Man Utd, Barcelona and Juventus, and it's rather easier.

Overseas fans are bandwagon jumpers. When watching from overseas there's nothing at all that would normally draw you to any other than the top sides. People like the big "brands". They are shiny and exciting.

I even bet that overseas fans of those clubs are usually do to having a favorite player that used to play for that team, the person used to follow the players and then became fan of the team.

My Mexican team is due to a guy named Jorge Comas who I used to watch on TV with the Red Sharks in the early 90s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jorge_Comas

He is long gone, but I am still a fan of the team (even when they are shit in both the field and front office).

Perhaps, but if you look at the last ten years -- since MLS was restructured before the 2002 season -- it's much more concentrated. There were early wins for Chicago ('03) and San Jose ('05), but the LA, Columbus and DC United divide 8 of the last 10 titles, including the last six.

It will also be interesting to see if DP spending starts to influence that -- personally, I think it has and will so even more. I've talked about it in enough threads now where I won't repeat it, but I see significantly less revenue sharing of and more opportunities to spend that extra revenue on players. That's helped LA make this run IMO, and I think that's the trend going forward if the rules don't change.

As for England, clearly Liverpool, Chelsea and Arsenal are not what they were in recent past. The grip of the gang of four seems not so tight today. It's also true that most of those titles in the EPL era have been accumulated not by this quartet, but by a single club -- Manchester United. In that respect, England isn't so much like Spain, it's like Germany IMO, where there are many good clubs, but a single club has historically had to stumble for the others to have a chance. Even so, there are enough competitive teams at the top that specific results are not predictable, particularly when the top six teams play each other, aren't as automatic in England, and that fuels its popularity.

Right now, you're pretty much guaranteed to get a CL winner from either Spain, England, Germany, or Italy. The CL is in the same sort of position.

I say Spain, Italy and England.


(will be Spain)