I think you're quibbling, my friend. I've made an admission against interest here. I concede that Sunderland isn't big enough where it is likely to win the league in the foreseeable future. Absent more patronage, they aren't in a large enough market to generate the necessary money, whether you toss in another 400,000 or not. Where I disagree with the OP is that it somehow devalues the Premiership, at least as far as Sunderland is concerned. The notion that "people won't care if their team has no chance to win." I don't think that's true, and, more importantly for MLS, I don't think the converse is true either: just because a league is structured so any team can with the title doesn't mean a large audience will find that league appealing. Here's a hypothetical for you. Let's assume Sunderland could actually pack up and join the SPL. Without the EPL revenue, Sunderland's revenue would plunge and their wage bill would have to be slashed. Still, they may have enough match day revenue that they could actually win the SPL. Is it better to win the SPL, or is it better to be a mid table team in the EPL? If winning a title with access to European football is the end all, by all means pack off to the SPL. I doubt fans or the club would prefer it -- indeed Rangers and Celtic continue to make noises about going the other way. It isn't simply winning the prize, I submit, but the level of competition is important too. I'm sorry, I do not feel badly for Sunderland because they are unlikely to capture the title. The fact that they are a mid sized fish in a very big pond -- with lots of revenue from the league to plow into payroll -- isn't a tragedy for a team from a market like this.
regarding Sunderland, I think it depends on who you ask. For local fans, they probably want to keep competing with Newcastle and get an occasional W on Liverpool. It's about tradition. Although who knows. Celts and Rangers want to join the EPL because they see themselves as top Euro clubs and they don't see any chance for that in Scotland. It makes sense. And they'd be taking their rivalry to EPL, and that's the only rivalry they really care about. And they think they can be very very competitive in the EPL. Their attendances are insane, and if you have Man U and Chelsea visiting, revenues would go insane as well. Add TV money. Add the fact that their brands are still pretty strong outside UK, and that would get revived if Celtic / Rangers are on EPL programming. They could be right up there in the $200 mil club and fighting for Euro spots in a couple years.
You will end up with bigger cap and you might see Columbus types signing an extra role player or two. But you won't have a Beckham somewhere. Or you will have less marketing somewhere, or you will have less community projects, or you'll have people getting cheap on a stadium. In the end, it hurts the buzz in the big markets where it's the most expensive to grow a brand and it doesn't create that much buzz in the small ones. It makes no sense to rush. Btw, didn't you write a sequence of posts just a few days ago about how national TV revenue will help all these small market teams stay competitive? Why the 180?[/quote] Yes, again, TV has to be part of the solution, but that has to be coupled with changes to the revenue sharing formula. Teams like LA look like they can get more TV money from their local deals than the national deal for the foreseeable future. If a huge amount of TV money -- the local money -- isn't shared, national TV alone won't fund all of this. Growth is fine. Growth is good. But if much of it is in retained revenue it's going to destabilize the league. As that money concentrates, we'll see more exceptions and loopholes in the equalized salary budget over time which will pave the way for some of this unshared revenue to flow into payrolls. I think that's inevitable. The small market teams won't have an equalized cap, and they won't have much shared revenue either. What I'm proposing is to let the growth happen -- to even be less hung up on having every team have an equalized cap number -- but get a broader revenue sharing mechanism in place now to keep some of the smaller teams viable in the future. No, they won't have the same payroll and they may be less likely to win the MLS Cup, but better revenue sharing will keep them viable and with higher calibre players than they now enjoy. And in a playoff system, they'll still have a punchers chance. It's not perfect, but it's the best solution I can offer. The current solution on offer -- keep the cap affordable and low so everyone can compete -- isn't likely to help grow the shared revenue streams as you describe. And, yes, in some respects that's similar to the EPL, at least insomuch as the shared revenue would fund a good portion of a small team's payroll. But what, exactly, has the EPL done that's so evil here? They've allowed teams to spend money and grow and they are redistributing a good chunk of that wealth. Yes, Wigan may not win the title, but a city the size of Wigan wouldn't even get the chance to compete in MLS, much less get the other teams to fund it's payroll with shared revenue.
Allow me to offer my rebuttal. Ten years ago, fans of Man City probably said the same thing. I doubt Blackburn fans in 1985 thought they had a shot at winning the league. Hell, Man United fans hadn't seen league glory for what was it, 20 years? Back in 1974 when they got relegated, few would have ever dreamed that they would equal or surpass Liverpool's domestic record in 37 years. How many Chelsea fans in 1992 thought they'd get 3 Premiership titles in the next 19 years? Times change. Clubs change. Ownership changes. What Liverpool fan seriously thought in 1990 that in just 21 years, United would win 12 titles and they'd win zero? That's not a good argument to not support the EPL to me.
Many of your example predates the PL and the changes that occurred with the vast increase in TV revenue. You are correct that it is impossible to predict the future, though I wouldn't have faulted a Blackburn fans pessimism in 1985, seeing how they were not even in the first division at the time. There really is no argument to be had here. English fans love and support their football. In the end, that is all that really matters. The fact that I, as an American, don't find the league competition compelling, or view pro/rel as little more than a bottle of Laphroaig scotch wiskey dangled in front of an alcoholic, means nothing.
MLS is run by pretty smart people. i like revenue sharing. and i like what the EPL is doing. I just don't agree with your particular idea. ok. I assumed you applied it to my post. Because, you know, it was a big part of your reply to me. But if it was a random rant on people in some other threads, well, fair enough. payroll growth has been significant. from under-30 to over-80 mil in the last 5 years. or if you take away expansion, ~80% per team. but league wants a few Beckhams instead of wasting that money on an extra role player for each team. 3 DPs don't kill competitive balance. But they add huge marketing potential. So it's smart. I'll try to explain it again. for NBA, national TV + 30% gate revenue = ~33% of NBA total revenue. That's not counting local TV money. Like Lakers 150 mil a year local TV deal. Why is such % unrealistic for MLS, long term? Soccer leagues actually tend to depend on TV more than basketball - or baseball, or hockey. Because there are less games and less gate revenue. You made a big deal of local TV. But most teams won't get them. Or rather, they may get them, but they will never be big. Again, look at NBA numbers. You want 30% revenue sharing. Why exactly can't it come from national TV + gate tax? Minor detail, but you can't compare 10 mil revenue sharing with MFL payrolls. There will always be DP and such. Again, minor detail, but it didn't look right. ok, lets think this through. if you say the league will grow enough to get to 200 mil in total cap.... then where do you think that money will come from? if you want to share 200 mil, it's got to come from somewhere. you say that national TV won't bring much money. You say that Galaxy and such will have good local deals but most will not. You say gate revenues are stuck. So... sponsorships? Or do you think Galaxy's etc deals will be THAT huge? Something's got to grow. You are skeptical on main sources of growth yet you believe in league growth and 200 mil sharing. if it gets there, everything will grow. Btw, 20-25 years? That's a HUGE period of time. Premier League domestic deal is right now is at ~$1 bil. In 20-25 years, it's probably at $2bil or more. Inflation, growth, competition among media. that's just domestic TV rights. they don't even include internet broadcasting rights.
and im repeating myself. but again. growth costs money. it costs more in big markets because they are bigger and more competitive. Galaxy winning the title was barely noticed in LA, local TV ratings were crap. They need a lot of growing to do. And they aren't exactly profitable (if at all) from what we hear. Take away 30%, what do they do? Do they operate and try to spend at a huge loss? Sit and relax like Chivas? Galaxy aren't spending most of their money on salaries. Take away 30%, you aren't just making them more 'equal' on the pitch. You are cutting into their business side and growth. MLS needs to be relevant in these big markets. And while Galaxy seems to be clicking, they are still a midget in that market, moreso than most small market teams in their markets. You don't really want to impede them now. When all you'd "win" from it is an extra mediocre player on Columbus, Caps and Revs. And that's why MLS needs to slowly grow into revenue sharing, rather than rush with this 'share 30% NAOW' idea.
Not in relative terms perhaps, but in a hypothetical franchised EPL it most certainly would have a place.
True, but I was just tacking it onto "a city the size of Wigan wouldn't get into MLS". In a franchised English top tier, Wigan certainly wouldn't get into it. ...then again, in the earlier days of English football, the league looked very favourably on northern clubs, partly in an effort to stop rugby league getting too big (it only really exists in the north). Some incredibly weak northern teams got elected into the league. Teams like Workington came from towns of only 25000 people. How they were meant to support full-time football is beyond me. The question for MLS is whether it'd prefer to have a smaller market that would grow because of lack of other local sports competition, or a larger market that'll be harder to get support for. For a large city it'd be something of a no-brainer, but then again has MLS actually refused anyone entry because of the size of the market?
It's an interesting question. I guess it comes down to "can Canada get an MLS team no.4?". Ottawa, Edmonton, Calgary are all ~ the size of Liverpool. I don't see any realistic options of that size in the States.
LOL no. The Liverpool Metro population is a little over 1m. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_United_States_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas That list shows a few that would fall in the "realistic" category. Now, if you want to debate probable or feasible, that's a different story. Realistically though, yeah there's a few here in the States.
Metro Liverpool is only about 100,000 people smaller than Salt Lake City... but the British ONS doesn't define a metro area in the same way as the US making such comparisons irrelevant. For example, within Liverpool's ceremonial county alone there are about as many people as in greater Memphis
There's a lot of politics in that list. Go with Nielsen If it's not top 50 on that list, it's not a major league city.
so you are saying that there are cities in the States? duh once MLS expands to 40 teams, Rochesters and Tucsons may get a look. Until then, I don't see them as realistic options for MLS. If you do, I'm interested. But if you merely want to discuss if they are realistic options for some other, imaginary sports league, or discuss semantics, I find it a bit boring.
well SLC is that small on paper. only once you exclude Ogden etc re Liverpool - you may be right, idk. anyway, wiki has the metro slightly over 1 mil and the county at 1.3. So that's the size people are talking about. 1 mil +- pennies. If we were discussing England, and what would happen if American pro sports went to England... they'd probably look at Liverpool as part of a big Liverpool-Manchester urban area rather than a separate market.
that would never fly to an English person, but in any case both would qualify for teams under current American standards. A more accurate comparison to an American metro area would be the British "travel to work area", which is exactly what it sounds like... Liverpool's is home to 1.5 million people, roughly Nashville or Milwaukee. Manchester, meanwhile, has 2.6 million in it's TTWA, slightly larger than Denver.
ok. i didn't want to talk about Liverpool / England though to be honest. i wrote that post because I was interested in the 'small market with no sports options' vs 'niche in a big city' question. 1.1 or 1.3 or 1.5, there are no realistic options in the States. All the ~1.5s have major teams except the ones where you won't get any public funds for stadiums. So there are likely better options. which leaves Tucsons, Birminghams and Rochesters, and I just don't see it. Now Ottawa might make more sense. Capital, the 4th Canadian team, natural rivalries, Canadian national TV money.
So rather than there actually not being any realistic options ... it's now become "likely better options" and "I just don't see it." Fact and opinion are two different things. Unless you're WhiteStar and DCU1996. Is that what you are ? I really hope not. However, if you're honeslty going to sit here and try to tell me that places like Milwuakee, Memphis, OK City, New Orleans aren't "realistic" as options when SLC is smaller than all of them and is not only in the leauge, but well supported ..... I'm just going to point and laugh at you before calling you out each and every time you post that trash. It's absolutely "realistic" to look at these places as possibilities.
it turned to "likely" when it comes to 1.5 mil cities. i still don't think they are realistic targets. But there may be a better chance. It goes back to the original question - what's better, a Milwaukee with 2 major teams + Packers as basically a home team, or possibly being the big fish in Rochester. BrodieQPR has cleared up that actual Liverpool (1.5m) is bigger than official metro (1.1m) which I was using as the filter. Therefore the change. If Brodie said that Liverpool is actually a 10 mil metro, the answer would get even more different. I adjust to facts, and I acknowledge when I'm wrong. I try to avoid blind stubbornness or telling people how I'm going to "laugh at them". I think it would be immature. Also, the original post was "I don't see any" realistic options. I never said my view is a fact, and I always stressed that it's how I see it. In every single reply to you. You take a lot of time trying to write smart stuff. Please, take 1/10 of it to read and understand. As I've said before, SLC is much bigger than any of them in reality. Ogden and Provo are both a 20 mile drive away from 'paper' SLC metro. There's an extra 1 mil people living in those two areas. only 1 major sports team, well over 2 mil people, no other options within 300 miles. It's an awesome market. If we are talking SLC level markets, I think Orlando is likely to be in the 20-24 expansion wave.