Heaven's a very boring place, Dud. You'll find that over the millennia.

[RichardL]

Just over a year ago my team, Reading, clinched promotion to the premiership for the first time in history. The chairman called it the fulfilment of a dream and few fans disagreed. At the start of the season the talk was of possibly staying up. A comfortable mid-table finish was dreamworld. And here we find ourselves in 9th, with a bottom half finish regarded as disappointing, but strangely a lot of fans aren’t as pleased as you’d expect. The truth is, despite all the hype, the premiership just isn’t that good.

Don’t get me wrong, it has a lot of good points. For those of us who can shudder at the memory of seeing the Madejski Stadium 90% empty for Autoglass Trophy fixtures, having it sold out every week is something that’s very easy to get used to. The football we can play is a usually a joy to watch, and is as far removed from the Cretaceous growl that almost sent us to the 4th division in the late 1980s as a medieval traitor’s head is from his body.

The chance to watch in large modern stadiums is a gift to those who recall years of standing out on exposed terraces, fending of the uphill rain that always greeted away terraces in grounds that often looked capable of blowing away in a stiff breeze.

But being in the premiership? It’s nice, don’t get me wrong. I certainly don’t harbour a wish to be travelling to Burnley and Cardiff again in a hurry, but it’s hard to escape the feeling that you’ve gone up in the world and moved to a posh new neighbourhood, only to find you really can’t stand the neighbours.

For a start, a lack of major trophies is now seen as some kind of insult by fans who appear to think they’ve turned up to play top trumps rather than watch football, regardless of how long ago their own successes may have been. “Where were you when you were good?” being the only fitting riposte to Aston Villa fans displaying that week’s incomprehension of the phenomenon of promoted teams seeing their crowds rise, with the answer, on the whole, seeming to be at least 50% still inside their mother’s ovaries.

Then there’s the media coverage. If you get past the fact that bi-polar disorders are a prerequisite of premiership journalism, with every slight fluctuation in form extrapolated into a runaway train of results, you get struck by the fact that most experts, beyond the big clubs, really don’t have a clue what they are talking about. And what’s worse, nobody seems to care. The marks out of 10 in papers are always 7s and 8s for the winning team and 5s and 6s for the losers, regardless of how closely fought the game was. In 9 months of the season the BBC’s flagship premiership highlights programme, analysis of my team’s season has yet to get beyond the fact that we “have pace”. We don’t even have pace, not exceptionally anyway. One of our key players is Glen Little, who’d need time-lapse photography to even look moderately brisk.

Then there’s the ticket prices. It’s not a good sign when you think a ticket is cheap because it’s only £32. The club chairmen always come out and say ticket prices are competitive. Competitive with what exactly? The Opera? Ringside seats at a world title fight? The price of the Koh-i-Noor diamond?

And to watch the premiership itself, watching two teams battle it out in a four-horse race, without even a glimmer of an underdog to go for. Even the battle for fouth, to see who gets the last change to stick their snout in the trough of champions league cash, is lacking as the 5th team is Bolton. As much as everyone admires Bolton, in football terms they have a face only a mother could love, so the rest leaves little to enjoy but the Schadenfreude of seeing how humorously everyone else can underperform.

You have to go back nearly 25 years for a time when the relegation battle was more interesting than the battle at the top, as that was in the peak of Liverpool’s dominance. But even then, you still felt Liverpool owed their superiority through knowing how to blend a team, rather than just being able to outspend everyone.

And yet the premiership is the most popular league in the world. Where logic may dictate that fans should be turning off, they are tuning on in ever greater numbers. Why? The answer is simple, as are the viewers. In a world were the most popular tv shows are homogenized throughout the world, where everyone has their own big brother and pop idol and all the myriad of derivatives, where formulae are as likely to be studied for a media studies degree as a chemistry one, the premiership delivers exactly what today’s undiscerning viewer wants – exactly the same show as last week.

Just as the viewer, fingers poised for the phone vote, wants every single series of pop idol to be exactly like the last one, and will never tire of watching the latest batch of fame-seeking morons demonstrate their shallowness on big brother, the armchair fan, seemingly gaffer-taped to his sofa, will never tire of seeing the same 4 teams at the top. They are the top teams, so why spoil it by letting any of the supporting cast do anything other than lose to them? They are merely a plinth for the big 4 to stand on. And they like that the teams that come up struggle. After all, someone like Fulham has been in the premiership for as long as they can remember. Why spoil it by replacing them with a team of nobodies from elsewhere?

At the rate the wealth gap is increasing currently, it’ll soon be a league with four Harlem Globetrotters and 16 Washington Generals, and we’ll all know just how much the public tired of watching those games.

The premiership is as comfortable as an old pair of trainers, and as challenging as an episode of Friends. And just as pretty much everyone tunes is for “…the one where they do something similar to what they do every other week” the premiership has found its formula for keeping that TV money rolling in.

[purojogo]

an article that supports your view....albeit only to a degree:



La Liga's middle-men a cut above (http://soccernet.espn.go.com/columns/story?id=422183&root=europe&cc=5901)

I'll admit that i tend to agree with Ball on this one.... and regularly watching EPL through FSC/FSE , La Liga (thank you GolTV) plus CL matches (ESPN2/ESPN Deportes) ..my POV has not changed much in the last couple of years.....

[Spry]

Very nice contribution here. I've long shared similar thoughts about the EPL. Especially the part about the British sports media. The stories they cook. The drudery of the news and ridiculous catch phrase headlines have made me appreciate the MLS all the more. The EPL is nothing more than a circus act with a soap opera wrapper and the same ending year after year. There's a show on FSC called 'Dream Team' that epitomizes all points made herein. Here's a hint. The plot is unoriginal.

[M]

Champions League cash has simply destroyed competitiveness between the top four and the rest. It really is that simple. Yet there are few signs that the public are growing weary of this state of affairs. Ignoring the increased capacities at Man Utd and Arsenal, attendances at the rest are down about 3%. And almost certainly this small decrease is due to ticket prices more than a lack of competitiveness.

[os_mutante]

Great post, but you kinda contradict yourself a little. On one hand, the same formula of always having the four big dogs and sixteen poodles is a winning one of "same thing next week." Yet you also reference Globetrotter - Generals games, and how that gets really boring.

I dunno, from past experience on here I know it's anathema to compare it to American sports... but parity is exactly what resurrected the NFL and the lack of it is what is slowly killing baseball. The fact that we have playoffs for everything alleviates the problem somewhat; but every fall becomes, "Will the Yankees stick a World Series win on top of their regular season dominance?"

The point about CL money is good, too. And the TV money. I wish I could say the actual match-attending fan can make the difference by just not showing up, but as long as there's some revenue sharing on some level, it looks like the future of a lower-tier team staying afloat whilst NOBODY is actually going to the games and the clubs are playing for empty stands might not be far away. Hell, lotsa small baseball clubs have been doing it for decades.

[Bill Schmidt]

an article that supports your view....albeit only to a degree:



La Liga's middle-men a cut above (http://soccernet.espn.go.com/columns/story?id=422183&root=europe&cc=5901)

I'll admit that i tend to agree with Ball on this one.... and regularly watching EPL through FSC/FSE , La Liga (thank you GolTV) plus CL matches (ESPN2/ESPN Deportes) ..my POV has not changed much in the last couple of years.....

Exactly. This is a huge point that gets lost in the whole celebration of the English teams in the CL. I've seen a comment in The Guardian that La Liga is open because the big teams don't want it enough. No possibility that, maybe, La Liga is deeper with talent?

[M]

Exactly. This is a huge point that gets lost in the whole celebration of the English teams in the CL. I've seen a comment in The Guardian that La Liga is open because the big teams don't want it enough. No possibility that, maybe, La Liga is deeper with talent?

Is it? Seems to me that the top four in England are not only dominating in England, but starting to do the same thing in Europe as well. Only Barcelona in Spain seems competitive at present. So maybe England is less competitive because the top four have become so darned good? Otoh, you can point to the UEFA Cup and make an argument that Spain is deeper. But if we look, for example, at the Spurs v Sevilla games, I would say that those sides were pretty even, with the tie effectively coming down to an awful penalty decision that went in Sevilla's favour - and Sevilla are in second spot in Spain right now. And I'm not sure what a then crap Newcastle beating a now crap Celta Vigo tells us...

[DoctorD]

Great post Richard. I'm glad that MLS - granted playing at a lower level than the EPL - has already taken steps to prevent the ossification that you describe.

[Beau Dure]

Great post, quite provocative.

I think the solution might lie with reforming European play, particularly the UEFA Cup.

Here's a test-balloon proposal (possibly a lead zeppelin, but we'll see):

- Rather than base Champions League qualification strictly on how teams finish in domestic leagues, institute a relegation system. If you finish near the bottom in the Champions League, you're out the next year -- unless you WIN your domestic league.

- Give the UEFA Cup a massive overhaul, splitting it into regions and making many more elite-level (EPL, La Liga, etc.) teams eligible, along with other top teams (a few from Holland, a couple from Scotland, champions from smaller countries). Winners from each region could have playoffs so that the UEFA Cup itself may still be awarded.

- You could even have a couple of "divisions" of the UEFA Cup with promotion and relegation. Take ALL top-level teams from Europe's major leagues.

So playing your way into the Premier League would also mean playing your way into some form of European competition. Your team would have more home games and might not feel compelled to charge 35 pounds for cheap seats. And the dreariness of facing Bolton and Blackburn all the time would be broken up with the occasional home date against, say, Rangers or Ajax.

What do you think?

The upshot would be might very well

[mik_smith]

right on brother. i moved to london in 1999, and ended up a palace supporter (and season ticket holder) because i thought 1st division soccer was more entertaining than the premiership. as much as i loved going to cardiff and being promoted, even then it was clear we were in for a long tough year. (and for all the moaning, at least you guys are playing football --i spent a whole year watching palace's back 4 aim high balls for andy johnson). but anyway, here's my five and 1/2 reasons why the coca cola is better from a fan's point of view.

1. any of about 15 teams can win or get promoted in any given year. even watford.

1a. playing for 1st (or 6th) is way more fun to watch than playing for 17th.

2. more variation in playing styles. there's some ugly football, no doubt, but at least it's honest hoofing. there are also teams trying to play their way up. you might even spot target men or wingers. it's better than watching 17 teams clogging the midfield and trying not to lose.

3. better seats. cheaper.

4. you're right: condesenscion from the press is worse than being ignored.

5. even cardiff supporters are preferable to chelsea's.

good luck next year.

(oh yeah, i agree with those who think that a euro-league would be the best thing for domestic football -- get the big 3 or 4 out and it's a wide open league)

[MannyMayhem]

an article that supports your view....albeit only to a degree:



La Liga's middle-men a cut above (http://soccernet.espn.go.com/columns/story?id=422183&root=europe&cc=5901)

I'll admit that i tend to agree with Ball on this one.... and regularly watching EPL through FSC/FSE , La Liga (thank you GolTV) plus CL matches (ESPN2/ESPN Deportes) ..my POV has not changed much in the last couple of years.....

Excellent point, Richard. I also would add that the English speaking media (UK and USA) are better at polishing turds and hyping stuff up beyond belief like no other in the world. Ergo, if the Brit press says "EPL is the best!" then it must be.

That article from ESPN is an interesting one and I think it does have a point. Watching La Liga, there aren't many times when I think "Ugh! This is gonna be a dud game cause team x is gonna get the crap kicked outta them"

Also, trumpeting 3 EPL teams in the final has about as much to do with a favorable draw and Chelsea facing a Barcelona side that was at half strength at best. (a full strength Barca would have ended Chelsea's dreams in short order once again) as it does with quality. No doubt, the 3 sides are very good teams, but they did have a bit of luck getting there.

[triplet1]

I confess I hold the contrary view.

My grandfather was a Villa supporter from an early age and remained one long after he left Birmingham for the United States. For me, Villa conjures up fond memories in a way no other English club can. Even so, given the choice, I would choose to watch one of the Big 4 any time.

Spending seemingly limitless money on players is one thing, spending it well is quite another. Chelsea, Manchester United, Liverpool and Arsenal have assembled international teams of tremendous quality, lead by brilliant managers, that quite simply are wonderfully entertaining to watch.

You can debate the relative aesthetics of each, but you cannot deny that each, in their own manner, have grit. Much is expected of them -- few clubs in the world fall under more scrutiny or pressure -- yet they bear up and perform week after week. It is hard not to admire that, their bulging pay envelopes notwithstanding.

Nor do I believe that the Big Four's dominance of the EPL will be perpetual. Arsenal's future looks murky today, just as Chelsea's was not so long ago. Who is to say Newcastle, Spurs, Everton, West Ham or Villa might not achieve as much should a friendly billionaire suitor come to call? The era of the Big Four may be more fleeting than many think.

Which is why, for now, I will enjoy watching the best in the world compete in one of the world's greatest competitions while it lasts.

[M]

Also, trumpeting 3 EPL teams in the final has about as much to do with a favorable draw and Chelsea facing a Barcelona side that was at half strength at best. (a full strength Barca would have ended Chelsea's dreams in short order once again) as it does with quality. No doubt, the 3 sides are very good teams, but they did have a bit of luck getting there.

Not really. Don't forget that the four English teams all won their first round groups, thus earning being seeded for the next round. As for Barcelona, that really sounds like sour grapes to me.

[SankaCofie]

Hell sucks too my friend.

And as a U.S. sports fan I would much rather have a few big teams to hate with a passion than a sports landscape where few teams repeat championships and the title is passed from one team to the next like a spliff at a phish concert.

Makes it seem like its only a matter of luck / time til you get to buy the little Champions shirt / hat combo, as opposed to actually having a team / ownership group who actually has its act together and EARN it.

And heaven forbid you do actually win because then your team is quickly dismantled and you get to go back to another decade of utter crap before they challenge again (unless you're from Boston, bastards.)

[Spry]

and the title is passed from one team to the next like a spliff at a phish concert.

Ahhh those where the days

[RichardL]

Nor do I believe that the Big Four's dominance of the EPL will be perpetual. Arsenal's future looks murky today, just as Chelsea's was not so long ago.

It may not last forever. In fact it almost certainly won't, but the gap between those with prime seats aboard the gravy train and the rest is wider than it's ever been, and is just getting wider.

20 years ago the top clubs were making perhaps twice as much as the average teams. Now it can be five times as much.


Who is to say Newcastle, Spurs, Everton, West Ham or Villa might not achieve as much should a friendly billionaire suitor come to call?
Nothing, but when it might require a billionaire prepared to lose a few hundred million to get his team to that next level, it's not a good sign.

[StiltonFC]

Since my English football viewing is not from the away stand but from the couch, I have a skewed view of all this. Having recently watched Liverpool dispatch M'bruh for the umpteenth time, on a sweet goal by SG and a dodgy PK, I can say that watching the lads hoof it around the park for 90 minutes was tedious except for 14 seconds of bliss. I've had better toothaches.

The match promised to be a lacing by the Reds, but in the end, only a cracker by the skipper made it look like Liverpool deserved the three points. What I felt watching the game is this: professional sports can be really dull. I can't begin to imagine what someone who splashed 32 quid for his seat might have thought watching "Prancing with the Stars" from Anfield, featuring Alvaro Arbeloa and Andrew Davies.

We do like our results. Three points is three points. But it might have been nice to have a watchable football match to go with the victory.

[Der Stich]

Great post, but you kinda contradict yourself a little. On one hand, the same formula of always having the four big dogs and sixteen poodles is a winning one of "same thing next week." Yet you also reference Globetrotter - Generals games, and how that gets really boring.

I dunno, from past experience on here I know it's anathema to compare it to American sports... but parity is exactly what resurrected the NFL and the lack of it is what is slowly killing baseball. The fact that we have playoffs for everything alleviates the problem somewhat; but every fall becomes, "Will the Yankees stick a World Series win on top of their regular season dominance?"

The point about CL money is good, too. And the TV money. I wish I could say the actual match-attending fan can make the difference by just not showing up, but as long as there's some revenue sharing on some level, it looks like the future of a lower-tier team staying afloat whilst NOBODY is actually going to the games and the clubs are playing for empty stands might not be far away. Hell, lotsa small baseball clubs have been doing it for decades.

Not quite.

MLB's attendance is excellent, though tv ratings for the playoffs and World Series are down, as the ratings are down for EVERYTHING (because we 10x more viewing options and Tivos).

MLB breaks attendance record; Yanks draw 2nd-highest ever
Sep. 30, 2006 (http://majorleaguebaseball.sportsline.com/mlb/story/9696051)

NEW YORK -- Major League Baseball broke its season attendance record Saturday and was on track to finish with the second-highest per-game average in the sport's history.

The 30 major league teams drew 75,470,941 through Saturday, topping the 74,926,174 fans who attended games in 2005. The average of 31,381 was on track to be the highest for a full season, topping 1993's 31,337. The only higher average was in the strike-shortened 1994 season, when baseball averaged 31,632 before players walked out in mid-August...

Baseball will never die. The owners and player's union have tried their hardest but it just won't go away.

[triplet1]

It may not last forever. In fact it almost certainly won't, but the gap between those with prime seats aboard the gravy train and the rest is wider than it's ever been, and is just getting wider.

20 years ago the top clubs were making perhaps twice as much as the average teams. Now it can be five times as much.

But it is also true that eight of the 20 clubs on the Rich List in the last three years have been from England (and, in fact, ten seperate clubs made it, with Villa, Everton and West Ham taking turns.)

I can appreciate that Reading may not have the resources to match the Big Four, but both Newcastle and Spurs have gross revenues of over €100 million annually. It is hard to have enormous sympathy for them. I have even less for West Ham or Man City, certainly a weathly clubs that have, it seems, spent their riches poorly.

[rtung]

I dunno, from past experience on here I know it's anathema to compare it to American sports... but parity is exactly what resurrected the NFL and the lack of it is what is slowly killing baseball. The fact that we have playoffs for everything alleviates the problem somewhat; but every fall becomes, "Will the Yankees stick a World Series win on top of their regular season dominance?"


Huh? You seem to be stuck in the year 2000. In case you haven't noticed, economically, MLB has never done better, and 6 different teams have won the World Series in the past 6 years. As a way of comparison, 2 teams have won the MLS Cup twice in the past 6 years, and I doubt that you have find a major European soccer league where there have been 6 different league winners in the 6 years.