We may not know all that, but there are things we do know. Per the article I linked; Chelsea had built a relatively star-studded squad, funded to a significant extent by loans. They were in serious danger of defaulting on said loans. Bruce Buck himself said that they were going to have to rein in their spending, that they couldn't keep up inflation in the transfer market and that the ambitious, expensive signings would have to stop. We also know that they WERE NOT an established top four side. Their 4th place the season before the buyout, was their highest for four seasons. Perhaps they could have succeeded anyway but weighing up the probabilities, it's unlikely. Perhaps another billionaire could have bought them. It's just as likely (if not more so) that their debt could have crippled them competitively. They might even have gone bust. However, in the event that a different billionaire bought them and spent like RA did, the argument would be the same: their success was bankrolled. What we DO KNOW is that RA allowed Chelsea to spend in line with elite clubs at a level they could never have afforded previously. There is an established correlation between sustained success and financial resources. The probability of Chelsea being what they are today without that level of investment, is objectively low. You saying "you never know" is like me saying the EPL could cease relegation tomorrow, institute parity and title playoffs and the public might love it. They could. They very probably wouldn't.
I see your point, mine is that they wouldn't have even needed to maintain, just not fall off to far to stay in Champions league. 5th place was 56 points. And that continues for a few more seasons, I know Everton get 4th the next season with a mid 60's point total it's the same in 05-06 with Liverpool. That continues through the rest of the decade with 5th place being on 65 or lower. Doesn't really change until Man City get their cash infusion. So assuming they weren't about to have a fire sale i'd be surprised if they weren't able to maintain champs league for the next few years, which would have helped them financially and allowed them to maintain a competitive squad, which would have led to the glass ceiling developing anyways. But I do agree 100% that it required Roman's money to challenge for the title. And agree that there is a direct correlation between resources and success. I've seen a few tables out there that show this pretty graphically in terms of wages vs. league position. You get outlliers (sp) like Leicester, and Liverpool has broken the mold (in both directions) but generally you get what you pay for. And please forgive me if i'm way off the original argument but you could have pro/rel in MLS with a strict salary cap and revenue sharing. Could even have revenue sharing down the divisions.
In theory, certainly ... though how is the rest of the world (ie-all those pro/rel countries) doing with revenue sharing down the divisions? YEAH Oddly enough, when presented with the "you can have a cap AND pro/rel" it is usually the pro/rel side of the debate that poo-poos the idea based on "merit" and "artificial ceilings" and such that the cap is handicapping certain clubs.
Well there are sports that do it, both Rugby League and Union in England have salary caps and pro/rel, and English county cricket has something like that as well. Not saying they are exactly the same, just that I don't see pro/rel as the thing blocking salary caps in European football. Actually I have read a number of articles addressing the lack of parity in the English game, including articles specifically addressing a salary cap. The main sticking points I have seen are European Labor Law, which may no longer be an issue in about 18 months, the power of the big clubs, and their ability to compete in Europe. I have never seen pro/rel put up as a reason for not having a salary cap (outside of this forum). If you know of an article would be interested in reading it. as for your 2nd point, I generally stick to the narrow idea of pro/rel and how it could work within the current MLS and US soccer structure, so kind of oblivious to the wider debate by choice, after seeing the comments section on a Guardian article about San Diego soccer devolve into a flame war between Ken and the infamous Ted.
The JLeauge has wage caps for certain categories of players too. What's gloriously ironic, is that if people stopped and looked at the cap/roster rules and such for Rugby .... they'd see how moronic it is to rip American soccer for it's mucky waters. Here's even more fun .... just read what is said about the CAP in Rugby Union context and then think about what we're told their though process is about such things: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2014/dec/22/premiership-salary-cap-rugby-union A few certain posters LOVE to talk about the state of mind of people on BOTH sides of the pond in regards to caps/pro-rel ..... but looky at those comments and whom it is putting them out there. Hell, even look at the comments section ... but the only difference is that this is about Rugby rather than soccer. Quite interesting. The main contingent use it as part of the "free and open" bit of the argument/discussion. Most likely it's just a lumped in debate point. The cap is used as one of the biggest bullets when talking about the "enforced mediocrity" and other misunderstood things of that sort that the American structure is lambasted for. It's all part of the "hamstringing" argument. Honestly it's an indirect argument ... as the whole point of pro/rel and open systems is to allow for a team to shoot to the moon whether they've got enough fuel or not. Even though (relatively speaking) we've got clubs here that could, they're kept much closer to the non MLS clubs than say Arsenal is to Brentford. Not allowing Arsenal to Arsenal either to riches or oblivion indirectly defeats part of the purpose of the open, pro/rel set up.
I have a feeling there's going to be a lot of the RLU and JLeague wikipedia pages and a whole lot of haphazardly compiled stats in my future... My greatest concern (and it will be interesting to see how this is bearing out IRL) is that relegation almost defeats the purpose of parity in some ways. The 2009 LA Galaxy was a very strong MLS team. The 2008 incarnation would have been dumped out of most leagues. In such scenarios, one seasons results really aren't a great indicator of a team's competitive value in the league. This is why I favour expanding D1. If clubs are capable of competing, then there's little sense in chopping them up into tiers unless absolutely necessary. Even if does mean sacrificing a few high-stakes late-season games here and there.
The thing about salary caps and pro/rel: I can see it working if the second level isn't far below the first level in media coverage and revenue. That may occur because the second level is well attended (e.g. Football League Championship, though I realize the Premier League obviously doesn't have salary caps), or because the top level doesn't have a ton of money to begin with (likely the case for rugby union). That's quite definitely not the case in US soccer, where MLS created a lot of the market for pro soccer. As for the J-League, my impression is that the "A" salary limit applies only to players in their first year on an "A" contract, after which there is no cap. Japanese NT veterans still seem to get big contracts. The main effect seems to be that foreign players don't just play there for a quick one-year payday, as they have to stay for a second season to cash in.
Just by breaking into the top 4 meant that things were about to change at Chelsea FC, you could argue that for such a well supported club they had been failing for far too long in the first place. Finishing 4th opened them up to Champions League revenue, if they had stayed in the top four for the next four or five years then who knows where they would be today even without Abramovich, the point is we will NEVER KNOW because its all fiction after all if my Aunty was born with ***** she would be my Uncle. Nobody denies that money makes a difference and it always help to be one of the 'big boys' however as Bournemouth are showing even 'minnows' can make it and once they do things will take a natural 'turn', Bournemouth are now financial giants compared to other teams that were on their level just 5 years ago - who knows where they will be in 50 years but ultimately where they are will depend on the on field results and pro/rel means that 'other' clubs have opportunity to join them.
Again I am not a "few certain posters" or a "main contingent." I am me, and I have said a million plus times that my I idea of pro/rel is MLS still a single entity, with revenue sharing and a salary cap, and pro/rel within MLS. So very simple, in that scenario how would pro/rel prevent a salary cap from being in place?
I do think there is a risk in the league having to much parity. Now don't get me wrong I am not saying MLS is promoting mediocrity or anything like that, nor am I calling for the abolition of the salary cap and the creation of super clubs. But I do think it helps the overall narrative of the league, especially for causal fans, to know who is good and who is bad over multiple seasons. Now obviously we want surprises as well, but surprises only work if they are relatively rare. Going from worst to first (or 17th to 1st) is a good story, but if it it's routine, then well it's routine. So how this relates to pro/rel is that it makes a title hunt automatically a multi-year process. In order to compete for next years title you have to make sure you stay in the league this year. So you might be crap and terrible, and everyone knows your crap and terrible by June, you still have to play for next year. And not in a metaphorical, we're learning lessons way, but in a genuine we have to win games way. Which deepens the narrative and extends out the year. Which to me adds to the sport, but can totally understand why that wouldn't matter to somebody else, who prefers the clean slate every season.
I agree and I think MLS has a good balance right now. You've got your teams that are currently expected to contend, like FC Dallas and the Red Bovines of Harrison, NJ. Then you've got teams that are in a down spell, like RSL and the 'Quakes. Alongside this though, is the concept that you go into a new season with a chance. It's not that every squad is whitewashed or that it's the proverbial crap-shoot. The title favourites are cyclical enough. If anything, I get a little nervous when they talk about upping the number of DPs. The current mix is enough to bring in considerable talent, while still having to build smartly around them to succeed. It's not as simple as just buying success. I see your point on the multi-year campaign, but I still err on the side of getting these clubs competing at the same level if they have the capacity and intent. I'd happily see the draft and allocation mechanisms scrapped. There are caps, maximum salaries and special statuses in play to curtail bidding wars over college graduates and incoming USMNT players. That should be parity enough.
Newcastle are a huge club by any measure. They'd played in the Champions League multiple times. That didn't mean things were about to change for them. Liverpool are about as big as it gets. They qualified for the UCL six times in a row, winning it in the process. They've never won the title in the EPL era and only been more than dark horses late in the season a few times. If the Champions League didn't make them a dominant force, it's a stretch to claim it would've done that for a team in financial trouble. Don't take my word for it though, take the word of your chairman: Or from your Chief Executive at the time: It made Chelsea "one of the big boys". You can claim "you NEVER KNOW" but we can judge what was and wasn't likely. Scrambling to reduce spending and outlay versus the £100m spent the following summer, was unlikely to get Chelsea where they are today, Champions League or not. Bournemouth have made it to the Premier League. Nobody is remotely implying that that is impossible. However, the fact that they are now a "financial giant" compared to where they were five years ago, says more about the chasm in revenues between the EPL and the rest of the pyramid. And they still don't look like ever competing for a title. And yes, I saw the anomaly that was Leicester City... there's a reason why that story made global headlines. I'm sure many teams will have the opportunity to join them in the Premiership mid-table over the next half-century. That's about as high as "on field results" gets a promoted team on its own these days. Look, I get it. You'd prefer to think that Chelsea's current stature had more to it than a Russian billionaire dropping enormous wads of cash on the team, so you're seeking solace in plausible deniability. Deep down though, you have to realise that Chelsea's chances of becoming what they are today, in the same time frame, were slim to none without RA bankrolling them. And there's no shame in that. While I would prefer money to not be such an overpowered factor in global football, it is what it is and to succeed you have to play the game. That's why as cheesey as it is that you can buy Man Utd wine (though the Casillero del Diablo brand is far more subtle than the original United label), I make peace with it.
And the KHL ... we've stated and documented it here several times, but they are the real world example we're told doesn't exist. Scrapped pro/rel, went to franchise/expansion model, and have a capped based salary system ... and the league went from the brink of dissolving to never being more popular or lucrative. Which is really quite ironic given one certain poster's specific approach. "The journey" is all encompassing yet the pro/rel tidbit is unbelievably microsightedly focused. Indeed ... the separation we see here is pretty unequivocal to anywhere else in the soccer playing world. While our top tier is kept relatively closely knit, the 2nd tier is WELL off the pace. The striation in the most popular example out there is ridiculous even within each level, never mind when looking at two levels together. No, you aren't, thankfully. Though you did ask where the argument came from and how it was used. I was merely stating that, nothing more. I don't recall though, your answer to the major/minor divide and how having it all under the umbrella of MLS will negate that issue in the mindset of the fan. Even if MLS2 clubs are able to be promoted, they're NOT in the top tier and are NOT what we classify as Major League by definition. Those clubs can't play for the top level championship in the top level of the top league of the sport. That will still exist. I think though, in this scenario it would be a much different type of cap ... because you'd have to allow the MLS2 clubs to be close enough to the MLS1 clubs that they could do the jump in one off-season. But in doing so ... what's really the point of dividing them into a top/lower level in the first place? Pro/Rel is a bit of an anti measure to what keeps our leagues interesting to our domestic scene. A salary cap is an instrumental tool in this. It kind of either negates part of the point of having pro/rel OR actually keeps the scene from having the overlap because, again, if that division is going to go ahead and be blurred then why not just have as many as we can as full on top tier clubs? I agree .... and honestly despite parity measures, our leagues don't really have an issue with this. It cycles through clubs but you easily can look at our sports' histories and see a regular pattern of "year in year out" good/bad clubs. True, to an extent. Our leagues though, have turned this into a regular point of excitement. Even though it is regular enough to cite it as a thing that happens, people get excited at the thought that their team could be the next Cinderella (and it happens enough that this belief has validity). It's part of the draw of parity honestly. Really it just changes what the process is ... even in our leagues it is quite easy to see the multi-year process for a title hunt/to build a top team.
Given that many of us mocked a poster whose sincerity and attitude we seriously questioned - in my case to the point of self-indulgence at times - I think @owain deserves credit for making solid arguments in good faith.
It's probably been asked but i'm not in the mood to go through the entire thread. What would happen with teams that MLS teams have in the USL. Say Galaxy gets relegated, now you have Galaxy and Galaxy 2 in USL.
This thread is being renamed The All-Encompassing Pro/Rel Thread on Soccer in the USA Compared to Football in the UK.
Same as happens in Europe. A 2 team can't be promoted into the same division as it's parent e.g. Sevilla Atlético Club is a Spanish football team based in Seville in the autonomous community of Andalusia. Founded in 1958 it plays in Segunda División and is the reserve team of Sevilla FC, holding home games at Viejo Nervión, with a 7,500-seat capacity. Unlike in England, reserve teams in Spain play in the same football pyramid as their senior team rather than a separate league. However, reserve teams cannot play in the same division as their senior team. Therefore, the team is ineligible for promotion to La Liga, the division in which the main side plays. Reserve teams are also no longer permitted to enter the Copa del Rey.
Standard ones. No personal attacks, threats of violence, etc.. as the saying goes, play the ball, not the man.