You seem to have forgotten the point I was responding to. "In the USA an owner seeing the grass is greener elsewhere simply moves his club to reap more coins. So the tribal component is absent, as the clubs settle without a hitch in their new home town." I think I've shown that relocation due to "grass is greener" and the absence of a tribal component is complete bs. Let's compromise and talk about the realities of the current Millennium. NBA 1 relocation (combination of financial issues, low attendance and grass is greener) 1 temp move (hurricane damage) MLB 1 (financial difficulties)* MLS: 2 contracted due to financial issues 1 hiatus (lack of suitable stadium) Chivas = LAFC? NHL: 1 (financial difficulties)+ NFL: 3 (grass is greener/greedy owner syndrome) * The Expos would probably have failed if they had stayed in Montreal. Average attendance was under 10,000 and the primary owner was unable to raise capital from the other owners. + the owner claimed to have lost $130 million over the previous 5 seasons Financial difficulties happen everywhere and teams go out of business, it's not specific to North America, RBC Roosendaal in Holland for instance. Instead of going out of business Montreal and Atlanta were relocated. You could make a similar claim for Vancouver but they probably could have continued in Vancouver with a committed owner.
Dude, we just had fans across the sport lobbying to stop the Crew getting moved. Of all the blog posts I've ever written, the most read was one on that very topic, by 2-3× the second most popular. I respect you but you need to stop making assumptions about US sports fans and their culture. You don't seem to get how parity works in practice. It "levels the playing field" by creating similar opportunity for all participants. It doesn't literally make every team the same. Talent of players, talent of coaches, roster-building, planning, scouting, youth development and countless other factors, determine the outcome. The result is more cyclical periods of success than each season being a crapshoot between all participants. What would actually happen is that Real Madrid would go in with reasonable aspirations of being competitive. It would arguably more entertaining because you'd have a slate of Liverpool vs BVB caliber matches, every single week. With parity measures, you'd likely see a top 20 player in the world in most matches. I've seen countless changes to competitions over the years (especially in the UCL) that has had fans balking initially, only for them to get over it - particularly when the outcome is better football.
I don't think there's any chance of them moving to Cleveland. The potential ownership group is known as "The Columbus Alliance". For those non-Americans who don't think of college football as a major sport...
As soon as the big Euro giants can secure the multi-billion dollar TV rights to a Super League, they'll go ahead with it. You'll have 20 or so of the biggest clubs in Europe competing weekly against each other in front of packed stadiums with millions of TV viewers. Anyone who doesn't think that this will be successful is fooling themselves. Oh no! Hull City might not have the opportunity to get boat raced by Liverpool a few times a year!! Won't someone think of the children! The best part of a Super League. It won't have pro/rel nor will it have cartels keeping teams from the same nation (UK) from playing in the same league. It's going to be great.
Two moves - Charlotte and Seattle. San Jose was a relocation - the club moved in its entirety to Houston. Somewhat similar to Wimbledon's relocation and the formation of a phoenix team in AFC Wimbledon. All you're doing is illustrating feyenoordsoccerfan's point. Yes, financial difficulties happen everywhere, but pro/rel provides an ability for clubs to ascend and descend without the "need" for relocation. And when teams go out of business, like Rosendaal, pro/rel provides the ability for a phoenix team to work their way up through the pyramid.
Relegation in America would give clubs the ability to descend right out of business and thus kill the sport in a country where it's only just now taking root. But let's not beat around the bush here. Pro/rel causes clubs to have to overspend or take on copious amounts of debt in order to try and maintain a level that allows them to get the crumbs off the tables of the superclubs that dominate big Euro leagues. Because Euro leagues are all the pro/rel crowd really talks about (one in particular). They ignore the most popular league in the US that has actively discussed dropping pro/rel and probably will do so given the opportunity. The league that relocates teams in order to work around pro/rel. Funny how that never comes up.
In other news, I see the new pro/rel based UEFA Nations League is turning out to be a lot more interesting than expected.
I'm not seeing any of what you describe in his point: "In the USA an owner seeing the grass is greener elsewhere simply moves his club to reap more coins. So the tribal component is absent, as the clubs settle without a hitch in their new home town." He's making a lot of assumptions about US sports fans that I think we can both agree aren't entirely accurate. My late Wife's family are from Virginia and are devout fans of the Washington Insensitives, despite them being mediocre for decades.
Would that "one in particular" be the same one that wields leverage over the other tiers by way of things like parachute payments and other revenue distribution? The one that in recent memory, used said leverage to essentially hobble the lower-league "scout-develop-sell" model that many pro/rel fundamentalists assume is a natural byproduct of the system and the USMNT's path to becoming an elite power?
I guess you put the finger on the why. When you're not rooted in the ground a tribe most of the times donot emerge. However it isnot a law carved in stone. A tribe on the move as a whole still is a tribe. But most Americans donot go on the move as a group. So your point still stands regarding Americans.
About fans of superclubs wanting to see them constantly win trophies against lesser opposition... that's not a huge draw in the US. If anything, the recent tendency in the NBA for big stars to accept lower pay in order to form temporary superteams has been roundly criticized by NBA stars of the past, who have all said it devalues the championships those teams win. Fans of US pro sports want to see their team in realistic contention for a title, but also tend to want to see their team win it against worthy opponents, and don't want opponents to become generic and interchangeable. Watching a loaded team run away with the title more than once in a decade or two is boring, even for fans of that team. At least in the US, owners in the major leagues, even the wealthiest owners who could afford to outspend everyone, realized that they could sell more tickets by making sure every visiting team had big stars than by being flat-track bullies.
My impression is that relocated teams don't usually have an issue garnering support immediately they've moved. So how is his comment inaccurate? Do you think the Raiders are going to struggle for support after their "reap more coins" move to Las Vegas?
In the USA sport is entertainment. I got that info from a poster when I wondered why a stadium in the USA is so expensive for the number of seats it provides. It had to do with all the entertainment stuff and giving the fans in the stadium more than just the match. In Europe sport is ...well...sport. Relocation without loss of support is also due to the created lack/shortage of clubs by leagues in the States with a continental wide reach in a homogeneous culture. There is no shortage of clubs given the number of leagues we have over here. We have more leagues in Europe than the USA has clubs in each of the pro leagues. Also European population is very diverse in it's make up and the rivalry is very domestic. The top clubs battle each other for the CL trophee, but I have never heared anybody talking about rivalry (of fans) of Bayern and Real Madrid etc. That simply doesnot exist.
Yup. Given that reality and I gave the reasons for it and given that SL is going to be the same I cannot see that SL happen. The investors put around 25 billion on the table, but from that 25 billion the whole thing must be organized too. It's not like the clubs get each a billion. It's not like the investors put 25 billion on the table each year. They have to start up the whole thing and before you make money you'll be a year further. So that means the clubs with 20 of them will have to share 10-12 billion for year one. Real on it's own has already a 500 million + budget they need to break even.
When one looks at the total money the EPL plus the CL generate and project that going completely to the SL, than one can conclude the total spending of those 20 is going to be higher, taking their current spending as necesary to field the stars, than those revenues. And then I'm assuming also the UK part of the epl money goes into that SL pocket, which is very unlikely.
When you have a 3 to 4 hour game with 3 minute ad breaks every 5 minutes you have to give people something to do. During Yankees games they do their best to entertain during stoppages. No cheerleaders of course but the scoreboard and the announcer do their best to get the crowd behind their team. During NYCFC games there's nothing. The scoreboard shows the score and some ads and the announcer sticks to goals and bookings. And fortunately the disease that is post-goal music hasn't spread top to Bronx yet. Nope, fans here are just as hard-core as anywhere else, especially in NYC. Certainly in New York the Giants/Yankees fans will gather around one water cooler on a Monday morning and Mets/Jets around another, while the Premier League fans gather to talk about the weekend's results. I stigmatize Rangers fans as sullen introverts, with newspaper cuttings all over their cubicle to show the world that someone cares about hockey. NBA and MLS get very little attention among the white middle-aged men in our office but college hoops is huge, mainly because of the sweepstakes.
How do you define the "tribal component"? I'd argue that any support that LV gives the Raiders is based on a "tribal component" of loyalty to their locale and having it represented in a major sports league. The fact that owners move teams doesn't automatically equate to fans not being dedicated.
Though that wasn't the case when it was on ITV versus BT. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/footbal...-sports-dismal-champions-league-viewing-figu/ And from that same article... The ratings travails of BT have coincided with mounting uncertainty about the entire future of the Champions League. Renewed talk of a European Super League overshadowed Monday’s general assembly of the European Club Association, which is flexing its muscles just as Uefa prepares to sell the next set of television rights for Europe’s premier club competition. Many clubs believe that the Champions League format is preventing them from maximising revenues, with the group stages marred by too many unglamorous fixtures. As well as a 20-team Super League, proposals have included automatic Champions League qualification for a cabal of Europe’s top clubs. Both would face fierce opposition from within the ECA’s 220-club membership and would raise the spectre of the return of the old G14, which was disbanded under pressure from Uefa. Much of the revamp talk appears to be a tactic to encourage European football’s governing body to find a way to boost the value of the Champions League closer to that of the Super Bowl, which makes much more money despite boasting far fewer followers.
I hate to break it to you but it's entertainment everywhere. In fact, I see far more stock put on entertainment value in soccer than any other sport. It's often not enough for a big team to succeed - fans want "entertaining football". You yourself complained about the manner in which Chelsea became European Champions. Indeed, what passes for "great soccer" is often closer in dynamic to the Harlem Globetrotters vs the Washington Generals, than the 2016 Golden State Warriors vs the Cleveland Cavaliers. If the big clubs aren't crushing all before them, they're usually deemed to be in poor form, if not "crisis". Consider VAR. Here we have system that could revolutionize officiating in the sport, yet due to some teething problems, people want it cast out for fear of making the game less enjoyable, rather than tweaking and refining. That's not a sports-centric viewpoint. In fact, I know many people who prefer questionable calls because they create talking points and "narrative". Again, very much not a sports-centric viewpoint.
I can accept the premise that European fans are more tribalistic. US fans are as well but US fans can be very fragmented which gives the illusion of lack of tribalism. Theoretically, you being in LA can sit next to someone cheering for the Galaxy vs LAFC, then a couple of days later sit on opposite sides watching the Lakers play the Clippers while sitting on the same side with those very LAFC fans you were against, or the Trojans play the Bruins or Rams Chargers. Then rejoin later to watch the Dodgers take on the Giants. In Seattle, on Saturdays I actively root against the UW Huskies but on Sunday join with those people to root on the Seahawks.