Probably not the best example... I'm sure you could come up with better ones than that, but... I'd rather see a good player paid 4k per week to play for a non-league amateur NPSL club in a hypothetically open system in America than see "non-league" organizations in places like Little Rock, Wichita, and Chattanooga forced to pay USL's purported $500,000 expansion fee to join USL "League One" or $7,000,000 to join USL's "The Championship." Of course, even if that well paid player were the only professional on the entire roster, that NPSL organization would still have to get rid of all the college athletes on their roster lest they lose their athletic scholarships and NCAA eligibility. Says the guy who supports a league that technically still operates, after 23 years, as a single entity business and loses at least $100 million per year. I guess they could recoup those losses by bundling their MLS TV rights with far more lucrative SUM properties and relying on overpriced expansion fees. Maybe USSF prez Carlos Cordeiro can work with Garber, MLS and SUM to make MLS just like Goldman Sachs.... too big to fail. Just in time for the 2026 World Cup. ***Meanwhile, in other lower division news.... https://www.htafc.com/news/2019/may...geaters-fc-announce-development-relationship/
I'm not so sure about this. Absent the big money from the CL, I'm not so sure the disparity at the very top of the pyramid would be so steep. IMHO the dangers of pro/rel are down the pyramid.
This sounds better than the alternative, though. There simply aren't many stadiums located in good areas that have decent amenities, capacity, and parking that aren't baseball stadiums. If it's either "play in the baseball stadium we have" or "wait until the perfect opportunity comes along" I sort of want the former.
And we also have examples of clubs that that haven't been relegated or enjoyed long stints in the PL without relegation not coming close to cracking the top of the table. Or that Man City was most recently promoted in 2002.
Oh for FFS, are we going to keep up the intellectual dishonesty that it doesn't cost hundreds of millions to gain and maintain a position among the world's elite and that City & PSG have broken rules that effectively aid the previously entrenched to do so?
That's largely only been arguable in England, though I'd say that Man City & Chelsea's positions had more to do with being bankrolled by their owners prior to FFP. In 86 seasons, Real Madrid have finished in the top 3 of La Liga 64 times and won over a third of the titles. Barca have also finished top 3 the same amount of times. Today's top 3 have won 78% of the titles between them. 94% of the titles have been won by 5 clubs. 4 of those 5 are in the top 4 this season. That's not a product of the UCL. Porto, Sporting & Benfica have dominated Portuguese soccer from the start. Ditto Ajax, PSV & Feyenoord in Holland. Galatasaray, Fenerbahce & Besiktas in Turkey. Rangers & Celtic. Anderlecht & Club Brugge for decades. Just some examples.
Isn't that what we're saying though? That it's money, and in particular, egregious amounts of it, that is the barrier to the top of the leagues? The argument this was against was that relegation cements the top of the table. It doesn't, it's money. No amount of hanging around mid-table for decades is going to change that for a club that isn't willing to break the bank to join the club.
I sort of feel it's kind of natural that in every example you've laid here, the dominant teams happen to be located in the only actual cities of note in those countries. That's also where populations and capital pool, as well.
It isnot the reason for dominance. Just look at Feyenoord. When it was founded, it was just a pub club that played it's matches at the Afrikaanderplein in Rotterdam and used a pub as a dressing room when they played matches. They just were a working class club, while in Rotterdam there were clubs already existing decades and were supported by the upper class, like Sparta Rotterdam that had a history of 30 years already with big money backing them. I wonder if anybody can explain how Feyenoord from that humble start within 30 years had to build a 63000 stadium to accomodate their exploding fan base. The money was with Sparta Rotterdam with a 30 years headstart and yet they did bite our dust. It's too easy, lazy and ignorant uninformed opiniation to dismiss the rise of historical clubs to money or location. This is an example of two clubs in the same city with one all the advantages, but the other one won.
I think Edinburgh would dispute that Glasgow was the only city of note. I think Den Haag (The Hague) is bigger than Eindhoven, both as a city and metro area. And in Italy, Naples is by far the biggest metro area in Italy followed by Rome/Lazio, with Milan in third and Turin a distant fourth.
It's a fact, or at least a trend, in England and Wales at least. At least 21 clubs are now owned by billionaires and a bunch of others with big behind the scenes investors Of course suggesting the obvious, that it takes massive amounts of money to win promotion to, and remain in, the Premier League, makes me a rabid anti-pro/rel zealot in your eyes. But I admit it's not always the case. Burnley have bucked the trend as did Bournemouth in getting to the EPL and both Sheffield United and Norwich have over-performed in winning the automatic spots this season. As for teams working their way from local leagues to the top divisions, the youngest club in the top two divisions in England was formed in 1932 and joined the football league in 1978 (correct me if I'm wrong).
Italy wasn't included in @barroldinho's list. And for Scotland, yes, Edinburgh could theoretically contend with Glasgow's resources, but potential does not equal product.
OK Antwerp is the biggest city in Belgium, about the size of Brussels and neighboring Anderlecht combined. Ghent and Liege are the second and third biggest cities. Bruges is a quaint medieval tourist trap about the size of Savannah.
Do you have your goalposts on rollers? My point was a response to you claiming teams were more entrenched due to the UCL. The leagues I mentioned already had teams entrenched prior to that. I also clearly stated that they were just some examples. I'm sure that local population plays a part. It's clearly not integral though, due to several major cities in Europe not being especially successful relative to other locales. I'll throw Aberdeen into the relevant Scottish city examples. But again: this wasn't a product of the Champions League revenues. There's an argument for that in England, maybe.
As I have pointed out before, Chelsea were a Champions League club BEFORE Abramovich took them over, he wouldn't have purchased them otherwise.
I'll remind people again, Chelsea were bankrolled by Matthew Harding and Ken Bates' love of large overdrafts before Abramovich took over.
Nope. I claimed they were entrenched due to money. CL exacerbates that. The rich get richer, etc. And the CL money helps them pull away from the pack, and with FFP there is eff-all anyone can do to close the gap. As far how they got rich in the first place, I still posit that geography, at least economic geography, has a hand there. I don't know about Club Brugge, but Anderlecht was initially backed by industrial tycoons, i.e. "money". So, I think generally speaking, you can often use population centers as a proxy for economic centers, it depends a bit on the specific economics of the country we're talking about. Spain, Portugal, and Scotland are going to, historically, have more in common in the distribution of capital than Benelux or England due to their vastly different economies. There are other unique factors, too. Franco couldn't have hurt RM's bottom line.
Neither of them were billionaires! Ken Bates bought Chelsea FC for £1.00 In fact the one thing Chelsea DIDN'T have when Abramovich bought them was money to spare!! In fact they were in financial trouble when he took over. You can't keep going on about money every time anybody mentions any club, somebody has even tried to use that old chestnut for Crawley town lol! Obviously ALL professional football clubs generate a LOT of money, especially Premier League and Championship clubs, they ALL have the potential for making huge profits, the trick is though to invest in a winning team and balancing the books which some clubs obviously do better than others, here is how it works..........your team wins you generate more money, you generate more money and you can afford a better team, you afford a better team and your team wins - alternatively, your team loses you lose money, you lose money so therefore you can't afford a very good team, you can't afford a very good team so your team loses..........wash, rinse & repeat. The trick is to fall into the former category and not the latter one.
Harding was one of the richest people in England and probably the second or third richest owner, up there with Walker and Hayward. Later Chelsea were in financial trouble because Bates had spent so much of other people's money. They were in financial trouble because Bates had spent so much of other people's money trying to win the title. Gullit, Zola, Desailly, Vialli, Lebouef and Di Matteo didn't exactly come cheap.