The reason that England abolished amateur status was that clubs were playing their players anyway - in the guise of “expenses” in leagues that claimed to be fully amateur such as the Northern, Athenian and Isthmian. Post the abolition teams started paying their players legally and the leagues were opened to all comers. Subsequently they integrated into the pyramid and the Isthmian and Northern leagues exist to this day. Wycombe, Dagenham & Redbridge and Yeovil - the last of which moved over from the always semi pro Southern League - both got themselves promoted upwards to the Championship, although the latter are back down in the National League. An example in the opposite direction is Wimbledon, who were originally in the Isthmian League, turned professional, moved to the Southern League and got elected to the Football League by coincidence just after the FA abolished amateur status. And since we're talking about Marine, I did find this article (from five years ago) that talks about increasing their wage budget. I think they were one level higher at that point, i.e. level 7. https://www.pitchero.com/clubs/mari...budget-in-further-bid-to-stay-up-1366576.html
Article doesn't read that way, in fact it says they're lucky to have diehard fans that provided the funds ...their stadium upgrades were through donations.
Given the moneywise superiority of bottom epl clubs even to the Dutch top teams it's a bit daft to use them in regard to US leagues as a comparison. For mls etc. that comparison should be made with Eredivisie/Belgian league/etc. Then you will see amateur teams knocking off the top tier teams without going deep into the archives. Hell, it even happens in BuLi/La Liga/Ligue Une/Serie A.
The imbecility one sometimes read from anti P/R's. There are 20 clubs in the EPL. Each year 3 have to relegate. No matter what you spend, 3 have to relegate. So telling a club doesnot spend to escape relegating is showing you donot understand the simple fact that it's impossible for 20 clubs to spend themselves out of relegation.
A prime example of that is Newcastle United. A club that has the means far more than other clubs in the 2nd tier, even other epl clubs, but keeps yoyoing up and down the P/R table. So incompetence isnot a factor you brush aside with money. P/R punishes incompetence regardless of available money. Westham United is another one. The global soccer top 100 financially is here: http://mysoccerex.com/Soccerex_Football_Finance_100_2020_Edition.pdf
That's a two-edged sword though. Claiming that pro/rel would result in better run clubs who compete to at minimum avoid relegation and as such would get rid of clubs run like the NY Jets (to use our most recent example) means that a well run club is going to be punished with relegation. And yes I said punished, because despite what the imbecility one sometimes reads from P/R zealots about how its not a punishment, it actually is and that's exactly why they want it implemented. So teams like the Jets are punished for not trying. Yet because, as up point out, 3 teams always lose just becoming a better run organization doesn't change the punishment. But, of course, for those people "tanking" in a P/R system is apparently acceptable while doing so in a "closed" system is not for some reason.
You simply didnot get what I posted or are deliberately warping it. A well run club is a comparison to the others, not on it's own. To do the best you can, but while doing so fall short compared to the others is something different from the tanking concept in US competitions. I can't recall a club being relegated in any of the European leagues, while being run better than the other ones in that league. Being in the top league isnot a right you can buy. You have the right to be in the pyramid, which contains more clubs than just the 16/18/20 that happen to be in the top league at a given moment. You can earn your spot in the top flight, but have to work your ass off to stay there or rise to it.
If your system doesn't really create fans to lean on, lean on the American parent's fear of missing out: A feasibility study predicts that the team will lose $750,000 in 2015 and $284,000 in 2016 but make a profit of $130,000 in 2017. The turnaround is mainly driven by a planned expansion of the Riverhounds' development academy and its summer academy camps. https://archive.triblive.com/news/judge-approves-riverhounds-soccer-teams-bankruptcy-plan/
One thing most Americans donot grasp is that soccer in Europe is a cultural thing, I might even call it a social-cultural thing. Soccerclubs have firm connections with/are embedded in a geographical context. It is important to be part of the soccer community by having a club from that geographical part of a country/region/city. So the first thing of importance is having a club deep rooted in that community. That is the result of a long history a club has in their environment. Then comes the longing to see your club play against top clubs, which can be achieved by promotion. Clubs mirror in Europe their surroundings, so clubs strengths after decades reflect often also the economic power of their base. That's why leagues in Europe have such a diversity of financial strengths in clubs. The goal of clubs is to be part of the top league and battle as strong clubs as possible. That's why the pyramid of clubs and the P/R are of importance to the strength of soccer in Europe. The prospect of rising and replacing those clubs that didnot cut it. Relegation is a result of efforts not being good enough. It's not a punishment. A punishment is something handed out by authority. Like in business being a fraud, you get punished. When you simply arenot a clever businessman/woman you become bankrupt. That's a result, not a punishment.
Oh please, save us your condescension. Especially from somebody who's made so many bad assumptions about America over the years. We're all (well, mostof us) educated enough here to understand that. Oh really? So, which is it? Is it a punishment or not? Or is it only a punishment when you deem it to be because that team deserves it, but its not a punishment when you deem that team doesn't?
There's a difference between a punishment (I described that) and behaviour punishing itself by it's result. Your lot uses the word punishment as a verdict executed by an authority and in the mean time dismissing it as a judicial error. I use the word punish in the sense of a self inflicted wound. If I intentionally bang my head against a wall the result is a bloody wound and at the same time I punish myself for stupid behaviour with that. No authority that imposes that as a punishment.
Well, it doesnot show from the posts among others the king guy has made. So if you knew that, good for you. But this ignorance is being shown with a monsoon like regularity, so it needs to be mentioned again and again.
Burnley ... ... sure Jan. I post facts and point out idiocies, ignorances, and ill faith discussion ... of which you've been plenty guilty over this discourse. At this point, I honestly have no clue. I do know that there are expenses outside of salary that USL clubs pay (housing/rental cars/etc) that reduce out of pocket living expenses for players. Just form what I know about San Antonio the ranges from 5yrs ago to this past season have changed drastically but I don't know that the overall avg has moved too much (though it is upward).
That's also how Detroit City's stadium was renovated. DCFC and CFC used their shares to pay salaries for their first pro seasons, as well - or, at least that was the plan.
A few years ago the range that I knew was 25-30K for USL Championship. So roughly 10K more a year. That difference is largely eaten into by providing housing and other expenses on top of salaries (for some players). The other side of that is the avg is driven down by there being no salary minimum in USL so guys like say Jose Gallegos in San Antonio aren't likely making much seeing as how he was signed before he graduated HS (signed at 17 while in HS and graduated in the '20 school year). Given what I do know, the bottom end of the salaries drives the avg down a bit more than where it likely "really" sits, if that makes sense. I also know that there are several USL Championship players that make 100K or more per season and that's not new. How many of those guys are toiling in tiers 6-10?
Yeah, according to an El Paso player, the average Championship player makes $25-$30k and a lot get free housing and other benefits. If players worked 40 hours a week for a 10 month season, that would work out at about $15.60 per hour but they don't work 40 hours a week and I'm sure a lot have other jobs on the side. If you go back to 2006, there were 12 DC United players making less than $30k. https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sports/mls/longterm/2006/mls.salaries.html
Given that the actual aim of the game is to 'win' football matches (all this continuous talk of bloody money is irrelevant) means that arguably Norwich are NOT better 'run' than Newcastle no? Clubs could be a hundred thousand billion pounds in debt but if they win more than their rivals they WILL be Champions, their fans will celbrate by getting pissed and lining and dancing in the streets, or clubs could have saved a thousand trillion pounds in their bank but finish bottom and they WILL be relegated, nobody will be dancing in the streets to that. As a Chelsea fan I don't get very 'excited' when I hear we've managed to 'save' a few quid! This is a sport FFS not a financial investment! If people want all the excitement (or should I say boredom!) of the stock market then perhaps football isn't their 'thing' (US sports might be their thing instead!)