*In his ESPN 30 for 30 voice* What if I told you that the most popular professional soccer league in the United States was Liga MX, and that the highest TV ratings for soccer matches are Spanish broadcasts of that league?
I agree with this, and I would add to it that we offer very few universal social services: every player needs health insurance, for example, which is going to be more expensive than the average for the simple fact that they're a professional (or semiprofessional) athlete. When we lived in the UK, we were shocked at how common it was for teachers to "split time", i.e. they worked part time and shared their classroom with another part time teacher. As Americans, we simply couldn't fathom subsisting on a part-time teacher's salary, even if only part of the family income.
If you draw less than 2K people per game you then budget accordingly it's not rocket science, there is only one reason why clubs go bust, it's not pro/rel and its not closed leagues, its simply bad management.
That's only the case as long as you perform. It's going to be interesting to watch what happens with ManUnited. FFP afaik prevents owners from dumping in money like before the installing of FFP. So when for instance ManUnited doesnot get out of their glide down and revenues fall back(another season without CL=cut back in sponsor money by a hundred million), Glaser can't turn the table by pumping in money. ManUnited cannot spend beyond their (still big) means, but then the spending that can be done isnot enough to come back into the rat race.
That's what they said, but it reality it was more "Rich stay rich, poor stay poor" motivation it seems.
https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/bus...apocalypse-clubs-are-playing-a-dangerous-game ... which pro/rel doesn't help, but actually plays into ^^^
No, it was about to stop nouveau riche to buy themselves a place at the table, like Abramovitch and those dudes at ManCity and PSG and without any relevant history of contributing to the glamour of the game (which the old rich clubs have done and as a result of that became rich) buying themselves instant glory.
Crystal Palace bought with Billions in 2015 Everton takeover by Billions 2016 Wolves Billions takeover in 2016 Southampton Billionaire takeover 2017 Aston Villa bought with Billions in 2018 Just wondering how the FFP has stopped the nouveau riche buying up places at the table and such. In case anyone might have made that claim. I mean this is just Prem clubs I thought of without actually looking anything up ...
My son almost got signed by a second-division team in Costa Rica. Money--specifically the fact that the club had practically none--played a major role in sinking the deal. It was eye-opening to learn how little money this club actually has.
Right, but unlike Chelsea with Roman's Billions, Man City with Abu Dhabi limitless cash reserves, and PSG with Qatari Natural Gas trillions, the nouveau rich clubs don't have the advantage of an immediate cash injection to buy up top players today that those clubs had in a pre FFP world. FFP is designed to prevent teams from spending outside of their revenue. Crystal Palace, Southhampton and Everton combined for the year ending in June 2018 brought in £98M LESS than Man United.
True, one can spend billions on buying a club nowadays (akin to buying an mls spot), but when it's a club with sparse revenues, it's not going to give you a spot on the table of the well to do. One can have enough money on his personal account to buy ronaldo and mess and van Dijk, but that's not going to help you as it's your money and not the club's.
One of the reasons MLS has been able to sign players from all over the Americas is that MLS paychecks arrive on time, and don't bounce.
For the 17/18 EPL season the so called "Big Six" had approximate combined revenues of £2.8B. The other 14 teams in the league combined had approximate revenues of £2B. https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...guide-2017-18-accounts-manchester-united-city
But they did, in fact, buy themselves a place at the table no? Everton 19/20 spent 131.8m 18/19 spent 109.7m 17/18 spent 223.5m 16/17 spent 94.6m EVERTON HAVE SPENT 559.6m on transfers since being taken over.
You'd better ask Jason Ma, not me. I was merely replying to his post that went all Blackburn Rovers on us. Also, "odd" you didn't complain when some on here droned on about Bury... England and Germany are outliers largely because they're the two countries that have put most effort into developing an integrated pro/rel pyramid.
Do keep up. The discussion was about the claim that pro/rel creates more instability than closed leagues. That then led to the claim regarding "gambling" that you posted about. Given the anti pro/rel crowds leading measures of this purported instability is clubs disappearing - remember how some of the normal culprits got their knickers in a twist about Bury being expelled from the Football League? - it's a fair question to ask as to what the consequences of this purported gambling are in terms of the anti pro/rel crowd's favorite measure of instability. Anyway, I think the answer to my question is Hereford United, who got relegated from the second level in 1977 and went bankrupt in 2014.
The pretty much inevitable result of the expanded Champions League. And next to nothing to do with pro/rel.
Except for the part where a Norwhich has to play those clubs due to the pure and virtuous nature of pro/rel.
How modern football became broken beyond repair https://www.independent.co.uk/sport...l-man-utd-barcelona-real-madrid-a9330431.html
There are a lot of good stats in that article as to just how the expanded Champions League has skewed things.