British journalist Michael Cox has a very interesting article in the Athletic today: Europe’s major leagues are now hopelessly uncompetitive, with title races effectively over by the midway point. A traditional league system is no longer fit for purpose in an era of such inequality and alternative formats should be considered. https://t.co/ConT74gTDQ— Michael Cox (@Zonal_Marking) January 26, 2022 (Bold mine)
Playoffs attempt to treat the symptoms, not the cause of the competitive imbalance at the top of European leagues. Not that it will happen, but treating the causes is preferable.
That article was really good. I like the idea of letting them have a 3 tier (but open) European wide Super League that replaces the domestic league for participants. I also think less teams and and games would be good for the European leagues that 20 teams.
My post (#33460) which you quoted to start this was quoting a post specifically referencing Wimbledon. And no "our" system does not give ME a chance to get my club back because I am not a Billionaire with NFL owners as friends. A pro/rel system does make it easier for normal people like myself to start a club and makes it POSSIBLE for that club to rise up the levels. Wimbledon are the most famous example, but there are others as well. Maybe a billionaire, Hey Mr. Bezos, decides they want a team in San Diego but there is nothing I can do about it either way. And even then they'd most likely have to steal it from another fan base because the NFL does not appear to be interested in expansion.
But the real reason you couldn't build a football team from grass roots in the US is cost. Let's say there was a very successful amateur league in the southwest where the most popular teams could attract 5 to 10k fans, how do you take the next step to becoming a national team without investing $billions. The US has had reasonably successful amateur and small time professional soccer leagues but they've always been regional and they've consistently failed when they've tried to expand nationally. Maybe the next XFL could start like USL, focusing on serving second tier media markets with ex-college players. USL and NASL produced FC Cincinnati, Orlando City, Montreal, the Timbers, Sounders and Whitecaps, among others.
No, it isn't exclusory to you ... yeah, it's a BIG mountain to tackle but so is doing it in pro/rel. To replace what you had (NFL level Chargers) it wouldn't be all too different in pro/rel. Yes, you'd have the logo/name but what is truly the team you lost? To have a top tier soccer club that you lost, the time and monetary investment would be just as much if not greater at this point (on comparable levels of soccer leagues to the NFL) Do Baltimore fans not have their team back even if it's got diff colors and a new mascot? It's the fans/city that are the soul and true club right (we've been told)? So there's two new options that are much more accessible to SD than the NFL. There's also indoor football. The most famous example, Wimbledon, is out of your ability too in reality. I mean unless there's 749 other folks (750 formed the Dons Trust that restarted WFC) that have no issue brining back the San Diego Football Team in whichever form they can make happen (XFL, USFL, indoor). But their lovely little 9K stadium cost 43m US$ and the built in expansion would cost another 25-30m sterling (according to numbers I found looking into it). You're 20 years into it now and how much have you spent and still aren't what you were/had? Sure, the club is there and the folks have it ... but you're coming at me/this with the premise of getting back what you had (the NFL Chargers). That's still not what's happened in Wimbledon. So either you have to wait, and take into account the full cost/time for Wimbledon to regain what they were ... or accept that getting back your SD Football team wouldn't take the monumental NFL effort.
That's the most famous example from England. And England allows players to be paid from divisions 1 to 16. There are many examples around the world and many of them had to start at pure amateur level. Of course how a phoenix team does largely depends on how much investment it can attract. Wimbledon had something like 4,000 investors. Sport England (lottery money) has given phoenix clubs like FC Halifax Town low interest loans.
Well yeah everything is about cost and money. But the massive difference is you have a much lower cost of initial entry in a pro/rel setup. In San Diego's case we would probably more resemble one of the Pheonix since there already was a team here with a loyal fan base already willing to pump millions of dollars into the former team. I don't have numbers at hand but a conservative estimate of 20,000 season ticket holders at 1,000 bucks a pop gives you 20 million. And that's conservative (my season ticket was 1,000 9 years ago and it was one of the cheaper ones). 20 million isn't a billion but would probably give you a decent foundation to build from in a hypothetical American Football pro/rel setup. Yep it might be and I went to a San Diego Fleet game in the Aliance of American Football (didn't even make it the whole season) so I am trying doesn't seem to matter because the bar is so high because of money. Fair enough but let's look at FC Cincinnati vs Sac Republic. One is in MSL one won't be. Both had really good fan bases, both had success on the field, both had support from local government. The difference is one had a billionaire owner the other didn't.
Any statement that starts with the NFL is not exclusionary is not worth taking seriously. At this point you are arguing for the sake of arguing. Here is the reality both systems have their pluses and minuses. Although I prefer a pro/rel system I recognize advantages of a closed system. It offers stability, allows for stronger rules and vetting of potential owners, overall can foster a broader communal spirit where individual owners are acting in the greater good among other pluses. In that same vein there are areas where Pro/Rel is better. And this is one. The fact that a community that loses their football club can then create another at a much lower initial financial cost, that can regain the level of the former, using their own organic growth driven by on field results is an advantage of the pro/rel system. It just is. Simple. If you want to argue that those circumstances are rare or don't offset the other issues fine. But to try and argue that somehow the NFL expansion gives fans the same opportunities as Phoenix clubs is either ignorant, disingenuous, or moronic. You choose.
What's the highest level an English phoenix team has played at? League One? We're not talking about a Liverpool or Arsenal are we?
Aside from Wimbledon, which clubs that were "phoenixed" played at the top level in modern history? Really, a better question to ask is how well phoenix teams fare in compare to the phoenixed team.
This is why the comparison with NFL is relevant. Most phoenix clubs are small fry, backed by a few thousand fans. There's no comparison with US major leagues. If you wanted to revive a failed Liverpool or Arsenal you'd need a billionaire investor or group of investors. Rangers are probably the most successful phoenix club and they've achieved success by bringing on board a bunch of very wealthy investors, plus they were able to hang on to Ibrox. Imagine how much a new stadium in a major city would have cost.
The comparison to the NFL is a challenge for the simple reason that the NFL doesn't have pro/rel. There is virtually no chance that Winbledon would have reached the top level in a closed league environment. But Rangers are indeed an example of how you can start at the (then) bottom of a professional league pyramid and regain the top level status of the former club.
The second tier leagues in Europe are moving towards the split season. I can't see it happening in the top 5 leagues though, not least because it works best in a league with 12 to 16 teams.
Then again, clubs of that size have never folded. Derby could be the first big-ish club to go, and time will tell for them over what happens.
Indeed. Of course, they still had to win games in those "minor leagues" as opposed to getting their cartel membership fee accepted. That's the difference.
The only league it would 'help' would be the Bundesliga, which is a one-horse town as far as title contenders are concerned. Yes, Man City are a long way clear this year, but that a product of them being great this year. It's not the same situation. Overall though, although I wouldn't like it, if they had a play-off to decide the title, I think that within 10 years it would be widely accepted. It would be a very bumpy ride to get the idea off the ground though, and it would have other repercussions too. Very quickly I think people would question why clubs play so many games just to get to a situation where 4/6/8 teams are playing off for the title. It would almost certainly result in a smaller top division. Again, it's not something I favour, but it's the way the game is going, it's all about shovelling more and more money to fewer and fewer clubs. There's definitely a schism between those who attend football, and those for whom football is a television spectacle, and the TV viewers are the ones paying the bills. As a result, the game chases the money, going for a dumbed down lowest common denominator product. Tradition can kiss the TV viewer's bloated rich arse, as making money is all that matters now. Revenue is the king, and moral bankruptcy is the other guy's problem.
As far as I know Wimbledon are the only set of supporters that who been in the prem who lost their club. And now they are back in the 3rd tier which is where they were when they left South London for American Suburbia.
I think Ligue Un is a one horse town, with last season being an exception. There is the danger of EPL going the same way but only in the short-term until Pep leaves. There would be rioting in the streets if the EPL proposed a playoff to decide the title.
It's possible, but every time a club wins the premier league (except Leicester), people fall over themselves to predict the club will dominate for years. FFP has made it much harder for Man City to just outspend everyone. It would be a tough sell, but if it happened people would just get used to it. TV fans would love it.
I'm not sure FFP is helping as much as you think. Man United spend £227 million while Arsenal spend £90 million. Leicester was a freak. It happens every couple of decades.