So a rising team must only spend a certain amount to revenue the club produces. Sponsors want the most bang for the buck to reach the most customers. . So a Manchester United shirt sponsor is worth 57 million dollars. Leicester City signed the biggest ever for the club in 2021 that is worth 16.9 million. And the thing is Manchester United is always going to get this advantages because it's a "brand" and Leicester City will never catch up even after winning a championship. They had a forty million dollar disadvantage and revenue sharing and a cap of some sort would be better than FFP.
It's way more than 40 million dollars. It's always been that way since sponsors etc came into the game. Previously it was crowd attendances. They brought in more money but the difference is so pronounced now I don't even know what Man Utds turnover is but it is probably at least 5 times what Leicesters is The problem is 1) Champions League money. That distorts everything. 2) Sponsorship money in general. It all adds up 3) Leicester have to get a higher percentage of our signings right. We can't afford to miss. We have to sell players to bigger clubs. Not many clubs bigger than Man Utd for them to sell to. The problem is a salary cap won't work. Unless it is implemented across the whole of the game. Here's the thing though. My mates who have been going to games for 30+ years. They will still go next season. For them (and many) it's not about who we are playing. They will still go to the matches. Probably complain more about away ticket prices as there is no price cap. There's a % of fans who will give up their season ticket but that happens. Is what it is.
Of course 1) and 2) are related. Sponsors want to go with clubs that are perennial CL qualifiers so it’s all self-perpetuating at the top of the table. I’d be happy to see a true pro/rel based ESL (as opposed to the disingenuous A23 proposal that’s pro/rel in name only). At least that would stop the distortions caused by those teams that continually get to play in two leagues concurrently.
P/R or not, there are some requirements for a top league that teams must meet regardless of play on the field (stadium amenities, financial solvency, etc.). I think we can all agree on that? We see this in Luton having to put investments into their stadium this summer, Eibar having to have a certain amount of money in the bank, and even in lower leagues things like grass vs. turf requirements. So considering that, and considering the size and such of the American market, what do the pro-P/R advocates think would be reasonable requirements for MLS to have for teams that would be promoted into MLS, in a scenario where P/R existed?
This could be a difficulty for many potentially promoted American teams, since at this stage of the sport's growth in America, many American teams, particularly lower-division ones, don't yet own the stadiums where they play and thus have no control over improvements. This is part of the reason why, while I hope American soccer will keep growing to the point where it can afford pro/rel, I'm dubious about whether it's there yet.
I don't think any business owner in their right mind would take all the financial risks associated with joining MLS for what may only be one year in the top-flight, the biggest issue being payrolls. You'd probably have to quadruple your payroll signing players on multi-year contracts. I think there needs to be a stepping stone between USL and MLS and that will probably come in the form of a USL premier league at some point. In terms of requirements, meet the PLS at the very least.
I think the answer needs to be building promotion. The owners built a stable league which now is challenging for fifth Pro league in the US sports market and pushing Hockey for fourth. If the last expansion team is willing to pay 500 million, build an academy plus a stadium, I think you found the criteria for promotion. . By the end of the Apple deal inform teams that promotion will be one team a year for a decade and for this to happen twenty teams will need a stadium meeting USSF requirements, a working academy, an owner with the financial USSF requirements & a one time 100 million fee to start parachute payments from a two billion dollar account that will only be available to the thirty teams currently in MLS for that decade. Lastly, a media rights deal for both leagues. If you want to add a D3 league everything would be the same except 10 million for parachute payments and another 90 million if they move all the way up to MLS. . If the MLS built the most stable D1 soccer league America & Canada has ever had, it's only fair that teams below build the mechanism to keep the stability for the future. Getting the stability of a team dropping will help stabilize teams with an MLS budget for infrastructure to help prevent bankruptcy. If a D2 or D3 team feels they deserve a chance at MLS, a 100 million is bargain basement price plus infrastructure to get in. But I doubt this will ever happen.
We'll see if this is how it shakes out. We are in a comparatively new era of overt professionalism and undeniable SEC dominance. It's hard for me to picture USC, for example, being irrelevant until the end of time, whether in the Big 10 or not. (And I disdain USC.) Midwest and Texas schools, even the ones who don't jump to the SEC, will still be fielding contenders. (And I despise Baylor.) Playoffs, which I expect will expand, might also be an equalizer. Or it will be Alabama against a revolving door of a few other big Southern schools, sometimes winning, sometimes losing, until the sun goes out. Or Rutgers, the inventors of college football, will use the Big 10 to regain their rightful dominance in okay, probably not. College basketball, on the other hand, has an ideal system to balance regular season, playoffs, big teams and small teams.
But each league has 2 or 3 dominant teams (less with PAC-12). The play off is like the champions league in that we have more variety of winners
Fortunately since avoiding relegation is as good as a trophy these leagues actually boast 15 or more champions apiece. That’s more top titles than even WWE!
Hey now, Accrington Stanley and Penistone Church FC have just as many chances getting a spot in the Premier League as Joe Shmoe marrying Anna Kendrick or people going back in time.
The college football playoff has not produced much variety. After the first championship game in the playoff format (Ohio State vs. Oregon), the last eight consecutive have all featured at least one of Alabama, Georgia, or Clemson. 5 of 8 have matched up two from that trio.
what you want to punish competative and well run clubs and say you should not be winning all the titles. american sports with their artifical parity is crazy only place where every year talk is is this team won because it favors the big market clubs
But this has nothing to do with league structure. The thing clubs have to play for in Europe, other than the national championship, is entry into continental competitions. Those don't exist for most US sports. For soccer the CONCACAF Champions League is not much of a reward, and may even be a money-loser for most of the MLS and Liga MX teams in it. And that's going to be the same regardless of league format.
Again punctuation. Before I put you on the ignore list, know this. There are dozens of "big market teams." If MLS was just that only the "big market teams" i.e. Los Angeles and/or New York City teams win league titles, that won't make it a compelling league, as least in my opinion.
On the contrary, parity measures reward well-run clubs. When clubs can't massively outspend the competition, the way to distinguish yourself is through better coaching, better team building, better scouting, and better player development.
You're forgetting that teams in the top division have something to play for that doesn't exist in closed leagues. You're also forgetting that teams in lower divisions have two things to play for that don't exist in closed leagues.
Oh, it is SO MUCH WORSE than this. To quote David Cross as Satan in "Jeepers Creepers Semi-Star," check this shit out: MOST RECENT FIRST TIME CHAMPIONS: NFL: 2014, 2010, 2003 MLB: 2019, 2017, 2002 NHL: 2023, 2019, 2018 NBA: 2019 (unless the Nuggets win), 2016, 2011 PREMIER LEAGUE: 2016, 1978, 1972 SERIE A: 1991, 1987, 1985 BUNDESLIGA: 2009, 1995, 1991 LA LIGA: 2000, 1981, 1946 "But Dan, most teams in Europe have been established for a century or more! A lot of teams in the US were established recently! Like, thirty or forty years ago!" Fine. NUMBER OF DIFFERENT CHAMPIONS SINCE 1992 PREMIER LEAGUE: 7 SERIE A: 6 BUNDESLIGA: 7 LA LIGA: 5 NFL: 16 MLB: 16 NHL: 14 (counting this year, congratulations whichever of Florida or Vegas) NBA: 11 (again, 12 if the Nuggets do it) NUMBER OF DIFFERENT CHAMPIONS SINCE 1963 England: 16 (well, I'm counting since 1959, otherwise this would be 12 and I wanted to be extra fair) Italy: 12 Germany: 12 Spain: 7 NFL: 16 (Super Bowl era) MLB: 23 NHL: 19 NBA: 16 I almost feel like we need to define what we mean by "fairness." I think of fairness as "more competitive," where the most fans have the most teams with the most opportunity to compete - well, apparently "for the championship" is problematic for some damn reason, so let's say "at the highest level." Promotion and relegation gives teams the "opportunity" to compete at the top level...for a season, or two, or five. When I'm told that's some sort of huge privilege, or that the system doesn't tilt the field hideously against smaller teams much worse than North American teams, well, I feel like posting unhelpful things like "What is WRONG with you" or "One of us is stupid, Jim, and I nominate you." I wouldn't bring this up, except orthodox pro-rel theory insists that p/r is the more fair, more competitive system. It obviously isn't. All those teams in Europe that have been in business for a century and have trophy cabinets smaller than Lady Godiva's wardrobe - that's a policy failure. The Vancouver Canucks or the Texas Rangers winning nothing ever is a sneering embarrassment for those teams. In Europe, they'd just be another Birmingham City. And I'm not telling you to close off leagues at 32, let alone 20. Divide your four divisions geographically instead of by how they did last year. Unless you really don't believe Crewe or Port Vale or Leyton deserves its shot at the top. But are better things possible? Can playoffs really catch on in Europe? Will fans accept playoffs? I dunno, ask Luton. The Great Pyramid of Sporting Merit was looted a long time ago. Would playoffs have the positive effect on competitiveness I say they will? If only there was a way I could use data from existing European teams, but I suppose we'll never, never, never know. NUMBER OF DIFFERENT DOMESTIC CUP CHAMPIONS SINCE 1992: England: 9 Italy: 10 Germany: 12 Spain: 11 NUMBER OF DIFFERENT DOMESTIC CUP CHAMPIONS SINCE 1963: England: 18 Italy: 12 Germany: 19 Spain: 12 Or pretend "INSERT NAME HERE is BACK in LEAGUE ONE!" is the pinnacle of the fan experience. Your call. At this point, I'll settle for "Promotion and relegation is less fair and less competitive, but I prefer it." That's a hell of a lot more honest than what we've been fed all these years. (EDITED mostly to not conflate pre-Bundesliga German champions in the first-time winners section)