During the buildup to the near strike in baseball, I found it very interesting how it was/is seen as a "given" that buzzwords like "competitive balance" and "revenue sharing" gain almost universal acceptance in American culture regarding professional sports. After all, these are decidedly anti-capitalist ideals...giving artificial "help" to a weaker entity so that it can keep up with the wealthy? And this paradox is furthered when we note that in Europe, where socialism has generally taken hold to various degrees in most countries, most topflight soccer leagues are dominated by the rich to an extent not even imagined by the Yankees, Celtics, or Canadians. I mean, how many teams have a realistic shot at winning the Premiership this year? 4? 5? I don't think it's much higher than that. And this may even be a "wide open" year compared to many in recent memory. The situation is more prononced, obviously, in Scotland, but also is obvious in Spain, Germany, Holland, Italy...pretty much everywhere. So the question becomes: Why is it that all these compassionate Euro social-democrats can be so coldly capitalist with their national pasttimes, while us Americans get wishy inside when thinking of teams like Kansas City or Pittsburgh getting a chance to play in the World Series?
{channeling Big Ben chime} ManU and the Yankees; same old spending. {/channeling Big Ben chime} The big difference with American baseball is free agency vs. the transfer system. However, with unlimited bucks (quid, across the pond), a team can throw money at its problem and "buy" a championship. Kind of like Wayne Huizenga did with the Marlins in 1997.
This got covered before a few weeks ago. The upshot of it was that while the American professional leagues are a 'closed shop' with 20-30 huge clubs in the league and nothing else of remotely comparible stature, Euro leagues encompass every team within the country, even if only a tiny percentage can ever be in the top division as any one time. Although there is a widening gap now between the premiership clubs and the first division clubs, this is mainly down to TV money rather than the size of the clubs. There are always division 1 clubs with better support than some premiership clubs. I doubt a similar comparison can be made between major & minor league clubs in American sports. Also in American sports the national championship is the only thing that matters, whereas over here, although the title is the big prize, clubs that are unlikely to win the league aim to get into Europe which will make them more money which can be spent improving the team. Other teams will be glad just to avoid going down. Or maybe that was just my view.
And the question I would ask is "is this a better system"? Overally, I would think it would be Yes because more teams have a chance to play for something and those relegation battles at the end of the season I'm sure provide as good or better theater than many championship matches. Plus you can always dream that your mid level div. 2 team will somehow catch lightning in a bottle and wind up in the upper level of the Premiership. On the other hand, there's something not right about a Man U just decing they want someone and tossing millions at the club and player and getting him as with Rio Ferdinand. It's kind of like the aristocracy taking whatever it wants from the populace. In the US, we're really moving away from that type of thing, but without relegation the only way to maintain interest for fans of lower level teams is expanding the playoffs. Then you get something as obscene as the NHL a few years ago playing an entire 80 game season to eliminate 5 teams from the playoffs -- or MLS playing an entire season right now to eliminate 2. Of course even if we had promotion/relegation here I'm not sure that it would work because with the exception of football, I don't think our fans are anywhere near as passionate about their sports as they are in other countries.
Probably not, but college football and basketball come close. The thing is, there's always another sport season coming up. Your city's NFL team not doing well? Basketball and hockey are starting or at midseason. Neither of those succeeding? Check local colleges or wait for baseball.
RichardL got it right. The are also more reasons. In London there are 11 pro teams in the 4 divisions(5 in the top flight). In NYC there are 4 baseball teams (2 in MLB and 2 in A). Its not as easy to start another team in baseball as it is to start a club in England. Do you think the owners would approve of another MLB team in, say, northern NJ? However, another club just started in London this year : Wimbledon AFC. Another thing is that I have a feeling the European populous understands that money doesn't equal winning. United have been one of the richest clubs in England for 20+ plus years but thier dominance is only recent. Lastly is the understanding that a form of salary restriction would lower the quality of the game. Look at the NFL now. None of those teams could compete with good teams from before the salary cap. Every NFL team is mediocre. Salary restrictions make good teams worse rather than making bad teams better. Besides, its all cyclical. For the past few years United has been the top team, before them Liverpool. For all we know, the top 3 teams last year could be in the same position as teams like Boro and Sunderland 5 years from now.
It's called "the bandwagon." Women's soccer drew 96,000 to the Rose Bowl in 1999, and 47,000 to Edmonton (Edmonton!) in 2002. Why? THE HOME TEAM IS PLAYING IN A FINAL.
Was this thread supposed to have a more right-wing conservative Rush Limbaugh slant or maybe a Libertarian Niel Boortz answer. Its a good topic with no real answer. Much of life seems to have a double standard. I believe most Europeans believe that government was meant to control life and liberty but by God, dont touch our football. In the US we can do what we want when we want but our sports team better share a trophy at some point or life is meaningless.
Its 6 in the top flight. (Fulham, Chelsea, Charlton, West Ham, Spurs, Arsenal) (Crystal Palace, Millwall, Wimbledon) (QPR) (Leyton Orient)
Don't Wimbledon technically not count now that they've somehow managed to secure approval for the Milton Keynes move?
Brentford are in London, right at the end of the M4, about a mile west of QPR Watford technically aren't in London, even if London's suburban sprawl spreads out that far. Wimbledon will cease to be a London club if/when then move to Milton Keynes. There are dozens of semi-pro London teams as well. I'd say at least 50, but some of them are pretty small (i.e. only get about 100 at a match)
Dagenham & Redbridge and Barnet being the biggest two - the former missing out on promotion to the Football League on goal difference last season and the latter being relegated from the League a couple of seasons ago.
Aaaaaaayyyyyyyy!!!!!!! Getting back to the point, I think kygunner summed it up: They don't see the beauty in following your team around the lower reaches of the league with no apparent hope of ever making the big time. I think it's Rochdale who have only ever been promoted out of the third(previously fourth) division once in their entire history.
Don't underestimate the effect of travel on the willingness to see a team through bad times or stay with a team that is perpetually rotten. I grew up in Michigan and, for two years, New Jersey. Now live in Chicago. Wife is from Minneapolis. Family is scattered all over the USA and one in Guatemala. Let's assume that I am a dyed-in-the-wool University of Michigan fan (true). Will I be able to pass on that interest to my kids, or will they root for U. of Illinois or, on the pro level (God forbid) the Bears? Maybe. Since I love them, I don't even try to torment them with the recent woes of the Detroit Lions. Besides, they prefer soccer. The point is that local allegiances are easily lost when the populace is constantly shifting about. At the hallowed grounds of Wrigley, you get the true Cubbies who are irrepressibly addicted as well as the upwardly-mobile masses (til NASDAQ tanked) for whom the game is another form of dating or sampling sushi.
You shouldn't assume that it is normal for teams to be stuck in a division for life though. Bolton, Fulham, Bradford, Burnley, Millwall, Portsmouth, Preston, Sheffield Utd, Wimbledon, Wolves, Blackpool, Bristol City, Cardiff, Luton, Northampton, Swindon, Carlisle, Oxford, Swansea (+possibly others) have all experienced life in all 4 professional divisions. Of the current premier clubs Aston Villa, Sunderland, Birmingham, Man City, Middlesbrough, Southampton, Sunderland, WBA & Charlton(?) have all spent time in lower divisions. Of the current lower division clubs (other than those listed above) Barnsley, Brentford, Notts Co, Oldham & QPR have all spent time in the top division.
Wycombe have allowed London Wasps to use Adam's Park for two years. Hopefully that'll bring in some much needed cash to get us out of the 2nd Div. See, egg chasing isn't such a bad thing after all.
What it does show is that Rugby differs from football in than nobody seems remotely bothered that so many London Rugby clubs have abandoned their traditional homes and become 'franchises' in the home counties. Wasps at Wycombe. Saracens at Watford. Richmond (until they folded) & London Irish at Reading. The best thing about having London Irish at the Madejski is that the bars now serve Guinness.
A big part of that is how the different nations determine their champions. If the NBA decided its champion by who had the most regular season wins, how many teams would have a chance? Or the NHL...I know my Hurricanes wouldn't have a chance for the foreseeable future.
I don't assume that it's normal at all. The point was that Rochdale have probably the worst record for a club that has been in the league for a long time. For instance, Huddersfield won championships and FA Cups in the 1920s-1930s, you should have mentioned that.
I'm going to the match against Bristol on Sunday. There are a couple of us americans that goto adams park every-so-often for Wycombe matches. See the Yank fans in London thread in Yanks abroad.
On the other hand my club, Reading, went from 1926 to 1976 (fifty years!) without once winning promotion (they also came straight back down the following year as well). That 50 year spell included 2 relegations (we managed to get relegated to the 4th in our centenery year) and one realignment (3rd south to 3rd) so we were effectively in the same division from 1935 to 1971. Our FA Cup record is equally impressive. Not only have we lost more FA Cup ties than any other league club (we first entered in 1872) we have the record home FA Cup defeat 0-7 v Man City AND also the away defeat record 18-0 v Preston.