I wouldn't call it a "financial reward" though. It's not like a juicy severance package. It's more like unemployment insurance. Unemployment insurance in a third-world country, to be more precise. There's a difference.
Whereas the equivalent of Blackpool's manager in the US would have his team permanently consigned to the minor leagues, without ever having the ability to play a single game against the best teams, regardless of how well his team performed. In my book, providing your fans the ability to see their team play against the best in the country shows a lot more ambition than the US cartel model can.
Exactly, And I'd like to hear a single fan of a relegated team claim his team had been "rewarded" by being relegated to the league below.
Everyone always talk about the teams who move up to D1 how that is good, but I always wondered how many owners would stick around if they were relegated to D3? I wouldn't think there's alot of support for D3 teams. In fact teams when they left USL 1 usually ditch them for the PDL or MLS and rarely head to D3. Why is that? This year we couldn't even get 8 teams to want to play in D3 that says something.
you do know that their is a guideline set for clubs in D2 starting next year to make the league more stable.
Call it whatever you want but it's an amount of money that is provided to them by the division they just got relegated from so they can "land well" i.e. do better next year... an insurance, mind you, that will put them at an avantage over the teams they're going to meet next season. Again my point being they are provided a way by the league to do better next year; in the same way the draft allow a team the chance (not guarantee) to do better in the upcoming years. I am not a fan of the draft pick the way it is set in the NFL (last automatically get first pick), but have no problem about the way it is set in the NBA. I am also a fan of pro/rel and would not oppose it if it was to be adopted in the US. Nor would I have any problem if parity measures were adopted in european football leagues. Both systems have their pros and cons.
Not true they do get a chance to play teams in the MLS in the US Open Cup. Also while there's no pro/rel per se, we have seen teams move from the USL to the MLS.
Except, statistically, it doesn't. It merely helps them adjust to life with lower revenues and costs that didn't magically reduce the instant they got relegated. If anything, parachute payments merely level the playing field, and even then they don't recompense the loss of revenues a team relegated from the Premier League has. So you can't see a logical difference between the cartel model of playing in the "major" league and receiving much the same revenues regardless of performance the prior season, and the pro/rel model of playing in the division below to likely lower crowds and less television revenue?
Their league status remains unchanged regardless of their performance on the field of play. The following season, they'll still be playing at the same level with the same standard of play. So how many teams have moved up to the NFL/NBA and MLB from minor leagues in recent seasons. Even with MLS they didn't get promoted by virtue of their performances; they just bought their way into the cartel.
Well, the main difference is that there is no incentive for a team to do terrible. Survive and you get €60. Get relegated and you get €10. It's obviously better to finish 17th than 20th. That isn't true in American sports leagues. The lottery doesn't change the fact that there is an added incentive to finish dead last. All the lottery does is increase the incentive to miss the playoffs rather than squeaking into the playoffs and likely losing in the first round. So much for the "exciting" playoff race.
you are right, I mixed them up with another club. still, the point stands, clubs going up and down in the rankings by large margins, purely on merit and not how many supporters they can present, is a very common occurrence in Europe. in life, I, as I'm sure most people, prefer the standings of people to be based on merit, and not on who's got the better connections. and if you think about it, the American franchise system gives to those who've got the most 'connections'.
Yes, no one is debating the bolded part, but...and this is a very big but, Society at large =/= Sports. What is best for society is not necessarily best for sports. An example; I build a better mousetrap. In society at large, if one person or culture makes some improvement based on merit, it doesn't negatively affect everyone else. My building a better mousetrap doesn't mean everyone else has to revert to chasing mice around with a hammer. In fact, if I build a better mousetrap, everyone has a chance to have a better mousetrap because they can buy the technology from me. Pure competition / merit based reward is good for society as a whole because society is not a zero sum game. Improvements by one trikle down to the whole. In sports, where the whole point is competition for competition's sake, unfettered hands off survival of the fittest type competition defeats the purpose of the whole exercise. This is because sports is a zero sum game. In the short term (2-3 years) the talent pool in a given sport is largely fixed. Yes there is inflow of talent from college or academy systems, and there is outflow from retirement, but the turnover rate is slow and takes years for a complete refreshment of the talent pool. In this system if one team (Chelsea, the NY Yankees, Real Madrid) loads up on talent, it has to come from another team in the short term. Roman Abromovich building a better Chelsea means everyone else is a little worse because the talent he is accumulating has to come from somewhere. Same with pro/rel. West Brom's promotion means Hull's relegation. And since the point of sports is competion, it isn't just the total talent level that matters, it is also the distribution. One dominant team is boring unless you happen to be a fan of that one team. For everyone else it sucks. Better to take the talent and even it out to allow more competative games. Salary Cap, Entry Drafts, and Revenue Sharing allow this, and because a closed league with fixed membership is a virtual prerequisite for those things, a closed league becomes a greater good as well. And again this is because Society at large =/= Sports. Any socialogical comparison of a political or economic system to a league structure badly misses this point.
I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. the amount of soccer talent is as static as the amount of engineering talent. Germany for example always had a lot of excellent engineers because Germany was always heavily investing in their education. a few years ago their soccer talent was rock bottom. what do they do, they completely overhaul their soccer education system, and voilà, look at their talent pool now. so your idea that there is a static amount of soccer talent worldwide, whose only sensible management is equal distribution clearly doesn't stand up. what's the insensitive for a club owner to invest into educational programs and better them with time, if he has to fear loosing a substantial amount of his investment/work? oh, and developing a better soccer schooling system for example is at least as useful as your improved mouse trap, and no-one is suffering from it either. as for your claim that it's virtually a prerequisite to have a closed monopoly for salery caps and revenue sharing, that's just completely off the wall. don't think it really needs any rebuting, that's just obvious bs. another thing, "unfettered hands off survival of the fittest" doesn't work in society at large either. and if you think that's what's happening in European football, then you clearly don't know much about European football. there are more than enough rules and regulations concerning the game. I'm not saying it's perfect, there's always room for improvement. I'd certainly be in favour of a bit more revenue sharing. not the revenue clubs generate themselves directly though. the main problem distorting European leagues a bit is the CL money. would be nice if UEFA would pay out a bit less to the clubs which take part in it, and instead hand more over to the national federations, who then can do with it as they see fit, except simply passing it on to the clubs. that would make the income gap smaller, and a bit fairer. I just think the proportions of the cake are not quite right. CL clubs should certainly get quite a bit more money than the non-CL clubs, that's just fair, but I think it's too much.
We don't have a reason to switch to pro/reg in any of our sports. There isn't a convincing argument to make to do so, at least I've not heard any. We keep mentioning college sports, but its like it doesn't register. College sports is more popular than anything else in America. More people will go watch a college sports team on a weekend than will go watch the professional version of that sport. NFL has something like 17 million in attendance, while college football has 43 million in Division 1, 2 million in Division 2 and so on, read more here. College sports are also considered amateur, so trying to make a comparison to the English professional football system is hard. It almost be as if the English 3rd or 4th division was the most popular version of the sport , while at the same time none of those teams were surpassing the monetary value of the Premiere league teams. I'm not sure that's an adequate comparison either. Hockey has 1 top league, 2 "second divisions" (one is better than the other), and about 4-5 regional leagues that I would consider 3rd division. Then we still have college to contend with. My point is that our system developed because of the college system that were in place long before the professionals started making a buck. Pro football wasn't as popular as the college sport for many decades. They simply couldn't afford pro/reg because the support wasn't there to begin with. Our pro leagues are basically a showcase of the best talent the college system had to offer. That's about the entire gist of our system. Players move up the system , though college, and if they are good enough, arrive at the professional level by being chosen by a pro team. The rest have a nice degree to go find employment with. Today the professional league teams are far too valuable to risk a pro/reg system. I'm not sure there would be any fans for it because the college sport would take away the support. As always, thought, its America and someone is welcome to spend their money to try to make it happen. It would take billions of dollars to implement I bet.
I'll never understand what is so special about pro/rel that some folks are absolutely adamant that the US HAS to do it or else. well, other than "europe does it", that is.
And Canada. And Ireland, for every sport except soccer. And most of East Asia. And even in Europe, Africa and South America in other sports such as rugby, cricket, basketball and baseball. So, yeah.
The issue here, really is how entrenched each side is in their respective system and how their system has shaped each side's views. The fan culture in Europe and South America is inherently different than in the US. As an American, I can't imagine a AAA baseball team's fanbase getting excited about them making the majors because the average AAA baseball team's fanbase probably favors an MLB team over the local team. In fact, I've seen it first hand... go to a Columbus Clippers game and count the Reds and Indians hats. You talk about fans being happy to see their team on national TV and competing with the best and it's just obvious that you'll never understand the way Americans think about professional sports. The system has developed in such a way that no American sports fan feels that way about their team (except maybe college football sports from programs like Boise State, I guess). Let's pretend you created NFL 2 and installed pro/rel. The promoted team's fanbase might get hyped over the novelty of being in the NFL initially, but after a few weeks of being torn to shreds by the real teams the fanbase would be mad. That's how we've been raised. Losing is unacceptable. And why is it unacceptable? Because it hurts the team's image nationally, it hurts the city's image nationally. And because there are no safety nets like going back to division 2 and dominating to make it seem any better. And that's why the hypothetical is so stupid... promotion and relegation is so far beyond the pale of American sports. It's so far removed from the basic ideas of what sports are in this country.... our entire psyche as sports fans has been shaped by the system as we know it. This debate wouldn't exist anywhere but a soccer forum, in fact... a lot of American soccer fans simply don't like other sports and therefore can't understand how absurd the ideas you're presenting us with are. At some point many pages ago, M brought up the people of Sacramento wanting an NFL team as proof of how awful a closed league system is. The thought just struck me... how would the people of Sacramento feel if they were offered a team that would play in a second tier and could hypothetically make the NFL? Would they be for that? Would they want the risk of being stuck in the minor leagues with the teams from other second tier cities forever? Or do they really just want to be part of that exclusive club... be able to say "We're a first rate city and we have the sports team to prove it"? I don't think the anti-American system folks around here really want to know the answer
This sums up a great deal in just a few words. BrodieQPR was talking about Americans when he said this, but it's equally true of Europeans. People like things that they are used to. People whose lives have been spent in the American system like the American system. People whose lives have been spent in the European/Latin American/etc. system like the European/Latin American/etc. system. Neither of us should be trying to impose our system on the other.
I can. I just think of the example of Seattle getting a major league soccer team. Attendance increased something like 10-fold. I would say that qualifies as "getting excited about making the majors". Ditto for Toronto. And Colorado (hockey). The list goes on-and-on. I don't doubt that. But they only support a major league team because their town will never host major league baseball. I don't buy that. Winning and losing is a zero-sum game. Every night you see a winner, there is also a loser. For every .600 baseball team out there, there exists a .400 baseball team. Doesn't matter what the format is. America finds losing unacceptable is just a cliche. Somebody said it once and people kept repeating it, while at-the-same-time loving teams such as the Chicago Cubs who suck every year. I know plenty of people who grew-up with the "American system" and learned to love the "European system". Unfortunately I can't say the reverse is true.
Yes, they were excited about making the "majors." But they also knew that being in the "majors" meant stability and a chance to get to the top of the heap. It didn't mean one lucrative year of getting pounded and then kicked out of the league. It didn't mean huge debts just to hold on to a league place for a few years without no chance at a championship.
Another reason why allowing "major leagues" to be run as a cartel is a poor idea: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/08/sports/08stadium.html?hp
Interestingly, rugby and cricket in England traditionally didn't have pro/rel, but have introduced it over the last couple of decades.
Why do I get the feeling you're only thinking about the promotion from England's second-tier to the Premiership? As if that's the only 2 divisions that exist. The main concept behind pro/rel is that a really bad team is replaced by a better team. Since that promoted team is better, there's no reason to assume they will get pounded. Of course that is the case in England's top-flight but there are many reasons behind that which probably wouldn't exist if the USA had pro/rel. Aston Villa wouldn't be competing for the Premier League title in a closed system either. Brazil is probably a better model to look at rather than England for this discussion. Right now the newly promoted teams (ie 2009) in Brazil's top flight are #8, #9, #11 and #18 in the league mid-way through the season. Overall that's certainly better than what you'd expect for an expansion franchise and minus the fake, corporate feeling associated with the teams.