The All-Encompassing Pro/Rel Thread on Soccer in the USA

How much would they earn if they were still in the prem?
Would they earn that if they had never been in the prem in the first place?

 

Why not hand out that money when they get promoted? Or use it to pay off player contracts?

The hypocrisy is suggesting that MLS rewards failure by giving teams Garber$200k and first choice of a student, then arguing the Premier League isn't rewarding failure by giving a team a £40 million advantage over their direct competitors.

 

Europe would be hooked if the Carolina Panthers were dropped down to the USXFL Championship.

 

The only problem is that XFL and USFL are single-entities and all teams and player contracts are owned by the leagues, even moreso than MLS, where investor/operaters do get some discretion.

 

According to 'some' all of the clubs that have been in the Premier League thanks to their unfair advantage with money are still in the Premier League.........................for some reason the fact that there have been over 50 of them (so far) doesn't register.

The reality is 50+ clubs have had the 'advantages' of Premier League money and yet we know that 50 clubs won't even fit into the top 2 tiers!

Surely that means at worst the Premier League money has benefitted more than the top 2 tiers of English football!

 

Perhaps the 'foreign' owners thought that before their statements concerning the European Super League but it didn't seem to take them long to realise their mistake! Personally if it happened and Chelsea Football Club dismissed its tens of thousands of match day fans in an offhand way then I shall join said tens of thousands outside Stamford Bridge and not let in any of these 'new fans' that will magically appear out of nowhere. I can tell you now that choice of not 'supporting my club' (and it is MY club) or still supporting them in the Super League then I choose 'not supporting my club'........along with all the other match day attending Chelsea supporters that I know personally.

Trust me if clubs want a 'Super League' then they are going to have to get their supporters on board FIRST.

 

But is $50 million a reward for failure compared to say, $200k in imaginary money and first choice of a student athlete?

 

The hypocrisy is arguing that you can even remotely compare a system where failure is rewarded by better draft choices and playing at the same level the following season with a system where failure means playing in a lower level league the following season.

 

The $200k in Garber bucks is really getting less and less relevant as MLS payrolls increase.

Median Payroll (Capology)

England1 $93,742,500
Italy $35,494,200
Germany1 $34,322,400
Spain $31,039,200
France $23,279,400
England2 $15,380,625
Brazil $14,635,0002
Turkey $13,915,000
MLS $13,251,000
Germany2 $9,579,600
Mexico $9,092,500
Switzerland $7,020,000
Netherlands $5,940,000
Portugal $5,616,000
Belgium $5,398,089
Austria $4,698,000
Argentina $4,970,000
Scotland $3,551,875

 

You get to the Premier League and you haven't 'failed', at the end of this season 3 clubs WILL get promoted to the Premier League and they WILL make more money next season because of it, 3 clubs WILL get promoted from League 1 into the Championship and they WILL make more money because of it, that's the beauty of it you see, Premier League riches are just as attainable to Notts County as they were to Brighton or as they were to Luton or Bournemouth etc. All this talk of money only goes to show why pro/rel works so well, thanks to pro/rel clubs like Bournemouth have evolved from small local clubs into behemoths, just think of the opportunities open to Notts County!

 

Irrelevant. They got the money for being in the PREM.

They failed to stay. They get rewarded with 3 more years of tens of millions of dollars that the inferior competition they moved to, does not get. They are literally handed a direct (and large) advantage.

Yes, they still have to not suck at using it ... but that doesn't erase the fact they are handed it in the first place based solely on the fact they failed in the Prem.

Again, which would you choose?
The two of us building a team/preparing for the Championship and I get 96m to do so that you don't. Or, we have essentially the same resources/revenues available and it's just down to which one of us is better at it?

No, but again that's irrelevant.

The entirety of this sidebar is the fact that they were/failed/get bags of cash for failing VS clubs that haven't. Obviously the revenue/wages reflect having been Prem players/club. It isn't a hypothetical, it's an actual.

Oh joy, this thought trap again.

*sigh* .... No, not at all has that ever been claimed. And no, there hasn't been 50 clubs in the Premier League AND THE CURRENT STATE OF MONEY INVOLVED. See, facts/details about the discussion really matter, as this bolded statement is what myself and the others on "this side" have been discussing. That's not even getting into the clubs that were defaulted into the PREM or got promoted in during the first few years and piddled out never to bee seen again (Swindon, Oldham, Ipswhich etc)

For instance, the DOMESTIC value of the Prem broadcast deal is currently DOUBLE what the ENTIRETY of Prem broadcast monies was from 2007-2010. Hell, it wasn't even until 2004-5ish that TV money actually became the main revenue source for Prem clubs.
(sources:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/277566/tv-broadcasting-revenue-premier-league-outside-uk/
https://www.researchgate.net/public...ue_TV_Rights_Selling_Model_-_Historical_Study)

Money, like technology, works exponentially. Yes, there's a big gap between clubs making 10K vs 100K vs 1M ... while the same percentage difference, the ACTUAL difference between clubs making 1M vs 10M vs 100M is astronomically bigger.

What, you're going to get violent? You're going to assault someone trying to got to a football match?

No more hypocritical than saying a club that beat inferior competition deserves/earned the right to replace a club that played superior competition. Certainly no more hypocritical than saying 1/3 of the avg salary in fake monies and first pick in a crapshoot is rewarding when handing 96M to a club moving to a level where the first bag of cash is more than every other clubs' total revenue by itself.

 

Maybe Paul would prefer a system where Notts County don't even exist because the Nottingham area is Nottingham Forest's "territory" a la US closed leagues.

 

You have it backwards.

Forest's application to join the Football League in 1888 was rejected because of the one team per city policy.

They joined the Football Alliance instead.

Today Nottingham Forest and Notts County are members of two different organizations, so territorial restrictions would not apply.

UEFA had a one team per city policy for each of it's competitions up until the mid-1980s. Everton were denied a place in the 1969/70 Fairs Cup after finishing third as Liverpool had finished one place above them.

I'm also not sure MLS's media rights even apply any more in the wake of the Apple TV deal.

 

Clubs have ALWAYS made more money in the first tier of English football ALWAYS! And the FACT is that 3 clubs WILL be promoted at the end of the season and 3 clubs WILL go down! Thats why clubs like Luton can make it to the promise land - Its the same as its always been! The proof of that? LUTON TOWN!!

 

????? Nonsense - Everton and Liverpool have been in the same tier for 100 years!!

 

For European competitions back in the day.

 

European competitions 'back in the day' didn't invite 4 clubs from one federation to compete in the European cup, European competitions aren't run on the same format as league football.

Just for interest the 'earliest' top flight football derby game I can find is the Sheffield derby, Wednesday played United in the top tier for the first time in 1893, the game finished 1-1. The first London derby game in the league was Chelsea v Leyton Orient in 1905, that was a second division match. Earliest Manchester derby was in season 1894-95, first top flight Manchester derby was in 1906.

 

Notts County played Forest in the Football League First Division at Trent Bridge Cricket Ground on 8th October, 1892.

The reverse fixture in February 1893 was also hosted at Trent Bridge.

The Fairs Cup, the predecessor of the UEFA Cup and Europa League, allowed multiple teams from one league to enter but only one team from any city.

The 1963 final was between Barcelona and Real Zaragoza

 

Explain this then:

LA Galaxy, LAFC
Orange County SC
LA Force, Cal United

Ah, we're back to the repeating of the thing that nobody is arguing (how the mechanism of pro/rel works) ad nauseam because we can't actually speak to the points being made. Good times.

Also, it appears someone either glossed over or doesn't understand the "money works exponentially" point that was made to show how the difference in monies matters (and was the actual point of context all of this is being discussed under).

 

"Territorial rights" apply to youth player recruitment. I believe the local media rights disappeared with the Apple TV deal.

So I'm not even sure that MLS teams have regional rights any more.

USL franchises have territorial rights. Maybe that's where the confusion is.

 

All the while promotion runs down the tiers everything is as its always been. There have been more than 50 FIFTY clubs that have played in the Premier League, the league is as fluid as its ever been and it will continue to be so as long as 3 go up and 3 go down.

 

I remember the Premier League shrinking for Euro '96.

 

Well exactly. Nottingham Forest have the Premier League rights to Nottingham and Notts County would perennially be consigned to minor leagues or cease to exist.

 

I'm actually fine with that.