It doesn't affect those sports because there are no leagues that are remotely close in terms of competitiveness to the NFL, NBA, MLB, or NHL and a large portion of talent comes from a draft. Pro/rel doesn't affect Everton/West Brom at this very moment, but about Leicester City with no pro/rel they don't get a shot at pulling one of the greatest underdog story in the history of sport. Very few people care about NE v. TFC because the talent level isn't the same as Everton v. West Brom. People also aren't interested in teams that play in vastly inferior leagues that have no ability to change their status. Pro/rel allows a team to change its fortunes. So while Everton may be a perpetual Mid table team that falls on their ownership rather than being locked in a league that doesn't generate interest aside from a small local fan base.
Spain has had basketball and pro/rel for decades. They're one of the better leagues in Europe. Why hasn't the appeal of pro/rel made them stronger? The KHL shifted from pro/rel to closed and is competing with the NHL for talent. How does the closed system hurt those leagues? It's a great story because the disparity that is present in leagues across the world makes this kind of thing increasingly rare. Let's not act like this is a regular feature of pro/rel. Since the inception of MLS, England has seen 4 different champions, Spain has seen 5, Italy 5, Portugal 4, the Netherlands 5, SPL 2, Germany 6 and on it goes. MLS fosters competitiveness in its league. It has seen 10 Supporters Shield winners and 10 MLS Cup winners, with countless "worst to first" underdog stories. By that logic, they wouldn't care about Everton vs West Brom because the talent level isn't the same as Barcelona vs Real Madrid. I know plenty of people that are. However, that particular mentality is why the US has never organically grown its own pyramid and why they choose to attack rather than support MLS. Being second best in your region to only the rather wealthy and upwardly-mobile Liga MX, despite being only 20 years into your existence, in a nation that views your sport as "niche" is a perfectly acceptable place to be in. Despite this, the reaction to being ousted by Mexican clubs in the CCL lead to claims of crisis. The US system allows teams to change their fortunes. If you somehow get 45,000 people watching the OC Blues in the next five years, dominating NASL and winning the US Open Cup, I'd imagine MLS would be quite eager to have them "in-house".
What about teams that play in really bad First Divisions? Do people in Hungary or Bulgaria care that their teams are in relatively bad leagues and they have no hope of moving to a better one? I mean--that argument is really about where the ceiling is, because even if MLS had pro/rel with lower divisions, it's still the Division 1 league at the moment.
That's not the point. Bournemouth's infrastructure is close enough to other Premier League clubs that it doesn't look bush-league. In England, there are 50 or more clubs with Premier League level infrastructure. In the US, the gap in infrastructure is something like what you might see if every club in the Championship and League One were to suddenly disappear, except maybe a couple of them (representing clubs like New York Cosmos and Sacramento Republic). It's telling that no lower-league team "promoted" into MLS has done it with less than a full year of lead time to prepare for the move. I think the NY Cosmos and Sacramento might have the money and existing infrastructure to make the jump in a single offseason, but that's far from a sure thing.
Of course. What would be the point of a minor league club spending $$$ on a team and infrastructure when you don't have control of your own destiny as you do in a pro/rel league?
Minor league teams spend money on infrastructure all the time.... It is one of the ways they keep themselves relevant. The main difference is the scale. So while a MLB team might build a new 40k stadium, a MiLB team would build a 10k or smaller.
There is zero evidence that more people would be watching NE v TFC if MLS was the top of a pro/rel pyramid. Beyond that, why compare a new and growing league, in a nation with far less interest in the game, to what is far and away the richest league on Earth? By your argument, more Americans should be interested in Reading v Brighton, then, correct, as they play in a league from which they can emerge? Does anyone outside of their small fan base spend a lot of time following the fate of Magdeburg? they have every chance each season at promotion, or relegation. Your argument appears to be that people will follow, today, teams that might, just possibly, be in a higher league in a couple years? I don't think there is any evidence to back this up. There are certainly fans who will jump on a bandwagon, but not before it's been built and is rolling along pretty good. That's the notion behind bandwagon fans, they jump on when it's already at full speed. As to the notion that Everton's fate is controlled by it's board, how is that any different, at all, than say the Chicago Bears? Sustained mediocrity is the same and has the same root cause no matter the league or sport. The difference, in fact, would be that Chicago fans would have a right to be more upset at the consistent lack of advancement, as their club is playing on level financial terms (income to salary cap) with the other clubs. For 25 years, the KC Royals defined ineffective management, finishing last or nearly last for much of that spell. Yet they weren't relegated, didn't have to deal with the financial disaster that would have brought, and figured out a way to succeed. It was no less an impressive turnaround than that by L. City, was it? And in both cases, it was because the boards figured out a way to make it work.
And what would you propose? Push them into the top tier without the infrastructure? Most of the owners can't afford it. All that leads to is promoted clubs folding, as happened in Australia year after year for decades. And it's not as if pro/rel necessarily encourages people to buy lower-division clubs -- see, e.g., China, also an emerging soccer market, where the lower divisions saw minimal investment despite a pro/rel system because billionaires found it quicker to buy and relocate top-division clubs than get local lower-division clu s promoted. Everywhere else that pro/rel has been introduced (or reintroduced) in the last 30 years, the existence of clubs that were at least on par with the bottom of the top division predated pro/rel. In Japan, at the time the J-League opened up, there were 70+ clubs that satisfied its financial and infrastructure requirements.
I'd add that the evidence shows the opposite. In the US, lower league teams get essentially no attendance bump at all even after being awarded a place in MLS for the following season. It's only after they're already in MLS that attendance goes up. If they don't show up for a team that they know will be in MLS the next year, why exactly will they show up for a team that might potentially be in MLS at some point in the unspecified future?
Yes, because the biggest markets outside of the Prem/Bundesliga/etc are the ones with the best att, get promoted, are as big as EPL clubs etc? Not always. Ok, I think we're done here .... you're continuing to try and shoe horn something into something else. Minor league sports are a popular thing here in the US. That doesn't mean that they are going to draw crowds comparable to Major league sports. Something can be popular but be on a different scale. Is that what was written? I said that for all of the "inclusiveness" it is just as, if not more exclusive. At the moment I fancy San Antonio's chances of being an MLS club in the next five years more than ANY League 1 or 2 club and over half of the Championship clubs being an EPL side. We don't ... but the closed of major leagues haven't hindered the popularity of hockey, football, baseball, or basketball. There is no secondary sport anywhere in the world that is as relatively popular to the primary sport as we have here in the US, let alone the third or fourth most popular sport on the ladder. It's not even close. Of course that exacerbates the gulf ... but it's a circular churn. Pumping even more money into the top 5/6 clubs isn't as relevant AT THIS POINT, to the fact that the bottom end keeps getting rotated. Those top clubs are already so far ahead ... The KHL is absolutely remotely close and is even stealing players from the NHL. They actually abandoned pro/rel and set up a very American structure to the league (divisions and conferences and expansion included) and have seen a 21% increase in avg att across the league and have teams wanting to join (like Jokerit from Finland last year). Japan has a very storied and quality baseball league. Europe has several basketball leagues as do South American countries (and you can see the high end level in international competition). Most of these leagues in other countries have pro/rel ... and they are shit in terms of relative popularity. The statement I quoted flat out said that the EV/WB match was more interesting because pro/rel made it more interesting. You've backed up my side here though, as it doesn't effect it at all. That's exactly right. I like your enthusiasm but 'the greatest underdog story in the history of sport' is quite the exaggeration. Vastly inferior leagues that have no ability to change their status? You mean like Liga MX? or the Belgian League? They're vastly inferior to the EPL and they can't change their status ..... don't see them hurting for eyeballs. Nothing about pro/rel allows a club to "change its fortunes" any more so than our system. What, you don't think the Patriots' fortune didn't chance from the 80's to the 2000's ? The Cowboys the last 15 years ?
Point of order, he said "one of" the greatest (although he said "story" singular, but I'm guessing that's a typo). I'd have to agree that it is a truly great underdog story if they go on and win the Premiership.
I'd argue that unless you have external investment significant enough to give you a near-insurmountable competitive advantage, you don't have control over your own destiny. In an expansion based system, you know the parameters and can build accordingly. Much more control. Also, NASL have made clear statements that their teams goal is to compete with MLS, either via a pro/rel system or as a rival D1 league. USL have stated the same regarding D2 status which they fought NASL for previously and are looking to obtain again. The ASL has stated its intention to be D3. All those leagues have incentive - perhaps even the need - to spend on team and infrastructure to meet their stated goals.
Of course. It's not as though their performances on the field of play that season have any consequences in terms of their status.
You asked a question, I gave you an answer... Seriously. If you want to have an honest discussion, how about you stop being intentionally obtuse? Seriously, minor league clubs are making investments in the clubs because, get this, they are a business and want to make money. You act like the minor leagues in the US are a vast wasteland of crap when that simply isn't true. Yes, there is a gap, but it isn't that different from pro/rel pyramids outside of England and Germany.
I gave you my answer first time around - read it. What's the point in investing in team/infrastructure beyond the level you're playing at when you don't have control of your destiny?
90% of them don't have money to invest in the first place, and pro/rel generally doesn't bring wealthier owners to the lower leagues.
And I gave the answer.. Minor league teams make investments in the team because they are a business and part of that business is having a good game day experience. Much like pro/rel leagues, the quality of ballparks and available money decreases as you move down the divisions. Many AAA ballparks are basically mini-MLB ballparks, AA worse than that, A even worse, spring ball is generally little more than a baseball field with aluminum bleachers along the foul lines. Now, that is just baseball, but basketball and football have largely turned college sports into minor league for their sports and hockey is very similar to baseball in that the quality of the stadium decreases as you move down the levels.
It's not unique to Union Berlin, though - some other traditional pro clubs and their worst average attendance since the introduction of the nationwide 2. Bundesliga: Eintracht Braunschweig (4,300) Fortuna Düsseldorf (3,800) 1860 Munich (3,400) Hansa Rostock (3,400) Dynamo Dresden (3,300) Hannover 96 (3,100) Bielefeld (3,000) Duisburg (2,400) Hertha BSC (1,800) All of those clubs had seasons where they averaged at least 20,000 before AND after that low-point, and all clubs had played at a (often significantly) higher level before as well.
Not always, but you do virtually always get clubs in a pro/rel system drawing better crowds than some in the division above. That doesn't ever seem to happen with minor leagues, for any sport, regardless of the size of the market those minor league clubs are in. Inclusiveness is about being welcome to join. It's not about the likelihood of "Club X" being able to get there in the near future. While San Antonio might have a decent shot at getting in, most clubs have no chance of being allowed in. ...at the top level.
The Premier League went through a ten-year or so period where the promoted teams were almost guaranteed to be relegated if not the following season then the one after. Something happened around the time Stoke and West Brom got promoted which changed this. Maybe it was the 70% increase in the UK broadcasting rights.
Rugby League in England (+Catalans) has gone back and forth. it doesn't have true pro/rel. After each team has played each other twice, the top 8 go into the Super 8 "playoffs", while the bottom four go into a mezzanine league with the top 4 from the Championship. Given the gap in resources, only an exceptional Championship team would make it into Super League. Even then there are a set of financial and infrastructure barriers which would preclude teams from obtaining a Super League licence. I don't think Featherstone Rovers, stalwart of Rugby League for 120 years, have any intention of applying for a Super League spot. I may have already said that I think this could be a model for US league soccer. The bottom 4 from each conference play off against teams from lower leagues but even if a lower league team does well they still have to meet the same strict criteria as MLS aspirants have to today. The franchise fee could be used as a "parachute payment" for the team getting relegated, which would give their owners and fans some financial security.
I always wonder how many U.S.-based pro-rel supporters are fans of super clubs that are NEVER in any danger of relegation. Try being a proponent of the system if you're a Leeds or Fulham fan. Not saying I'm against pro-rel (inept teams like the Sixers in the NBA are an argument in favor of it), but the U.S. sports landscape is just an entirely different beast.
My team has been relegated eight times since I started watching them. Although I do not think that pro/rel will ever happen in the US, I consider it a much superior way to organize professional sports leagues than a set of closed major/minor leagues.