Then I would stop watching. They have closed leauges only to make money to the owners anyway. Salary cap helps them too.The model adopted by US pro sports will ultimately be copied.
Closed leagues with team level salary cap and rebalancing to keep an even sporting competition, not an economic one dominated by a very few teams. This benefits the big clubs too ultimately as it will improve the overall support and viewership of the league.
No chance it's considered though until the current model starts collapsing, TV deals start plunging in value.
US sports aren't even, while there is a salary cap in all in the NFL, NBA and NHL owners wealth is still extremely important particularly when it comes to guaranteed money and bonus structures in the NFL, luxury tax management in the NBA and in the NHL some teams are never close to the cap roof. The only actual balancing tool is the draft where being bad is rewarded by having access to the best prospects on cheap contracts.The model adopted by US pro sports will ultimately be copied.
Closed leagues with team level salary cap and rebalancing to keep an even sporting competition, not an economic one dominated by a very few teams. This benefits the big clubs too ultimately as it will improve the overall support and viewership of the league.
No chance it's considered though until the current model starts collapsing, TV deals start plunging in value.
In which league is that actually a thing? In US sports it's the opposite, every game counts because seedings are extremely important.Then I would stop watching. They have closed leauges only to make money to the owners anyway. Salary cap helps them too.
Promotion and relegation is a great part of football and sport. Removing that would ruin it all.
Playoff and so on in leagues is also totally silly. Half the league games doesn't matter then if you have already qualified for playoff.
CL group stage near the end is a bit the same, but it is often only 1-2 games per group that is like that.
And that brings its own problem where once you can no longer achieve anything meaningful you’re better off losing than winning.US sports aren't even, while there is a salary cap in all in the NFL, NBA and NHL owners wealth is still extremely important particularly when it comes to guaranteed money and bonus structures in the NFL, luxury tax management in the NBA and in the NHL some teams are never close to the cap roof. The only actual balancing tool is the draft where being bad is rewarded by having access to the best prospects on cheap contracts.
Not necessarily while tanking can be a strategy, in a draft where the top 10 or top 15 orders are lottery based, tanking isn't that interesting unless if you are actually really bad and have no hope of competing at a decent level. You also can't do it too often on purpose, it creates a bad culture for the younger players, losing doesn't bred winners. If you look at this season Miami were thought to be tanking hard but they eventually tried their best, they were bad but tried.And that brings its own problem where once you can no longer achieve anything meaningful you’re better off losing than winning.
To win the league do not give you anything. Or at least noone rates them as the league winners etc and claim it is a title. It is the playoff winner that gets the glory.In which league is that actually a thing? In US sports it's the opposite, every game counts because seedings are extremely important.
There's some true on it: Look at Euroleague where Real Madrid and CSKA never care much about finishing 1st, because they know they will reach final four no matter what (unless they draw each other). But they usually make an effort to finish top4 to avoid tougher opponents.In which league is that actually a thing? In US sports it's the opposite, every game counts because seedings are extremely important.
The first paragraph is totally wrong. You haven't won the league, you topped the league during the regular season, the league winner is the one who wins the playoffs. Funnily enough you picked the one sport where it's actually valued with teams receiving the president' trophy. Just an example of how seedings aren't meaningless, in the NFL since 1990 the n°1 seed has reached the Super Bowl 51.7% of the time and the n°2 seed 27.6%, no wild card team have reached it since 2013. There is also no comparison to the Europa League, it's not the same type of seeding, your seed on a given year depends entirely on your record that year which isn't the case with the CL or EL who uses historical results.To win the league do not give you anything. Or at least noone rates them as the league winners etc and claim it is a title. It is the playoff winner that gets the glory.
Or I can be wrong here, but at least following hockey it seems like that.
Sure top seed is alright, but you can be knocked out first round even after having won the league.
It is like ending in 5th being better than 6th for better Europa league seeding or 3 over 4th. Noone cares much about those details about a slightly better draw.
City won the group and got Real madrid etc. Not always obviously better to end highest since teams with higher quality and capacity can be seeded lower.
Also with the drafts do not the lowest ranked team get first pick? Thus actually doing poorly could even reward you for the future.
Crazy in my view. I am all for giving more money to the weaker sides with tv deals, sponsorships etc. Although when you reward teams for doing crap it goes over my head.
Glaziers might think it apply to us too. Thus why they are making us worse and hope that will reward us somehow.
That the top seed gets into the final might just show they are the best side and not because they might play easier teams in the first round.The first paragraph is totally wrong. You haven't won the league, you topped the league during the regular season, the league winner is the one who wins the playoffs. Funnily enough you picked the one sport where it's actually valued with teams receiving the president' trophy. Just an example of how seedings aren't meaningless, in the NFL since 1990 the n°1 seed has reached the Super Bowl 51.7% of the time and the n°2 seed 27.6%, no wild card team have reached it since 2013. There is also no comparison to the Europa League, it's not the same type of seeding, your seed on a given year depends entirely on your record that year which isn't the case with the CL or EL who uses historical results.
As for the second paragraph it depends, the NBA and the NHL have a lottery while the NFL doesn't. The important point to remember is that parity is artificial, teams don't actually have the same means and they don't actually have the same attractivity which is why the draft system is crucial otherwise the best athletes would simply pick the largest cities and markets. Giving weaker teams access to top prospects is the main way to create an evenish closed league otherwise you end up like football where the wealthier clubs are from the wealthier cities.
They're not even, but the structure attempts to create a sporting competition, not an economic one.US sports aren't even, while there is a salary cap in all in the NFL, NBA and NHL owners wealth is still extremely important particularly when it comes to guaranteed money and bonus structures in the NFL, luxury tax management in the NBA and in the NHL some teams are never close to the cap roof. The only actual balancing tool is the draft where being bad is rewarded by having access to the best prospects on cheap contracts.
I don't and clearly you don't yourself. You mixed different leagues with different rules and differents opinions when it comes to parity, there is no parity in the MLB and for anyone to mention the Yankees in that type of arguments is baffling, the 27 times World Champions New York Yankees have a look at the disparity of the payrolls in the MLB. There is no more parity in the MLB than there is in Football.They're not even, but the structure attempts to create a sporting competition, not an economic one.
Viewership and league revenue would collapse if they used the football model. Yankees, Cowboys, Knicks, Rangers would dominate and win almost every single year as they'd stack up with all the best players. You get the idea. Now check who actually won in recent times....
I don't think it's even an argument, it's just the "legacy" nature of football that this didn't happen already and the fact revenue has been growing anyway,, for now. If you started a new professional football league in Europe, you'd copy the US system because it generates the most money in the long term.
Just wait, in 5, 10, 20 years, when everyone is bored sick of the same clubs winning everything. Kids are already off playing fortnite or whatever, not watching football. Things going to change...
This is only a recent problem in football because the top clubs have grown exponentially compared to the rest since the late 90s. What chance of Forest or Villa lifting another European Cup anytime soon...?
If you take the NFL as an example it's divided in 8 divisions and two conferences. Division champions reach the playoffs and then you have 8 wild cards contenders who can't afford to not play every games, that's why your initial claim makes little sense, it's not easy to get into the playoffs, you also don't want to be the team travelling all around the country/continent during the playoffs which is one of the reasons behind the importance of the seedings on top of initially playing weaker teams. In the NBA and the NHL, you play most of your games at home when you have the top seeds which again has its importance when you play best of 5 or 7 series.That the top seed gets into the final might just show they are the best side and not because they might play easier teams in the first round.
Is it 16 teams in the playoff? Although it sounds like the gap between the sides can be massive given that the first one win so much easier. I can't fully judge without following it though.
Points difference can probably vary. If there is 3 good sides and the rest are much worse then being first and letting the other 2 play each other could be great.
If there are 4 good sides it might matter less etc.
In theory it could both help and make it worse.
Or youth instead of homegrown?I think it has mainly to do with when home grown quotas were relaxed. Make the rule all teams must have half the match-day team comprising of homegrown players.
I am not a fan of that. I am in general for strong very strong goverment influence over industry and economy. For both social and environmental reasons.I think it has mainly to do with when home grown quotas were relaxed. Make the rule all teams must have half the match-day team comprising of homegrown players.
They got 32 teams right and 16 for the playoff. Thus the bottom 8 will near the end have nothing to play for normally.If you take the NFL as an example it's divided in 8 divisions and two conferences. Division champions reach the playoffs and then you have 8 wild cards contenders who can't afford to not play every games, that's why your initial claim makes little sense, it's not easy to get into the playoffs, you also don't want to be the team travelling all around the country/continent during the playoffs which is one of the reasons behind the importance of the seedings on top of initially playing weaker teams. In the NBA and the NHL, you play most of your games at home when you have the top seeds which again has its importance when you play best of 5 or 7 series.
But it's not a group stage with 32 teams, there isn't a bottom 8 and top 8, the NFL is made of divisions of 4 teams.They got 32 teams right and 16 for the playoff. Thus the bottom 8 will near the end have nothing to play for normally.
Top 8 will have very little to play for near the end. Keeping form and maybe getting a better position.
Although the most important thing is not to win those games, but to be ready for the next games.
Middle teams will probably have things to play for near the end too, but the most important thing is just to get into the playoff.
Of course for the players and managers it can be worth to put in the effort. Although as a fan it must be very boring.
Big group stages in tournament got similar problems.Think 4 teams with 2 advancing to the next round makes most sense for the balance.
When you got a group stage with 32 teams it just becomes very boring over time.
You can argue the PL gets boring too for midtable sides. Although to push higher or be safe can still be very important.
The value of the season is not what happens after the league. The value is in the league.
Of course cup qualification for EL or CL matters too and more than PL almost.
Even with that though the league and CL can both be important at the same time.
I don't think anyone care about the league table after the season in America. If someone won the league noone talks about it unless you won the playoff too.
If you ended up in 3 over 4th noone will care or remember it either.
Do we want competition? As in 10 teams winning the league alternately? Nope. I dont.I think the PL will struggle in about 10 years, as Serie A did after its dominance.
The oil money will ruin any form of competition as smaller clubs fall away, which in turn will put viewers off watching it. That then means it's less appealing to the oil money who will feck off somewhere else. We will be left with hugely overinflated super clubs failing without their backers, and the rest who have slipped into irrelevance.
Of course English fans will still watch but TV deals are already falling there. Its international viewers the PL needs and they will happily switch to other leagues once the competition disappears.
It's actually not bad when it's the product of actual competition like it is in Super Rugby or Top 14, while there are favorites and in-form teams, you don't really know who is going to win and who is going to surprisingly fail.Do we want competition? As in 10 teams winning the league alternately? Nope. I dont.
I want 3-4 strong team and 16 cannon fodders who can create a few suprises here and there.
But going to extreme like championship level of competition is not something I'd like to watch.
It was absolutely possible, financial dominance has been a thing in football from day one.Terrific read.
I was actually thinking about how successful Guardiola has been. But he is essentially going from top club to to club. As in he is going from a club dominating financially to another dominant club finacially. Prior to the 90s this was not possible.
Not to take away from his achievement. He is still the best coach in the world in my opinion. I just think that had he been around in the seventies, he would not win as much.
That is a bit weird though since they do play against all other 31 teams right. That was my understanding at least, but could be wrong.But it's not a group stage with 32 teams, there isn't a bottom 8 and top 8, the NFL is made of divisions of 4 teams.
Just quoting most valuable teams per sport.I don't and clearly you don't yourself. You mixed different leagues with different rules and differents opinions when it comes to parity, there is no parity in the MLB and for anyone to mention the Yankees in that type of arguments is baffling, the 27 times World Champions New York Yankees have a look at the disparity of the payrolls in the MLB. There is no more parity in the MLB than there is in Football.
Why would the Knicks win, they aren't competent and have no right to win. Now check which teams are in the luxury tax and see where they are in the league table, look at how much it cost to be a repeat offender and whether you need to be wealthy to afford it. NFL and NHL have hard caps and are lot more even than the other two. Now something important that would never be transfered to Europe today, is that first athletes do not choose where they work, their contracts can be traded without their consent and in the NFL contracts figures are for a large part fictitious because not guaranteed.
No, they don't play the other 31 teams, they play 16 games, 6 against teams in their division and 10 against teams from the rest of the league, the league creates new schedules for every seasons. And teams are rarely actually crap, you still need to play otherwise you will lose against the worst team in your division, the NFL is probably the least boring league in sport, every match is a contest, every match has great talents and between rivalries and general pride teams do not give up games.That is a bit weird though since they do play against all other 31 teams right. That was my understanding at least, but could be wrong.
So do the top 2 from each division qualify? That could be odd since in one division 3 teams can be crap and so you can top the group early. Other groups the opposite having 4 top sides.
That would be really interesting but its impossible to apply it in football. In the US sports it works because all those sports exist mainly in that country alone, there's no other league like NFL, NBA, LMB in the world. All the best players play in that league and 95% of the main talents are developed in the US not by the teams but by the schools.The model adopted by US pro sports will ultimately be copied.
Closed leagues with team level salary cap and rebalancing to keep an even sporting competition, not an economic one dominated by a very few teams. This benefits the big clubs too ultimately as it will improve the overall support and viewership of the league.
No chance it's considered though until the current model starts collapsing, TV deals start plunging in value.
So that is even worse then. If you got a good draw it can make it much easier for teams etc.No, they don't play the other 31 teams, they play 16 games, 6 against teams in their division and 10 against teams from the rest of the league, the league creates new schedules for every seasons. And teams are rarely actually crap, you still need to play otherwise you will lose against the worst team in your division, the NFL is probably the least boring league in sport, every match is a contest, every match has great talents and between rivalries and general pride teams do not give up games.