How modern football became broken beyond repair

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
40,659
Location
France
So that is even worse then. If you got a good draw it can make it much easier for teams etc.
I understand why they might do it due to the distances and high numbeer of teams, but it would probably be better to split the league in half then.
30 games then against 15 teams.

I can't get away that the American sports seem just totally focused on making money for the owners.
Football have that too, but also can clearly hurt teams more that focus on that too much.
Teams that actually focus on the football side of things can at least get rewarded for it.
Even though top teams buying young talents from smaller clubs too easily is a problem.
It's best to actually follow it instead of judging and having an opinion based on a lack of knowledge.
 

momo83

Massive Snowflake
Joined
Dec 5, 2013
Messages
1,393
From the comments its clear a big problem is the wage disparity. So a wage gap that is "not" linked to turnover is the clear first step, so a fixed wage cap for every team in a division.

I do think we past the point of no return though, and also even without billionaire owners, we would be still going down the same path except it would be Liverpool, Manchester United, and Arsenal. The billionaire owners have simply shaken it up a bit in terms of which team's it is.
Really don’t get why middle and upper class journos say the problem is player salaries. Football is the one business where people on the ground actually get a wage close to what they generate for their organisation. Put a salary cap and it’s just more money for the Glazers, Mike Ashley’s of the world.

But that’s the way of the U.K. No complains when some retail tycoon pays his staff minimum wage and profits £100m a year, but the minute footballers who are mostly from working class backgrounds started earning wealth it suddenly became a problem.
 

Paul_Scholes18

Full Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2014
Messages
5,876
It's best to actually follow it instead of judging and having an opinion based on a lack of knowledge.
Well my point is that it would be terrible for football. I don't care much about hockey.
Although part of the reason is the system in hockey they got that makes it hard to gain interest.
We might just like different things though when it comes to sport.

Many owners exploit lots of sports though. Just at least if they do that give them the potential to fail.
Sadly they can ruin teams like Pompey, Blackburn etc.
Then weaken strongly us, Arsenal, Newcastle and so on.
 

adexkola

Arsenal supporter
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
37,493
Location
The CL is a glorified FA Cup set to music
Supports
orderly disembarking on planes
Don't worry, all will change when I seize power. Within 10 years you'll won't be able to tell who has a better chance of winning the CL: the PL champions or the Malta champions
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
40,659
Location
France
Well my point is that it would be terrible for football. I don't care much about hockey.
Although part of the reason is the system in hockey they got that makes it hard to gain interest.
We might just like different things though when it comes to sport.

Many owners exploit lots of sports though. Just at least if they do that give them the potential to fail.
Sadly they can ruin teams like Pompey, Blackburn etc.
Then weaken strongly us, Arsenal, Newcastle and so on.
But you don't really know since you don't actually follow these leagues, I initially thought that you followed them but your opinion is based on nothing, maybe you will like it maybe you won't but at the minute no one knows. And the example that I gave you was for the NFL, the NHL is made of 4 divisions, 3 of 8 teams and 1 of 7 teams. The NBA of two conferences of 15 teams. The MLB is a little bit more complicated the AL and NL have both 3 divisions of 5 teams but the conferences don't have the exact same rules, the AL has a designated hitter while the NL doesn't which means that the pitcher is batting in the NL.

Honestly give it a try whether it is the NHL, NBA or the NFL.
 

Sandikan

aka sex on the beach
Joined
Mar 14, 2011
Messages
27,859
I blame Blackburn for shelling 5m on Sutton. That seemed to very quickly escalate things.
 

Paul_Scholes18

Full Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2014
Messages
5,876
But you don't really know since you don't actually follow these leagues, I initially thought that you followed them but your opinion is based on nothing, maybe you will like it maybe you won't but at the minute no one knows. And the example that I gave you was for the NFL, the NHL is made of 4 divisions, 3 of 8 teams and 1 of 7 teams. The NBA of two conferences of 15 teams. The MLB is a little bit more complicated the AL and NL have both 3 divisions of 5 teams but the conferences don't have the exact same rules, the AL has a designated hitter while the NL doesn't which means that the pitcher is batting in the NL.

Honestly give it a try whether it is the NHL, NBA or the NFL.
The core is I don't like closed leagues competitions. That is really the core of it. The games may be fun to watch ignoring the context. Although the context do matter if I was to be really involved in following a league.
I have watched the super bowl a few times. NLL sometimes and NBB too. Although I have never had the feeling to get really interested and following the early league. Pretty much I have only watched playoff games.
I am even Swedish and hockey is big here. Still can't be interested in that. The swedish hockey league at least got promotion so I like that more, but the playoff system is equally dull in my opinion.

I like giving the small clubs a chance. Even if a tiny club like FC United may never reach the PL I like that they got a chance to do it.
Same things why I love the Fa cup. Team like Leicester getting a win is amazing etc who just got promoted. CL do not give big chances to smaller sides, but at least it gives some chance.
No fan of them changing the rule recently to help the top leagues. Think 3-4 place should be in the qualification late rounds from the top leagues.
Also they should use CL money to promote smaller leagues in my opinion to make it more fair. Spread the money to the clubs within leagues and do not just reward the teams that have qualified.

Playoff with promotion as an idea could be alright, but I don't think I would like it either. I prefer cups plus league than league followed by cup.
 

MackRobinson

Full Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2017
Messages
2,261
Location
Terminal D
Supports
Football
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...?
The bolded is not true.

1) The most transcendent periods of the NBA, MLB, and NFL were, arguably, during dynasties. The Celtics, Lakers (2X), Bulls, Heat, Warriors, Yankees, Red Sox, Steelers, Niners, and Cowboys all were ratings and revenue booms for their respective leagues. For example, look at NBA ratings since the Warriors Dynasty disbanded even though the NBA is the most wide-open it's ever been in the last decade.
2) Competitive professional sports are too cyclical to have any entrenched dynasties. Outliers happen enough in ownership, player development, and coaching that it is extremely difficult to stay on top. Similar to how only 60 of the 500 U.S. fortune 500 companies in 1955 are still on the list. Shite happens.
3) The only reason why U.S. sports leagues exist is that they have federal anti-trust exemptions and their employees must be allowed to unionize. I would assume it would be more difficult when dealing with an entire continent.
4) Do you honestly believe football would have grown in popularity in the U.S. and other countries if it wasn't for the media exposure given to the dynastic teams in Europe? The mainstream media doesn't care about parity. They want narratives.
 

RedDevilCanuck

Quite dreamy - blue eyes, blond hair, tanned skin
Joined
Feb 22, 2007
Messages
7,066
Location
The GTA
North American sports have some good things and some bad.

Good is a salary cap. Ownership and management have to know their shit and be crafty and not just buy their way out of trouble.

The draft system is bad. Losing should never ever be rewarded. 'Tanking' started with The Spurs when Robinson and Elliot I believe were injured all season. They were already good, came in last and drafted TIM DUNCAN and dominated for a decade. I know there is a lottery but the bottom teams should have a tournament while the playoffs are on to determine what order teams will draft. this would be an excellent tournament to watch and add more league revenue.

in Europe Relegation is good but would never work in North America. People just wouldn't get it.

In Europe contracts are horrible and mean nothing. The NBA is starting to follow suit unfortunately. There was a time when you signed a contract and shut up and played until it was up.

Conclusion- wage and or transfer cap in Europe and a complete overhaul of the draft system in North America.

Note: Salary caps dont mean big and rich teams dont have an advantage. They can front load contracts, hire the best scouts/coaches and have better facilities etc.
 

adexkola

Arsenal supporter
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
37,493
Location
The CL is a glorified FA Cup set to music
Supports
orderly disembarking on planes
The bolded is not true.

1) The most transcendent periods of the NBA, MLB, and NFL were, arguably, during dynasties. The Celtics, Lakers (2X), Bulls, Heat, Warriors, Yankees, Red Sox, Steelers, Niners, and Cowboys all were ratings and revenue booms for their respective leagues. For example, look at NBA ratings since the Warriors Dynasty disbanded even though the NBA is the most wide-open it's ever been in the last decade.
2) Competitive professional sports are too cyclical to have any entrenched dynasties. Outliers happen enough in ownership, player development, and coaching that it is extremely difficult to stay on top. Similar to how only 60 of the 500 U.S. fortune 500 companies in 1955 are still on the list. Shite happens.
3) The only reason why U.S. sports leagues exist is that they have federal anti-trust exemptions and their employees must be allowed to unionize. I would assume it would be more difficult when dealing with an entire continent.
4) Do you honestly believe football would have grown in popularity in the U.S. and other countries if it wasn't for the media exposure given to the dynastic teams in Europe? The mainstream media doesn't care about parity. They want narratives.
They were dynasties because they literally did everything right. The system here doesn't allow you to coast on past glories... the Bulls haven't been relevant since Jordan's second retirement. There is nothing wrong with a dynasty sustained through actual hard work, not through market location or wealth.
 

Snow

Somewhere down the lane, a licky boom boom down
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
31,120
Location
Lousy Smarch weather
This has been discussed since the Bosman rule, when Italian clubs imposed their financial power all over Europe. In the end, it wasn't sustainable and a lot of clubs bankrupted because they didn't grow in revenues as they expected.

This is a problem for every sport, not just football. So how can we make it more balanced? Unless you create a general UEFA revenues for all clubs which is never going to happen, I can't see how can football money be distributed more equally.
Equal TV money for all participants in the same competition for one. Before the recent change Real and Barca were earning grossly more money than the rest of their competitors.
 

Sky1981

Fending off the urge
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Messages
23,770
Location
Under the bright neon lights of sincity
Equal TV money for all participants in the same competition for one. Before the recent change Real and Barca were earning grossly more money than the rest of their competitors.
This would backfire.

Teams ultimate goal is stay in the league. And nothing else to play for.

You imagine the likes of watford getting as much as record breaking city?
 

adexkola

Arsenal supporter
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
37,493
Location
The CL is a glorified FA Cup set to music
Supports
orderly disembarking on planes
This would backfire.

Teams ultimate goal is stay in the league. And nothing else to play for.

You imagine the likes of watford getting as much as record breaking city?
I think teams would still want to

1. Avoid relegation
2. Get into the CL
3. Challenge for the league
4. Win the league

Is severe revenue inequality needed to inspire teams?
 

Fox_Chrys

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jul 18, 2019
Messages
108
Supports
LCFC
Really don’t get why middle and upper class journos say the problem is player salaries. Football is the one business where people on the ground actually get a wage close to what they generate for their organisation. Put a salary cap and it’s just more money for the Glazers, Mike Ashley’s of the world.

But that’s the way of the U.K. No complains when some retail tycoon pays his staff minimum wage and profits £100m a year, but the minute footballers who are mostly from working class backgrounds started earning wealth it suddenly became a problem.
Yeah but football shouldn't be run like a normal business in my opinion, it is a sport, and there should be an aim to try and even out the playing field. A wage cap would still have players been paid obscene levels of money, I am not proposing a £500 a week cap, it would still probably amount to a level where EPL clubs could pay their players 10s of thousands per week. But it would prevent having an entire team on a 6 figure salary.
 

MackRobinson

Full Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2017
Messages
2,261
Location
Terminal D
Supports
Football
They were dynasties because they literally did everything right. The system here doesn't allow you to coast on past glories... the Bulls haven't been relevant since Jordan's second retirement. There is nothing wrong with a dynasty sustained through actual hard work, not through market location or wealth.
That’s the point. Most of the dynasties have been sustained by “hard work”, or, more accurately, luck. This notion that market size is a huge determining factor in success is completely overstated. Most mega markets in the US have two pro teams (NYC and LA has two teams for EVERY major professional sports league). The New York Knicks haven’t been relevant since the mid 90s and haven’t signed a major free agent in ages. The Yankees haven’t won in a long time despite baseball not having a cap. I’m sure there are more examples but anyone who closely follows American professional leagues understand most teams just get lucky with player and coach acquisitions and rest is history.

With that said, the best way to increase parity is to change the rules of the game to reduce the affect of the very best players. Bastketball naturally does a poor job of that. Baseball and American football naturally do a great job of that. I also think football (soccer) does a pretty good job. Eleven players. Limited time to recover within games. Relatively less chances to score. Etc etc.

European football is doing it right and doesn’t need to ruin its growing popularity to line the pockets of the owners. Unless you fundamentally change the rules on football the same issues with competitive balance will persist
 
Last edited:

MackRobinson

Full Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2017
Messages
2,261
Location
Terminal D
Supports
Football
Yeah but football shouldn't be run like a normal business in my opinion, it is a sport, and there should be an aim to try and even out the playing field. A wage cap would still have players been paid obscene levels of money, I am not proposing a £500 a week cap, it would still probably amount to a level where EPL clubs could pay their players 10s of thousands per week. But it would prevent having an entire team on a 6 figure salary.
That helps nothing but save the owners money. The NFL has one of the most restrictive salary caps in pro sports and yet the Patriots have the most iconic dynasty in history. The Golden State Warriors became a dynasty after the NBA introduced a more punitive salary cap. Outliers will ALWAYS circumvent whatever system is in place. Price floors and ceilings don’t improve parity in pro sports. They usually create loopholes and allow good teams to further entrench their position.
 

Snow

Somewhere down the lane, a licky boom boom down
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
31,120
Location
Lousy Smarch weather
This would backfire.

Teams ultimate goal is stay in the league. And nothing else to play for.

You imagine the likes of watford getting as much as record breaking city?
The difference between the biggest earner in the PL last season and the bottom was less than $25 million. Huddersfield were relegated and got 91,7 million for their 8 televised matches (everyone got a flat rate of 79,4m). The biggest difference between the two was prize money. PL is the most equal in the distribution of TV money.

Before Real and Barca were getting more than a third of the TV money. Now they get 23% but are earning more from it. Go figure.
 

momo83

Massive Snowflake
Joined
Dec 5, 2013
Messages
1,393
Yeah but football shouldn't be run like a normal business in my opinion, it is a sport, and there should be an aim to try and even out the playing field. A wage cap would still have players been paid obscene levels of money, I am not proposing a £500 a week cap, it would still probably amount to a level where EPL clubs could pay their players 10s of thousands per week. But it would prevent having an entire team on a 6 figure salary.
Why cap the players? That’s what I don’t understand... no one ever once said “we need to cap how much these owners/shareholders can take as profit for themselves” the problem is always with how much the players make. I say good for them. They are the ones playing week in week out, they are the ones that win or lose. They are what makes the product so great. I’d much rather Messi get £500k a week then be capped and the President of Barca pocket the rest. Capitalism is great but too often it’s not fair and excludes the working class. Feck the silver spoon journos that can’t stand seeing working class lads becoming richer then most lottery winners.
 

Sky1981

Fending off the urge
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Messages
23,770
Location
Under the bright neon lights of sincity
I think teams would still want to

1. Avoid relegation
2. Get into the CL
3. Challenge for the league
4. Win the league

Is severe revenue inequality needed to inspire teams?
Not really.

For top 6 yes cl is paramount. But most of the times top 4 or top 6 is well defined half a seasin going.

Take this season for example. Teams that is safe from relegation and too far to reach cl will have literally nothing to play for.

Teams have even foregone top 2 or 3 , as long as they're top 4.

Even at united there are talks of abandoning the league in favor of Europa. Imagine smaller teams with no incentives. Teams like southampton which is a solid midtable team have no incentives to move forward, they'd probably enjoy their sweet spot now that the money is huge.

Also, the curve of going up the league is top skewed. For a new promoted teams, getting safe probably cost 100m, getting to midtable probably cost 200m (assuming they hire the right coach off course), but that final push towards top 4 would need them to spend 500? 600? And why would they do that when the prize is the same? Even when you finish 1st. A very big if you finish 1st.
 

Sky1981

Fending off the urge
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Messages
23,770
Location
Under the bright neon lights of sincity
The difference between the biggest earner in the PL last season and the bottom was less than $25 million. Huddersfield were relegated and got 91,7 million for their 8 televised matches (everyone got a flat rate of 79,4m). The biggest difference between the two was prize money. PL is the most equal in the distribution of TV money.

Before Real and Barca were getting more than a third of the TV money. Now they get 23% but are earning more from it. Go figure.
Right. I agree. They should fix spain first and leave epl alone.
 

André Dominguez

Full Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2017
Messages
3,265
Location
Lisbon
Supports
Benfica, Académica
Equal TV money for all participants in the same competition for one. Before the recent change Real and Barca were earning grossly more money than the rest of their competitors.
But as I said, this should be done in a global way to reach all UEFA federations in order to make it work for the sport as whole. Fixing league by league ain't gonna bring IFK Gothenburg back to winning UEFA competitions like in the 80's.
 

Offside

Euro 2016 sweepstake winner
Joined
Jun 9, 2012
Messages
17,097
Location
Yorkshire
It seems to be the money in the Prem has become so abundant it’s almost become more competitive in certain ways. Liverpool will be the 5th different winner of the league in the last 8 years and it’s becoming increasingly hard for the top clubs to poach the smaller clubs players as they simply don’t need the money.

However, the German, Spanish, French and Italian league’s are all fecked. Being monopolized to a ridiculous extent. At least in Spain there are 2 huge clubs but the French league is just a PSG exhibition now.
 

Snow

Somewhere down the lane, a licky boom boom down
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
31,120
Location
Lousy Smarch weather
But as I said, this should be done in a global way to reach all UEFA federations in order to make it work for the sport as whole. Fixing league by league ain't gonna bring IFK Gothenburg back to winning UEFA competitions like in the 80's.
Now you're talking about putting restrictions on teams from recruiting foreign players for one. Göteborg beat Dundee in the UEFA Cup finals with 11 Swedes playing against 11 Scots. Not many non-Europeans playing in Europe in that decade because of many reasons, including player restrictions which are now illegal in the EU for a good part.

The European Cups were pure knockout competitions. The odds for the underdog beating the favorite are better in a knock-out format than having to be more consistent over 6 games. Doing away with the groups means less teams get to play which means fewer games which means less money for UEFA which means less money distributed between teams creating even bigger gaps (Rosenborg for example in Norway).

There's always been an inequality in football. You think Barcelona or Real Madrid earned all their money by themselves or did rich people and/or governments play a part. Did AC Milan not have a billionaire owner dumping money into the club for a long time when billionaire owners weren't common? There are more of them now but I don't think the leagues are less equal now. Historically many teams don't win the big leagues nor have their been many non-behemoths of European football that have won the Champions League (modern iteration).

All that being said from next season onwards UEFA are adding a 3rd tied of European competitions.
 

SambaBoy

Full Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2009
Messages
3,313
I think most clubs are now putting more emphasis on their academies due to the money in football in terms of transfer fee's. Back in the 00's, a very good standard PL player would go for £6-10m, nowadays you are looking at upwards of over £30m-40m.

Chelsea will save plenty of money in the next few years doing this. Mount, Abraham, Tomori, James, RLC and CHO could easily cost £300m. Back in the day, these players wouldn't fetch more than £ revenue and transfer budgets haven't increased at the same rates. If clubs can bring in 1-2 players every year from the Academy, it would save loads over the years and allow more money into the transfer budget as well as helping with their homegrown quota.

On the other angle, clubs can use their academy to generate funds. Liverpool have been selling average players for well over the odds, likes of Kent, Ibe, Solanke etc. If you bring through PL players, but not quite top 4-6 standard players, you can still be adding £20-50m to your budget each window depending on how good your academy is.
 

André Dominguez

Full Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2017
Messages
3,265
Location
Lisbon
Supports
Benfica, Académica
Now you're talking about putting restrictions on teams from recruiting foreign players for one. Göteborg beat Dundee in the UEFA Cup finals with 11 Swedes playing against 11 Scots. Not many non-Europeans playing in Europe in that decade because of many reasons, including player restrictions which are now illegal in the EU for a good part.

The European Cups were pure knockout competitions. The odds for the underdog beating the favorite are better in a knock-out format than having to be more consistent over 6 games. Doing away with the groups means less teams get to play which means fewer games which means less money for UEFA which means less money distributed between teams creating even bigger gaps (Rosenborg for example in Norway).

There's always been an inequality in football. You think Barcelona or Real Madrid earned all their money by themselves or did rich people and/or governments play a part. Did AC Milan not have a billionaire owner dumping money into the club for a long time when billionaire owners weren't common? There are more of them now but I don't think the leagues are less equal now. Historically many teams don't win the big leagues nor have their been many non-behemoths of European football that have won the Champions League (modern iteration).

All that being said from next season onwards UEFA are adding a 3rd tied of European competitions.
It is true that Bosman law restricted foreign players.
Bu it is also true that the swedes playing for IFK didn't left their home country at 16 to play for a top u19 team or to play in League One or the championship at 18/19, so they could easily retain the best youth talents at their league. They had basically a big chunk of the Sweden NT.

I totally agree that top clubs were put into the top mainly by having some local government financial support, a company or a sugar daddy.
Parma, despite never wining the title in the 90s, had Parmalat splashing money and they always had amazing squads.
FC Porto grew a lot thanks to the industry funding.
But despite that, talent was more distributed. Benfica in the early 90s had 2 of the best Brazilian players in the world Ricardo Gomes and Valdo. Of course they weren't earning today's figures, but they were well paid.
We lost to the Arrigo Sacchi Milan on a tight match where Rijkaard comes from behind and gets 1 on 1 (back in the days teams were poorly trained against CB overlaps)

About the new competition : makes total sense, but only if it has a plan to help develop poorer clubs, and I still can't see the benefits from it.
 

Turnip

Full Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2014
Messages
1,584
Location
Beckham's right nipple
I think a lot could be learned from some American sports as others have said, but it's not as simple as copying their league structures I don't think, and I think that would lose some of the charm and competitiveness of the sport currently. For example the Championship is a fascinating league to watch, because all the teams there are desperate to get promoted. I think their wage limits also make a big difference to keeping it fair. For example you cannot build a ridiculously deep squad like Man City's in the MLB, because no team would be allowed to pay that much in wages, which also helps with the player power issue in a way. Also the leagues wouldn't be scared to investigate clubs being dodgy.

But of course football is very different, because there are multiple countries with their own leagues and governing bodies. This would never happen in England for example because it instantly puts all of our clubs at a disadvantage over the other's.

Basically I agree that the state of football right now isn't great, but I think it's too late to do anything about either, even if the FA would be more willing to learn from other sports (look at VAR, works in plenty of other sports...) they've left it too late.
 

Paul_Scholes18

Full Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2014
Messages
5,876
I think politics is way worse.
Football is 100 times more fair for the poor and weak. At least they have a chance to win if they improve or get some lucky goals.
I guess you can win on lottery too, but those odds are worse.
 

Zen86

Full Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,126
Location
That's the joke.
I can fully see a scenario where City steamroll the league every season, purely because they have the means to. Meanwhile, competing for the title is seen as not financially viable for the rest of the PL. The signs are already there.
 

KirkDuyt

Full Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2015
Messages
11,600
Location
Dutchland
Supports
Feyenoord
The ultra rich have dominated society since the dawn of time and will continue to do so until the day we all feck off into a towering inferno.

Football is fine.
 

Tango80

Full Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2016
Messages
232
It's an interesting article and I completely agree.

The issue you have is what was extraordinary is now normal - in the past decade we've had :

- teams win the PL with 95+ points 3 (son to be 4) times in the last 5-6 years
- a team won the CL 3 years in a row
- a team won the Bundesliga 8 years straight
- PSG now walking the league every year
-the same 2 teams at the top in Spain

Its gotten to a stage where football is in danger of dieing. The whole thing in Europe screams complacency at the minute.

Every league is becoming like the SPL and it's money that's caused that.
 

VorZakone

What would Kenny G do?
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
18,281
You must be joking. The global audience for football (soccer) crushes that for American football.
I'm sure the poster you replied to knows this, I don't think that was his point. I think his point is that the NFL is simply the best league regardless of viewing audience.
 

Paul_Scholes18

Full Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2014
Messages
5,876
The ultra rich have dominated society since the dawn of time and will continue to do so until the day we all feck off into a towering inferno.

Football is fine.
Don't think that is the case at all. If you fully study history rather than what the rich feeds us.
There has been culture and socities based on a more modest lifestyle close with nature.
native americans, Buddhism and many small tribes. Sadly we do not know enough about all of them.
In Europe though you are right since Greece and Roms time pretty much.

Colonization messed things up though for those who lived lives in peace.
 

UnrelatedPsuedo

I pity the poor fool who stinks like I do!
Joined
Apr 15, 2015
Messages
4,861
That helps nothing but save the owners money. The NFL has one of the most restrictive salary caps in pro sports and yet the Patriots have the most iconic dynasty in history. The Golden State Warriors became a dynasty after the NBA introduced a more punitive salary cap. Outliers will ALWAYS circumvent whatever system is in place. Price floors and ceilings don’t improve parity in pro sports. They usually create loopholes and allow good teams to further entrench their position.
Americans are so silly.

3 titles in 5 years is a ‘Dynasty’?!?
 

MackRobinson

Full Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2017
Messages
2,261
Location
Terminal D
Supports
Football
Americans are so silly.

3 titles in 5 years is a ‘Dynasty’?!?
Don't be a child.

But to answer your question, yes. They were hands down the best team in the NBA for a good stretch. 5 NBA Finals in 5 years. Set the record for the most wins in NBA history. Arguably 4 top 20 players on one team. You wouldn't understand if you don't follow basketball.
 

Tango80

Full Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2016
Messages
232
I think it's not really money that's destroyed the league, more how it's been used.

Back in the day when teams didn't get that much money they were almost forced to run how a football club should be run - buy whats absolutely necessary, develop your own kids, and 'grow' your own team organically. Whats happened now is that since everyone has money there all looking for 'quick fixes' to make sure they stay in the league, so they buy whoever. This means the players are better individually, but the teams themselves are worse. You see evidence of this in the league everywhere.

Look at Villa - spent a ton of money but are struggling around the relegation places. Sheffield on the other hand, hardly spent money yet are comfortably in the top 5. Even Liverpool have this - individually, the vast majority of their players are nothing special. VVD, Allisson and maybe TAA you'd say were top top players. But the sum of the parts is what makes them special, not the individuals.

I think PL clubs should get a far less slice of the money they get now, and it gets pumped into grass roots level instead, or to help out those struggling lower league clubs like the Boltons/Burys instead.
 

Paul_Scholes18

Full Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2014
Messages
5,876
I think it's not really money that's destroyed the league, more how it's been used.

Back in the day when teams didn't get that much money they were almost forced to run how a football club should be run - buy whats absolutely necessary, develop your own kids, and 'grow' your own team organically. Whats happened now is that since everyone has money there all looking for 'quick fixes' to make sure they stay in the league, so they buy whoever. This means the players are better individually, but the teams themselves are worse. You see evidence of this in the league everywhere.

Look at Villa - spent a ton of money but are struggling around the relegation places. Sheffield on the other hand, hardly spent money yet are comfortably in the top 5. Even Liverpool have this - individually, the vast majority of their players are nothing special. VVD, Allisson and maybe TAA you'd say were top top players. But the sum of the parts is what makes them special, not the individuals.

I think PL clubs should get a far less slice of the money they get now, and it gets pumped into grass roots level instead, or to help out those struggling lower league clubs like the Boltons/Burys instead.
Good points. Spending money well is rare for our generation. Everything is short sighted and little thinking about long term say 10-50 years and pretty much never longer than that.
For football of course the present is more important since players retire around 35-40 and manager come and go.
 

UnrelatedPsuedo

I pity the poor fool who stinks like I do!
Joined
Apr 15, 2015
Messages
4,861
Don't be a child.

But to answer your question, yes. They were hands down the best team in the NBA for a good stretch. 5 NBA Finals in 5 years. Set the record for the most wins in NBA history. Arguably 4 top 20 players on one team. You wouldn't understand if you don't follow basketball.
I’m not being silly. I follow Basketball. Sadly I’m a lifelong Suns fan.

Only in America does 3 titles get called a Dynasty. The whole country speaks in fluent Hyperbole.
 

MackRobinson

Full Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2017
Messages
2,261
Location
Terminal D
Supports
Football
I’m not being silly. I follow Basketball. Sadly I’m a lifelong Suns fan.

Only in America does 3 titles get called a Dynasty. The whole country speaks in fluent Hyperbole.
With the nature of the American sports system (salary cap, trades, free agency, draft, etc) and how young it is compared to European football, the threshold for dynasties is expectedly lower. Nothing wrong to do with hyperbole.

Not sure why this should be surprising for a supposed lifelong basketball fan.
 

UnrelatedPsuedo

I pity the poor fool who stinks like I do!
Joined
Apr 15, 2015
Messages
4,861
With the nature of the American sports system (salary cap, trades, free agency, draft, etc) and how young it is compared to European football, the threshold for dynasties is expectedly lower. Nothing wrong to do with hyperbole.

Not sure why this should be surprising for a supposed lifelong basketball fan.
You can’t just change what a word means.

It wasn’t a sporting Dynasty. It was 3 titles in five years using the same coach and players (with natural substitutions year on year). By definition, a Dynasty needs elements of large transition.