Why is the Super League being labeled as "Americanisation" of the sport?

[thepolice123]

Seen this word being thrown around a lot. I'm genuinely curious by this.

Because of the profit maximisation nature of it? Because of the american owners?

What exactly is "americanisation" of football?

 

[prateik]

Closed league. No promotion/relegation. Winning not incentivised as it should be.. everyone makes a shit ton of money.. winners make a tiny bit more.

 

[Tarrou]

no promotion/relegation and feck the Glazers

 

[Pexbo]

Communisation of the sport. Shared wealth evenly across the teams and no motivation to succeed. Classic American sport.

 

[DOTA]

Cause of the format. Cause of the people involved at the top. Cause apart from a very small handful of right wing libertarians England is quite anti-American so it plays well.

 

[Rektsanwalt]

It would have been just even more commercialized, standardized with a huge focus on the same teams which can not be relegated, no matter how bad they'd be playing. Also, a very homogenous distribution of money. And also I'd say the dimension itself, getting clubs from the whole continent into a league. More focus on entertainment than sports, several highlight matches every week.

 

[hungrywing]

Closed league. No promotion/relegation. Winning not incentivised as it should be.. everyone makes a shit ton of money.. winners make a tiny bit more.

Communisation of the sport. Shared wealth evenly across the teams and no motivation to succeed. Classic American sport.

The word that these two posts are looking for is 'communist.'

 

[DOTA]

The word that these two posts are looking for is 'communist.'

 

[Skills]

Closed league. No promotion/relegation. Winning not incentivised as it should be.. everyone makes a shit ton of money.. winners make a tiny bit more.

Sounds like the PL TV deal

 

[Rustyspider13]

Profit maximization through only participation in a closed league. Success on the field being completely irrelevant.

Geared towards people who find actual football boring and just want 'moments', the kind of crowd Wrestlemania panders to.

Over inflated self importance. Like Baseball "World" Series having only American teams and ESL having most of Europe (Germany, France, Netherlands, Portugal etc.) not represented.

So yeah, I find the term quite accurate.

 

[Giggs86]

Where is that 'no motivation to succeed' myth is coming from?

I am not following American sports, but if I'm pretty sure that there were more different winners in the NFL/NBA/NHL/MLB in the past 20 years than there were CL winners. And I know that that the Superbowl for example is the pinnacle of a player's career. When the Cubs won the World Series in 2016, Chicago was like Manchester in the days after completing the treble. When the Blackhawks win the Stanley there is an informal holiday for a couple of days when nobody goes to work and there are huge parades.

So I am genuinely asking, where are those myths about American sports come from? I start to feel that posters just repeat what others say because it's cool to make fun of American sports.

 

[Pexbo]

The word that these two posts are looking for is 'communist.'

 

[prateik]

Sounds like the PL TV deal

Yes.. but the Premier league relegates 3 teams which is a huge financial hit and lets the top 4 play in the CL which is a lot of money.. and 5-6 get the europa league which is a bit more. On the whole.. doing well in the PL is rewarded while being rubbish ends up being very costly.

 

[utdalltheway]

The American teams are franchises with no set home; they can be moved around the country if the owners want to; Utah Jazz? LA Rams? (was Saint Luis).
Sure fans will celebrate a win but it’s not the level of passion if the Rams win, is it?
And the owners get the trophy, not the captain.

 

[hungrywing]

 

[Jazz]

Where is that 'no motivation to succeed' myth is coming from?

I am not following American sports, but if I'm pretty sure that there were more different winners in the NFL/NBA/NHL/MLB in the past 20 years than there were CL winners. And I know that that the Superbowl for example is the pinnacle of a player's career. When the Cubs won the World Series in 2016, Chicago was like Manchester in the days after completing the treble. When the Blackhawks win the Stanley there is an informal holiday for a couple of days when nobody goes to work and there are huge parades.

So I am genuinely asking, where are those myths about American sports come from? I start to feel that posters just repeat what others say because it's cool to make fun of American sports.

/you're right to ask this. It's puzzling me as well. You may not like the format of some American sports but guaranteed the teams are competitive!

 

[Jazz]

The American teams are franchises with no set home; they can be moved around the country if the owners want to; Utah Jazz? LA Rams? (was Saint Luis).
Sure fans will celebrate a win but it’s not the level of passion if the Rams win, is it?
And the owners get the trophy, not the captain.

What? Come on that would not have happened here!

 

[utdalltheway]

Are you sure about that?

 

[Flames73]

Where is that 'no motivation to succeed' myth is coming from?

I am not following American sports, but if I'm pretty sure that there were more different winners in the NFL/NBA/NHL/MLB in the past 20 years than there were CL winners. And I know that that the Superbowl for example is the pinnacle of a player's career. When the Cubs won the World Series in 2016, Chicago was like Manchester in the days after completing the treble. When the Blackhawks win the Stanley there is an informal holiday for a couple of days when nobody goes to work and there are huge parades.

So I am genuinely asking, where are those myths about American sports come from? I start to feel that posters just repeat what others say because it's cool to make fun of American sports.

No relegation is the biggest problem. Of course the players would want to keep winning, but you might receive less investment from owners from guaranteed income and no penalty to being bad. And in American sports if you are having a tough run you might even be incentivized to be worse, to be lucky in the draft system.

And that is also why the American sports gets more winners, because its a rotation of being great then rebuild and stuff. Everyone in the closed league gets their share once in a while.

But there are so many more professional teams in football than the American sports. Each league in Europe is tiers deep and they all generally want to move higher up, and then earn the right to play against the best in Europe. With a closed league that won't be possible, especially with teams that are forever going to be in there. UCL has its own problem, but thats another debate.

 

[mav_9me]

Where is that 'no motivation to succeed' myth is coming from?

I am not following American sports, but if I'm pretty sure that there were more different winners in the NFL/NBA/NHL/MLB in the past 20 years than there were CL winners. And I know that that the Superbowl for example is the pinnacle of a player's career. When the Cubs won the World Series in 2016, Chicago was like Manchester in the days after completing the treble. When the Blackhawks win the Stanley there is an informal holiday for a couple of days when nobody goes to work and there are huge parades.

So I am genuinely asking, where are those myths about American sports come from? I start to feel that posters just repeat what others say because it's cool to make fun of American sports.

How about the Cincinnati Bengals? Mets?

The point is not that no one cares about winning. Yes it's a big deal to win the titles of their sports.

But there are also so many also rans who make money for their owners without sweat. Which is what the Glazers/FSG and Kroenke were hoping for imo.

 

[Gasolin]

Seen this word being thrown around a lot. I'm genuinely curious by this.

Because of the profit maximisation nature of it? Because of the american owners?

What exactly is "americanisation" of football?

It means you have teams that don’t have to win the earn money. No incentive to win as it’s too small financially, and they can’t get relegated if they don’t perform on the pitch.

 

[NinjaZombie]

Communisation of the sport. Shared wealth evenly across the teams and no motivation to succeed. Classic American sport.

A montage of the latest ancient ruins,
Soundtracked by a chorus of
"You don't know what you're doing"

Fitting lines.

 

[Zen86]

It was a league designed to maximise profits and pander to idiots with short attention spans. I dread to think where that line of thought would have eventually led to once established.

 

[Gasolin]

Where is that 'no motivation to succeed' myth is coming from?

I am not following American sports, but if I'm pretty sure that there were more different winners in the NFL/NBA/NHL/MLB in the past 20 years than there were CL winners. And I know that that the Superbowl for example is the pinnacle of a player's career. When the Cubs won the World Series in 2016, Chicago was like Manchester in the days after completing the treble. When the Blackhawks win the Stanley there is an informal holiday for a couple of days when nobody goes to work and there are huge parades.

So I am genuinely asking, where are those myths about American sports come from? I start to feel that posters just repeat what others say because it's cool to make fun of American sports.

It comes from the money incentive structure. When you earn 300m for participating and only 30m for winning, there’s no incentive to win at all. If you don’t want to win, you cash in.

All that while expenses are capped at 55% of revenue so you can pocket the difference. It doesn’t matter that there are different winners. What matters is that when underperforming, they cannot be relegated at all. But they should.

 

[JPRouve]

How about the Cincinnati Bengals? Mets?

The point is not that no one cares about winning. Yes it's a big deal to win the titles of their sports.

But there are also so many also rans who make money for their owners without sweat. Which is what the Glazers/FSG and Kroenke were hoping for imo.

The Bengals have been competitive for a long time under Marvin Lewis, they are not an example of a team that doesn't care to win but they are an example of something else, in American sports it's a bad idea to be too proud to be bad, being stuck in the middle even when it's in the high end of the rankings isn't good because with a salary cap, you can't just add free agents and everyone relies on extremely talented players on rookie contracts.

Regarding the Mets, the MLB is brutal the gap in wealth is very large and most teams have little chance to outmoney the likes of Yankees, Dodgers, Cubs or even Red Sox. Wanting to win isn't enough, you need to somehow be a lot more competent and astute which isn't a given.

 

[tenpoless]

Because it's a little bit fake.

Not WWE fake but you get the point. It's there to make the rich get richer.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

People must live in an alternate world where the main goal for top clubs for years hasn't been "get in the top four so that you can participate in the Champions League, which you are almost certainly not going to win but will pay quite well."

 

[stefan92]

Where is that 'no motivation to succeed' myth is coming from?

I am not following American sports, but if I'm pretty sure that there were more different winners in the NFL/NBA/NHL/MLB in the past 20 years than there were CL winners. And I know that that the Superbowl for example is the pinnacle of a player's career. When the Cubs won the World Series in 2016, Chicago was like Manchester in the days after completing the treble. When the Blackhawks win the Stanley there is an informal holiday for a couple of days when nobody goes to work and there are huge parades.

So I am genuinely asking, where are those myths about American sports come from? I start to feel that posters just repeat what others say because it's cool to make fun of American sports.

It's not a myth, but it is focused on the money distribution along the teams, not on the players on the field. And in a way the American system is not bad - because all teams get mostly the same amount of money, no matter how well they play, they only need success to make the dreams of the players come true, their paycheck do not (much) depend on their success. So in a way it allows the sport itself to be played in the most open way, as money is not a factor to differentiate the teams. Crazy that this is kind of a communist approach, and works in the most capitalist country of the world.

In contrast in the European system more success means more money - and more money makes it easier to get more success. This system increases the chances of the established big clubs to win (as we see in the national leagues as well as in the CL as you mentioned), but it also forces them to be successful, and if they fail they can quickly be in big trouble. Just look at Schalke - were regular CL starters, did inflate their budget a lot based on that, failed to get to the CL and to get the money, and where despite their big income still not able to make any moves on the transfer market on the necessary level, and now they are relegated.

Such a collapse is not possible in the American system, and the clubs behind the super league tried to get this guarantee that their income can't collapse by establishing that they cannot be relegated from the super league - but this also means that there is no chance for teams not in it from the beginning to join their ranks (that idea with 5 qualifiers was just a stupid distraction I think, did not change the big picture of the super league proposal).

 

[Eric_the_Red99]

People must live in an alternate world where the main goal for top clubs for years hasn't been "get in the top four so that you can participate in the Champions League, which you are almost certainly not going to win but will pay quite well."

Yes, and for most of the last two decades it’s usually been four of the ‘big six’ who have succeeded at that. The only way another club will permanently break into that elite is if they get their own sugar daddy owner/nation state backer, which will probably happen sooner or later (and was probably one of the main concerns of the likes of United, Liverpool etc)

 

[Grande]

Where is that 'no motivation to succeed' myth is coming from?

I am not following American sports, but if I'm pretty sure that there were more different winners in the NFL/NBA/NHL/MLB in the past 20 years than there were CL winners. And I know that that the Superbowl for example is the pinnacle of a player's career. When the Cubs won the World Series in 2016, Chicago was like Manchester in the days after completing the treble. When the Blackhawks win the Stanley there is an informal holiday for a couple of days when nobody goes to work and there are huge parades.

So I am genuinely asking, where are those myths about American sports come from? I start to feel that posters just repeat what others say because it's cool to make fun of American sports.

Yes, you are right, there are a lot of perpetrated myths about American sports in this. Seen in isolation, the American leagues are more socialist and less free market than the European.

However, seen from the perspective of society, most American leagues are corporate oligopolies, it’s franchise business operated as a cartell. Participation is not open or meritocratic, it’s based on saleability directly rather than indirectly.

The Super League was mostly based on the format of the American leagues, only even more of an oligarchy I suppose, with 15 teams to have unassailable participation rights.

 

[JJ12]

Closed league with no promotion or relegation like the US leagues - is the main reason.

Being funded by JP Morgan with Joel Glazer being one of the head honchos also helps.

 

[TheLiverBird]

It glaring obvious

Closed group

no promotion or relegation

and from the English side of things, all 6 English Clubs that were involved are ran by Americans or heavily influenced by them

Even though the leagues title had “European” in it,the American flag would have fitted the labelling perfectly because the idea is soooo American through and through

nothing against Americans, this concept just isn’t for European football

 

[Inigo Montoya]

Closed league with no promotion or relegation like the US leagues - is the main reason.

Being funded by JP Morgan with Joel Glazer being one of the head honchos also helps.

Quite right. Their franchises simply don’t understand and won’t accept the concept of relegation and promotion. It filters right down to college level; you win or you lose. Win and the rewards and trophy is there, lose and the whole set up tends to be overhauled and they start again with the attitude that they’re going to be right up there with the front runners the following season. I used to know a head coach of a college in New Jersey and as well as his team did, he was terrified that he’d get fired if the team didn’t deliver the next season. While that’s true of all salaried sports jobs, the bottom
Line was that there wasn’t a 2/3 tier system. It was just one big league

There is no place in US sport for a team like Burnley whose sole aim is PL survival because there is no relegation!

 

[mav_9me]

The Bengals have been competitive for a long time under Marvin Lewis, they are not an example of a team that doesn't care to win but they are an example of something else, in American sports it's a bad idea to be too proud to be bad, being stuck in the middle even when it's in the high end of the rankings isn't good because with a salary cap, you can't just add free agents and everyone relies on extremely talented players on rookie contracts.

Regarding the Mets, the MLB is brutal the gap in wealth is very large and most teams have little chance to outmoney the likes of Yankees, Dodgers, Cubs or even Red Sox. Wanting to win isn't enough, you need to somehow be a lot more competent and astute which isn't a given.

I guess....maybe it's just my perception. Feels like they don't care.

I can guarantee you the Mets under Wilpons never cared to win. They never spent any decent amount. Always penny pinched. They are the best example for what Glazers would like to do. Of course they are incompetent. But worse they never invested any decent amount. Behaving like a small market team in a huge market.

 

[JPRouve]

I guess....maybe it's just my perception. Feels like they don't care.

I can guarantee you the Mets under Wilpons never cared to win. They never spent any decent amount. Always penny pinched. They are the best example for what Glazers would like to do. Of course they are incompetent. But worse they never invested any decent amount. Behaving like a small market team in a huge market.

Wilpons isn't that wealthy, I think that people need to realize that fact because while compared to us they are all sickeningly rich the reality is that Wilpons net wort is 500m and most of it isn't liquid, it's not because you are worth hundreds of millions that you can spend even dozens of millions without the guarantee of quick return, it doesn't even mean that you have dozens of millions to spend on a sports team.
But even then compare it to Steinbrenner his competition in the same market, he is worth 3.5bn and again not all of it is liquid but he is still in a considerably stronger position, Wilpons was never in an actual position to compete financially with his local rivals his only card was to outsmart them which he couldn't do either. And of course we are not even going to mention the gap between them and current NL and World Champions that are owned by the Guggenheim Baseball Management Group and before that went bankrupt under McCourt.

The problem here is that in reality the Glazers do not have the liquidity to do what we dream from them, they are investors who had enough assets to take ownership of the club but never had the liquidities to invest money that they wouldn't see before decades at the club, if they were lucky. I would go as far as to tell you that no "small" billionaire that has earned his billions through an actual business would be willing to lose hundreds of millions let alone potential billions, someone like Pinault who is considerably wealthier than the Glazers and has been an actual patron for the Stade Rennais was dejected after spending dozens of millions on Lucas and Turdo between 2000 and 2002.

 

[Hectic]

What exactly is "americanisation" of football?

It's when the referees start carrying guns.

 

[BoulderDevil]

It was a league designed to maximise profits and pander to idiots with short attention spans. I dread to think where that line of thought would have eventually led to once established.

The nativism some people on here are demonstrating is appalling

 

[bosnian_red]

Permanent closed structure, trying to turn football clubs into franchises to guarantee money... its trying to bring the NFL/NBA/NHL structure here. 4 of the main clubs part of it have American owners who own other American sports teams and saw the potential money (United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Milan). The rest either were in on FOMO (Chelsea, City) or have massive financial issues that they thought they could solve like this. And then there's Spurs too who stuck out of this group like a sore thumb, but anyway, they're probably a mix of all 3 and glad they got invited.

 

[Vanrouge]

Anyone who thinks the structure of North American sports "disincentivizes" teams must never have watched the Staney Cup playoffs, in which every player on every roster stretches every sinew, often breaking bones, losing teeth, and being literally sewn back together on the bench in the quest for Lord Stanley's mug. It's gruelling and brutal, but the joy when they win is incomparable. And I'm saying that as a lifelong football (United and now the Whitecaps a distant second) fan who moved to Canada and adopted hockey as a second sport, so my personal bias is toward football. But what I've seen in the NHL playoffs has been breathtaking in its passion and desire to win.