You know what really grinds my sporting gears?

[GIMH]

So what can be done to level the playing field in all the major domestic leagues in general?

Obviously whatever the plan is, it's going to be a slow process but some sort of financial redistribution/greater opportunity to loan/buy players for teams at the bottom relative to the rest has to be considered.

I just completely flat out disagree with the whole principle of levelling the playing field, tbh. The only thing I would agree with is rich billionaires throwing money at clubs for a few years. But clubs who generate revenue through being historically popular should not be forced to share this revenue with smaller clubs.

I support a small club, and would hate this sort of artificial equality

 

[Goughy]

Ed Smith referenced a study into the effect of salary caps in his last book. They found that they make little or no impact on the relative success of each side. The best players still want to play for the best clubs. The most obvious example is the NY Yankees dominating baseball for years even with a salary cap.

Baseball doesnt have a salary cap. It has a soft tax

Compare the 3 biggest payrolls
1. New York Yankees $201,449,289
2. New York Mets $135,773,988
3. Chicago Cubs $135,050,000

With the 3 smallest
Pirates $48,743,000
29. San Diego Padres $42,796,700
30. Florida Marlins $36,814,000

Of course baseball operates like the Prem, it is the closest in terms of model. The Yankees dominated for years because they spent the most.

If you want a real salary cap then see NFL

 

[Jamee999]

The NFL salary cap isn't that low though, there aren't many teams that are pushing it close (if any) atm.

 

[Uppercut]

Baseball doesnt have a salary cap. It has a soft tax

Compare the 3 biggest payrolls
1. New York Yankees $201,449,289
2. New York Mets $135,773,988
3. Chicago Cubs $135,050,000

With the 3 smallest
Pirates $48,743,000
29. San Diego Padres $42,796,700
30. Florida Marlins $36,814,000

Of course baseball operates like the Prem, it is the closest in terms of model. The Yankees dominated for years because they spent the most.

If you want a real salary cap then see NFL

The reference was to a previous system, not the current one. I'm not 100% on the details at the moment- i'll have a hoke for the book and see if there's anything to it or I'm just remembering it wrong.

 

[Jamee999]

Baseball doesnt have a salary cap. It has a soft tax

Compare the 3 biggest payrolls
1. New York Yankees $201,449,289
2. New York Mets $135,773,988
3. Chicago Cubs $135,050,000

With the 3 smallest
Pirates $48,743,000
29. San Diego Padres $42,796,700
30. Florida Marlins $36,814,000

Of course baseball operates like the Prem, it is the closest in terms of model. The Yankees dominated for years because they spent the most.

If you want a real salary cap then see NFL

And look at how many World Series the Cubbies have won over the past 100 years

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Okay, let's put this into contrast, only 8 teams have EVER won La Liga in Spain (since 1928). Only 14 teams in Italy have ever won the Scudetto (since 1898). Englands are higher than both and even in recent years, only 4 teams have won the EPL only 5 teams have won La Liga in the same time and thanks to a freak season from an awesome Deportivo team (inb4 Blackburn).

The amazing amount of flack the EPL cops for this is ridiculous, out of the best leagues in Europe only the Netherlands and Germany have a recent history of being particularly interesting (and only recently). Lyon in France had something like 10 straight championships until taken down this season. There's no denying it's a problem but seriously, get some perspective and paint the real picture.

The club league with promotion and relegation tends to lead to that system. Once a team has started winning for 6-7 years they'll pick up enough plastic support to stay there (or, in the case of Spain and Italy, politicians and mob bosses, not necessarily mutually exclusive categories). Australian and American sports organisers realised this and have formed a strong league to combat this; in European football the clubs run the show, and the federations are more concerned with fielding a strong national team than they are with a competitive league.

The issue partly rises from England having more competition inside the league in previous years, where teams fell down due to performance on the pitch, ageing squad and failing management, not due to bankruptcy or Arab sheikhs, which I'm quite willing to bet will make the only change in the top four for the next 8-10 years. They've given that up to join in the CL-spinning money brigade (the CL prize money alone makes up 10 % of their turnover, plus the advertising & marketing potential and gate money they gain from the other 20 weeks of the year). That other nations have ****ed up their league already is a bit irrelevant. Lots of Premier League fans over here laugh at the SPL for "oh celtic and rangers win all teh time lulz" which seems to show a lack of introspection.

I know GIMH claims it was similar in the 80s, but IIRC he's three years older than me, so he can't remember that much more from it than I can...picking a random year - 87 cos I was born then:

Everton won the league with 86 points from 42 games. They lost eight of their matches. That corresponds to 78 in a 38-game league (given that you take out the two worst teams, possibly even less). In this decade, 78 points has given you third or fourth place.

I know there was a lot wrong with English football in the 80s - appalling stadiums, yobbish crowds unwilling to accept there's more than one team, etc. - but from a competitive perspective, it seems a lot better.

(Jamee: don't the devil chicagoans have money, they just spend it on old & crap players?)

 

[GIMH]

I don't remember it no, but I spent my childhood reading about football and studying league tables. There's no doubt that teams at the top lost more back then. When I started watching football, I remember my dad saying that you couldn't afford to lose more than six games generally if you wanted to win the title. These days lose more than four and you won't finish higher than fourth a lot of the time, so this much I agree with. However did it make for a different result at the end of the season? Nope.

Now I may have completely missed your point here, so before I go off on one I'm gonna check - are you saying that you think promotion and relegation are largely to blame and that the leagues are better without them?

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Now I may have completely missed your point here, so before I go off on one I'm gonna check - are you saying that you think promotion and relegation are largely to blame and that the leagues are better without them?

Can see how my post was read that way. There are a couple of arguments for that: the financial stability and competitive balance can often be better without relegation; lower level clubs don't overextend themselves economically in a wild goose chase for 17th place, nor do they see it as vital to deny fellow low tier clubs opportunities.

After a bit of thinking, I don't think it's a major contribution, though. Germany manage with it, though Bayern having half the industry and a quarter of the population behind it topples the playing field somewhat, Sweden have a very competitive league with a pyramid (think there's about 14-15 clubs winning there since the 20s, this in a country of 8m people where basically everyone lives in three cities), England has done well with promotion and relegation inside the closed shop (possibly because, whatever happened, the clubs had a chance of a derby with a club equally steeped in tradition, even though it was in the Fourth Division) and even with the PL essentially breaking free it is possible for a well run club to leap from the Fifth to the Second Division - indeed, Fifth Division clubs in England draw crowds which Scandinavian clubs would be quite happy with. However, it does seem like clubs are happier with a relegation battle generating interest when they know they can't win because there are dynasties dominating.

 

[GIMH]

You make a solid argument. Alas, the majority of matchgoing football supporters in England support a club outside of the Prem, and oft-overlooked point outside of (and indeed within) these shores. And it's hard to imagine any one of us accepting that a more competitive top flight would be a fair swap for knowing that the top of the Championship was the best we could ever hope for. When we had our glory days of 92-95, we were on the brink of the Prem. This little club from Birkenhead that had always been overshadowed by our neighbours across the water were making waves and had a very real chance of breaking into the top flight. We knew full well that if we got there we wouldn't last long but it would have been very much worth it. We played football in a way that critics felt was the best football outside of Old Trafford, St. james Park & Ewood Park in those seasons, with a classic 4-4-2 formation featuring two exciting wingers and the greatest striker of all-time. John Aldridge and Pat Nevin wouldn't have come here to try and be the best of the rest, they came here to try and get us amongst the best.

Relegation has kept clubs in check. Leeds erroneously tried to spend their way to the title and beyond, and the price they paid was relegation. Would they have been even more careless if there was no bottom to fall out of?

The key point that I always try to make is that there is so much more to football than the 'big four'. It's easy to look at the Prem from outside of England and think it sucks, what is the point in being one of the other teams, but it just doesn't work like that. The top four can be cracked - Everton did it ahead of a team that won the European Cup just a few years back, Tottenham were a dodgy Lasagne away from it, and Villa gave it a good go for 25 games last season.

We can go on about more competitive leagues until the cows come home but the point is what is the point of artificial competitiveness? It's why I'll agree if people say that maybe there should be checks on teams being funded from outside of their natural revenue stream, but can't agree with people who say it's wrong that Liverpool & United have always been there or thereabouts on the basis of their big budgets. Believe me I don't enjoy it, but they have historically earned their budgets through being well-supported clubs in footballing hotbeds - I don't know about Manchester (I'm sure it will be the same) but round here football is like cricket in India. You are talking about one of the smallest counties in England and it sustains two top flight clubs and a third tier club.

Why should Liverpool or Man United share the money they have generated with Portsmouth? The TV moneys are split on a basic even, and then top-ups provided through finishing position and times shown. The rest of the money is up to the clubs to earn themselves. And they earn this through having huge fanbases.

And then there's Arsenal, the only other club as successful as those two over the years. Until recently they didn't get the biggest crowds because their stadium wouldn't allow it (in fact I think Tottenham may have had bigger attendances) but are a well-managed and ran club who became one of the big four that way.

I'm not naive enough to think that foreign billions haven't had an effect, and of course the money that liverpool and United now have isn't all naturally generated as they've been taken over. But why were these clubs taken over by those from overseas? Because of their pedigree, which they've earned through being successful, which they achieved because they have always been well-supported.

I'd rather see a true reflection of things than rules be forced through to make things more competitive. At the end of the day we can say it's a problem all we like, but people continue to go through the gates in massive numbers, they continue to buy the Sky subscriptions, and the boozers are packed out for the games. English football fans may complain about never being able to break the big four, but any change to the system would fundamentally change the way football works for the worse.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Tney they have generated with Portsmouth? The TV moneys are split on a basic even, and then top-ups provided through finishing position and times shown. The rest of the money is up to the clubs to earn themselves. And they earn this through having huge fanbases.

I can see your argument, too, and I think promotion and relegation is preferable to a closed shop. However, this is the bit where football falls down. Why on earth should clubs which already have the largest marketing potential - through their finishing position - earn even more money from TV deals & CL? This is exactly the mechanism that could be used to even out, and instead, it's being used by the big clubs to milk that majority of football-going supporters not watching them.

I realise it happened because they wanted to protect the pyramid and avoid the Super League, but I'm unsure whether it would have been more profitable than the current system. I may be a crazy track and field fan, though.

 

[Furball]

V true. Can also add to that the Portuguese league where only Boasvista in 2001 have won from outside of the big three (Sporting, Benefica & Porto) since 1947 and actually in the Netherlands AZ67's two crowns are the only time the title has been outside of their own big three (Ajax, PSV & Feynoord) since 1965.

Scotland also, complete old firm hegemony since 1985.

To lump Scotland in there is misleading - between 1979 and 1995, there was one solitary season where Rangers and Celtic finished in the top 2. Rangers were guff in the early 80s, Celtic after winning the title in 1988 didn't finish in the top 2 again until 1996.

 

[Furball]

The big four didn't finish as the top four until 05-06, possibly 03-04 as well now that I think about it. Before then Newcastle were there or thereabouts, they are now in the Championship. Everton recently cracked the top four and likely will again soon. Villa & Citeh highly possible soon. Leeds were up there at the turn of the century, they'll be playing us in August, third year in a row.

I guess I don't really see it as a problem. By and large teams stay near the top because of their traditions, which English football is built upon. Teams who break into the upper echelons purely through spending drop off in the end (Blackburn, Leeds & Newcastle all took a plunge after spending their way to relative terms of success), and even the true big three have all had long periods of inadequate performance (Liverpool not won a title for 20 years by the same the end of the season comes round, United went 26 years before. winning the Prem, Arsenal were a bit crap in the mid-90s, etc) and will do again.

Champions League money plays a huge part in that.

As one of the big 5 European TV markets, the monetary rewards for English clubs playing in the Champions League are enormous. Add in gate receipts, sponsorship etc. and the top 4 are consistently generating £50m or more a season than the rest of the Premiership.

edit: I'd be interested to see a league table of transfer fees for this decade. I'd be willing to bet that Arsenal are no higher than 6th.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

tl; dr.

 

[BoyBrumby]

To lump Scotland in there is misleading - between 1979 and 1995, there was one solitary season where Rangers and Celtic finished in the top 2. Rangers were guff in the early 80s, Celtic after winning the title in 1988 didn't finish in the top 2 again until 1996.

Just the fourteen years of dominance then. Flash in the pan, obv.

 

[Furball]

Just the fourteen years of dominance then. Flash in the pan, obv.

Well, for both teams to dominate at the same time is relatively rare in the history of Scottish football.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Tit for tat bollocks citings in union

Bakkies Botha didn't deserve two weeks. There, I've said it. Adam Jones was badly injured when he illegally hit the ruck and the commissioner played the injury and not the foul. Now, Simon Shaw who caught du Preez with his knees because the scrum-half was too quick for a 36-year-old lock (who'da thunk it), gets two weeks for an absolute nothing offence. Shaw immediately held his hands up, knew he was in the wrong and was given a card. No way it deserved a ban (and the big fella is an absolute gentleman too), but because Botha was given a fortnight Shaw has to suffer the same fate.

Bollocks.

Meanwhile, Schalk Burger, who's a filthy piece of turd since way back, gets away with 8 weeks for his disgraceful examination of Luke Fitzgerald's eye socket. 6 months if ever there was.

Raise your game citing commissioners.

 

[superkingdave]

Got my hands on a copy of this years Deloitte Football Finance report, should be a good read

 

[Magrat Garlick]

People who say that the men's tennis ranking is superior to the women's

Wimbledon 2009: Serena Williams makes a mockery of the world rankings - Telegraph

Now, a little technical point: the women's ranking system in 2009 is functionally equivalent to the men's ranking system in 2008 (except that the women count 16 tournaments, the men 18, which has the effect of giving heavier weight to the Slams...) Admittedly, the men's ranking has also changed in 2009, giving more points to winners and finalists - but it still says Roddick is No. 6, for example, when he's been clearly better than, for example, Nole since Madrid.

The reason why the men's "ranking computer" can be "trusted" has nothing to do with the mathematics, but rather to do with fewer injuries, embarrassing 1st-round exits, boycotts, and clay court specialists on the men's side. But hey, let's blame the "electronic fib".

 

[ripper868]

Tit for tat bollocks citings in union

Bakkies Botha didn't deserve two weeks. There, I've said it. Adam Jones was badly injured when he illegally hit the ruck and the commissioner played the injury and not the foul. Now, Simon Shaw who caught du Preez with his knees because the scrum-half was too quick for a 36-year-old lock (who'da thunk it), gets two weeks for an absolute nothing offence. Shaw immediately held his hands up, knew he was in the wrong and was given a card. No way it deserved a ban (and the big fella is an absolute gentleman too), but because Botha was given a fortnight Shaw has to suffer the same fate.

Bollocks.

Meanwhile, Schalk Burger, who's a filthy piece of turd since way back, gets away with 8 weeks for his disgraceful examination of Luke Fitzgerald's eye socket. 6 months if ever there was.

Raise your game citing commissioners.

Well said.

 

[Craig]

If somebody can explain why people go to sporting matches and they were jerseys/shirts/scrafs/hats etc. of teams that are not playing, it will be appreciated. I was at Brisbane v Geelong last night and I saw a few people wear St Kilda shirts, or scrafs, and some **** was wearing a Collingwood shirt. Err you realise your team is not playing so I'm not sure what use is showing your support to your team is going to do. Same applies when I have seen people where clothing linked to their favourite NRL or Super 14 rugby team, and this is an AFL game? Just something I have always found odd.